Article

2006-07-28 Science & Technology

Katyusha World: surviving in the age of very short-range missiles.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike 2006-07-28 07:37|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Also, in the case of an enemy like Hezbollah and al-Qaida, which hides itself among civillians, the MAD "deterrent" means you threaten to destroy a whole bunch of innocent people for whom the bad guys have no concern in the first place. Is it even possible that could be moral?

Exactly the process the Allies used in bombing the Axis in WWII. Was it moral? The enemy at Shanghai, Warsaw, Rotterdam, and elsewhere demonstrated it didn't give a fig about civilians anymore than the terrorists. It got back in compound interests what it played out. Notice how the older generation of Germans and Japanese never had stomach for further military adventures. Three generations later, they still make only tentative steps in deploying their security forces beyond their borders. Cause -> Effect.

Part of the problem is that all human beings do not think the same. The vast efforts in the West to minimize collateral damage and raise the value of human shields, to include those who contribute to the ability of the terrorist to operate among them, has only created the 'moral' issue. If the technology was still at the WWII 'dumb' bomb level, would we even be concerned? Not as we are today. In effect, we have created the problem by being too concerned about civilian casualties which have been part of the very definition of war to begin with, by developing these capabilities. The overblown emotions of the MSM, which ignores the absolute low numbers of American casualties in the Iraq operation when compared to any other major historical conflict, also demonstrates its ignorance in the number of Frenchmen and Italians [after they switched sides] who died in Allied bombing and ground campaign in WWII. In order to accomplish the goal of ending the original Axis of Evil, you had to fight your way through the geography and population. That's life and death. Hasn't changed much since the Eygptians and Hittites faced off over 4,000 year ago.

Posted by Hupaigum Pholuse1530 2006-07-28 09:01|| 2006-07-28 09:01|| Front Page Top

#2 It's not necessarily killing that does it. Sherman accomplished the same result as WWII without, relatively, a lot of killing. But the enemy must believe they've been utterly defeated and scream to surrender. We have not so utterly defeated an enemy, with the possible exception of Grenada, since WWII. Israel has not so defeated an enemy since 1973.

Israel's problem here is that it has defined the enemy incorrectly. It's enemy is not so much Hezb'Allah as the Lebanese who choose to support them. Not so much Syria as Iran who is paying the bills and calling the shots. Until Israel finds a way to utterly defeat its real enemies, it will continue to be dejavu all over again.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-28 09:28|| 2006-07-28 09:28|| Front Page Top

#3 There is a peculiar philosophy of the give-and-take of short range rockets and artillery.

Optimally, someday, there will be a small laser that can pop them mid-flight at little cost. But in the final analysis, this only treats the symptom, not the disease.

Granted, for a military unit engaged in combat operations against a terrorist enemy that keeps throwing such things, the laser is a fine idea. This is because the military unit is otherwise engaged in hunting down and eliminating the terrorists.

But a civilian population should not have to live under a protective umbrella, without seeking to end the cause of their complaint. This is because no defense is perfect.

Sooner or later a lucky shot, or some fix, will let those rockets or mortars get through.

For this reason, there is not just justification, but a compelling reason to go after those individuals who launch or fire such weaponry. Until they are eliminated, the disease will remain.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-07-28 11:15|| 2006-07-28 11:15|| Front Page Top

#4 I don't mean to hurt the feelings of any red legs, but the days of tube artillery are numbered. A sergeant and a PFC in five-ton truck can do the job of an artillery battery now. Cheap guidance, fire direction computers, and GPS means you get better accuracy than guns and eliminate the FDC, survey section, met section, etc.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-28 12:40|| 2006-07-28 12:40|| Front Page Top

#5 Won't the Excalibre shell do most of that at a lower cost per shot? Also isn't there some multi/programmable fuse system that will reduce the number of shells the artillery carries?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-28 12:47|| 2006-07-28 12:47|| Front Page Top

#6 Excalibur costs $50K (per strategy page) a pop plus you still have the overhead of the gun crews.

I can't find a number for a GPS guided katyusha, but a JDAM kit costs $18K. The difference in cost is mostly due to acceleration. An artillery shell experiences 12K G's going through the tube. A rocket, only 10-20. You don't need special components for those kinds of accelerations.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-28 13:12|| 2006-07-28 13:12|| Front Page Top

#7 Course your reloads are kinda pricey, slow and trickier to move.

Posted by 6 2006-07-28 14:42|| 2006-07-28 14:42|| Front Page Top

#8 I dunno. Tolerances are lower for rockets and they don't weigh as much. I always thought that the reason the Soviets adopted the katyusha is that if you just want to take out a grid square, it's cheaper than arty. And in a world of precision engagements, a GPS guided rocket will always be cheaper than a GPS guided shell and the cost curve should be steeper as well for the rockets. Bulk seems to be the biggest problem to me since the rocket propellant will take up more space than a propellant charge bag(s). Anyway, those are the tradeoffs I see.

Overall I think that the dynamics are very simillar to going to CAT3 and CAT5 cabling for 10baseT and 100 TX ethernet. With 10base2 and 10base5 we used a real quiet, predictable medium (coaxial cable) to move bits. From 10baseT and on, we used a really cheap crappy medium (phone wire) and then used the power of the silicon to make up for the inherent crappiness since silicon was cheaper than coax. My guess is that we will find it cheaper to put sophisticated electronics and solid state IMUs on crappy rockets than try to put them on shells turned on a lathe. The accuracy is the same. The cost and overhead is lower for the rockets.

I'm guessing that within five years there will be a cheap RPG seeker out there that can hit the thinly armored engine deck of a tank 80-90% of the time. Abdul points, pulls the trigger, runs like hell and -- boom -- mobility kill.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-07-28 15:22|| 2006-07-28 15:22|| Front Page Top

03:17 genetic eradication
03:15 genetic eradication
03:12 genetic eradication
00:11 C-Low
23:46 tu3031
23:46 PBMcL
23:46 Griper Whegum8464
23:37 Griper Whegum8464
23:36 Ulinesh Unoling4868
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:31 leroidavid
23:29 Sherry
23:21 Pappy
23:18 CrazyFool
23:16 Pappy
23:12 DMFD
23:11 11A5S
23:11 DMFD
23:09 Griper Whegum8464
23:06 Manolo
23:02 Griper Whegum8464
22:54 Griper Whegum8464
22:51 KBK
22:32 leroidavid