On 17 May 2016 at 04:19, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:

On 16 May 2016 at 12:15, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
This drone and its operator would be priority targets for the said sniper.

And yet it seems to be very popular with the user community.
This is because the user community doesn't pay for it.

Your answer appears to be unrelated to your earlier point.

Its related to your point, and the point that a solution needs to be affordable in the first instance.

If the operators saw themselves as at heightened risk while they were operating the drone, it would presumably be less popular.

Since it is popular with the troops, they would appear to not have any significant concerns about using it while under fire.

The US military is permiated with the notion that technology can solve all problems of warfare.

For this reason it is enamoured with the 'magic bullet' syndrome, the Wunderwaffe of the Second World War.

Reading more on the weapon, it seems to me counter-sniper role is not what it is intended for.
Finding a sniper from a flying platform would be quite a task

There are already plenty of systems that will give an approximate range and elevation of the source of gunfire, based on the sound of the shot.

Not at platoon echelon...that I know of. I was surprised that an ISR resource usually found at battalion echelon is allocated down to platoon, but this can't be the SOP because there aren't enough locating sets to allocate to every platoon, though it is conceivable that these sets and their operators were stripped out of the other brigades that are not deployed to Afghanistan.

So, presumably, you've already got the *approximate* location of your problem before you launch the munition.

Artillery and mortar locating equipment don't work as well in highly contoured terrain, such as in Afghanistan, though this is a stereotype, since not all terrain in Afghanistan is mountainous. And, I try not to assume anything obvious is true.

One of the purposes of this munition is to perform visual reconnaissance for the sniper (or mortar, or machine gun, or whatever) and be able to attack them using, essentially, indirect fire.

Yes, potentially the IR camera will identify a sniper, though of course one has to know where to look, and hope the sniper is not using some IR-defeating countermeasure. I don't know enough about its specs to say that it is useful against individuals since the public info suggests it being more useful against larger targets and groups of people.

And yes, it does convert Infantry to the indirect fire Artillery combat arm. And, when that happens, they stop thinking like Infantry.

As a bonus, no trooper has to stick their head up above cover to recon the opposition using mk1 eyeball.

That is right, so think about that a bit more.

As a bonus, you can use it on targets that are behind cover.

I suppose if the munition is flown in a 180 degree turn, yes.

(Note that cover is a matter of perspective; if I hide behind a wall to shoot at some goober, and keep the wall between us, that doesn't necessarily mean I have a roof, or that I have cover from behind....

However, the article says a loiter of 20 minutes at 100m altitude for the armed version.

Yes. You seem to be assuming the users are not aware of flight speed of the drone, and will use it ineffectively.

No, the flight speed is given in other articles, maximum being 90mph, with a detection range of 6 miles. Given it is an electric powered munition, I'd say its cruising speed is quite low.

Meanwhile launching the munition discloses the operator's location if the enemy is not without their own 'tricks'. UAVs are widely advertised, but not the counter-UAV measures that are also prolifirating.

It appears that the users are only using it when they are already under fire.

Yes

The person launching the munition does't have to be the person operating the munition.

I don't know this, but it makes sense.

Launching the munition doesn't appear to be likely to give much away, except notifying any direct observer that it's in the air.

If somone is already targeting the unit, they can't possibly miss a drone unfolding its fins as launched.

Which would seem to operate in favor of the users; if the opposition observes the launch and breaks contact, rather than waiting for the users to fly a suicide drone into their position, it's still a win for the user.

Not necessarily because the role of the Infantry is to close with, and defeat the enemy, preferably permanently, while this just puts off the combat for another day and place.

Even better, if the opposition decides to cut and run, the operator can potentially keep them under observation, if they flee on foot.

I think this is the intended tactical use of the munition, because identifying the route of retreat can be problematic in terrain that lacks vegetation.

If the targets flee in something faster than the drone, it can be safely landed without detonating and potentially causing pointless civilian casualties.

Yes

*American* counter-sniper tactics tend to depend on what's available. Generally, when American units get into trouble, they call for artillery and air support. Given the terrain in Afghanistan, air strikes, while slower, are more likely to be available.
Everyone's infantry depend on what's available.

Doctrine recommends overwhelming force. Again, by preference, we'll call for an air strike or artillery rather

Well, American doctrines usually require tactical fires, but this has not produced desireable strategic outcomes since 1950.

Terrain is terrain. Why do you mention Afghanistan?

lol. really?

Yes, terrain is what Infantry are taught to exploit, so terrain is terrain, the infantryman's natural environment.

It's being *used* in Afghanistan.

It was being used in Afghanistan from 2012, but the US withdrew ground combat forces in late-2014/early 2015.

What remains are mostly personnel supporting operations in Kabul and three major air bases, the ground combat elements being promarily special forces executing COIN missions.

In Feb 16 however it was announced that a US Infantry battalion (~500 from 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment) will be deployed to Helmand province. These troops come from the 10th Mountain Division (HQ at BAGRAM), and are mostly intended for force protection role while a much smaller number of trainers try and improve Afghan troop performance. However, unlike most other US Infantry units previously deployed to Afghanistan, this unit was formed as Mountain (Light) Infantry from 1942.

Rugged, mountainous terrain in Afghanistan limits the availability of artillery support.

Not true. Artillery had been used in mountain warfare since Renaissance to my knowledge, and certainly since the 19th century in Afghanistan.

Which leads to reliance on air support.

It shouldn't necessarily lead to this

Air support tends to be slower to respond than artillery, other things being equal, since the aircraft has to fly to your location before it can do much good, while artillery, if in range, can start work almost immediately.

(Although use of artillery is generally frowned on in urban areas.)

Not a lot of those in Afghanistan; it seems to me a/c were/are used there primarily to interdict border crossings

Air support is almost certainly going to be more expensive than a single $40k munition.

A cheaper idea is to mount a laser reformatory on the drone and use conventional munitions to engage.

$40k IMHO is too expensive a 'consumable' for infantry, particularly on foot.

Half the price of a Javelin, 2.5x the cost of a SMAW. Slightly less than the cost of an hour of flight time for an F-15, with a wait time of zero minutes.

This is why infantry like to work alongside tanks. Combined Arms.

Infantry like having tanks because having a heavily armored 120mm for direct support is handy. And tanks draw fire away from the infantry.

The modern tank HE ammo is ~$100 ea.

Source? What little data I can find suggests M830A1 HEAT rounds are about $5k each.

HE ammunition is a lot simpler than the modern HEAT ammunition

I think if you search fro 127mm naval HE ammunition you will get the approximate cost

Keep in mind that the US Army's 120mm HE stocks are still Cold War vintage, costed at 1980s prices

Dan

Cheers

Greg

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook." -Alan Morgan

----- The Traveller Mailing List Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com To unsubscribe from this list please goto http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=JydxSB9tZc6TS63HiAHJcg6SAwighNGJ