Laser guided Tank round

[Bluewings]

Tucson AZ (SPX) Jun 16, 2006
Raytheon successfully flight tested its Mid Range Munition Chemical Energy (MRM-CE) guided projectile with semi-active laser seeker (SAL) at the U.S. Army's Yuma, Ariz., Proving Grounds May 4. The round was fired from an M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Program) tank at a moving target at a range of about 5.4 miles (8.7 kilometers).

The objective of the test was to evaluate functionality of a gun-fired semi-active laser seeker against a moving designated target at beyond line-of-sight ranges.

The semi-active laser seeker projectile survived gun launch, then acquired, tracked and maneuvered toward the moving target. This was the first test shot in a planned series of SAL projectiles fired from a M1A2 SEP as Raytheon continues to mature its semi-active laser seeker capabilities.

The Raytheon MRM-CE is designed to provide the U.S. Army with a lethal, high probability, one-shot capability as it continues its transformation to lighter, more deployable combat forces. The MRM-CE is being developed to attack battlefield targets at extended ranges, including beyond line of sight, autonomously or designated with external laser target designation.

The MRM-CE is a key component of the Army's FCS (Future Combat Systems) vehicles and a potential spin-out to M1A2 Abrams SEP.

"This firing, in combination with previous tests, demonstrates the maturity and high level of integration of our munition including seeker, guidance, navigation and control functions," said Rick Williams, MRM-CE program manager.

The MRM-CE program is jointly developed and managed by Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center and the Project Manager - Maneuver Ammunition Systems at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.
**************************
Very interesting :)
I know the French are working on it too .
Any comment ? :)

Cheers . :3starSK:

[SixBravo]

Sounds like an extension of those laser-guided 155mm rounds. "Copperheads?" I can't remember what it was called. This is an awesome development!!!

[cobrabase]

The Russians have had this standard on their MBTs since the T-64.

These are not destined for M1A1s I'm sure. :cry:

You would need a very different laser to guide such a weapon... it would be similar to what I used in the Apache but MUCH smaller. When I think of the system I trained on and how common powerful sustain-burst emitters are now it boggles the mind.

[purpheart23]

Copperhead was and is garbage, hopefully this new weapon system will be much improved, though i don't see how it could get any worse. Interesting development though, figured only the russkies were the only ones who'd actually put enough of an effort in to making a gun launched missle? work.

[koga]

hey i live in tucson az ^_^

[Bluewings]

I found a pic of the round , but it seems to me that it 's more likely the latest ATK Tests Advanced 155mm Projectile :

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/434/missilemrmkebg3jo.jpg

About the new 155mm Advanced Projectile :
Alliant Techsystems announced today that it successfully tested its advanced, 155mm precision projectile - Saber. Saber offers the U.S. Army a design capability and a low per unit cost for the Block 1B upgrade to the Excalibur program.

Saber was fired from a 155mm cannon, using a Zone-5 charge, the most powerful charge configuration used by U.S. forces. Saber will give artillery batteries a precision-fire capability with significantly more stand-off range than current 155mm artillery. It is designed for compatibility with all existing and future 155mm cannons.

"The relatively simple design of Saber allows it to accurately fly to target with fewer moving parts; making the round highly reliable, very effective and importantly, lower-cost than the competition," said Dave Wise, General Manager, Advanced Weapons, ATK Mission Systems Group.

The test was conducted at the Yuma Proving Grounds, Yuma, Ariz. After exiting the barrel, the tail fin assembly deployed and latched as designed. After the fins were locked in place, the round's rocket motor ignited and completed a full burn.

The thrust provided by the rocket motor allowed the round to reach its 48- Kilometer objective. In previous tests, ATK has demonstrated the effectiveness of its INS/GPS guidance solution.

The increased range of Saber's boosted, ballistic trajectory flight path reduces the time from gun-launch to impact and supports the expanded responsibilities of Brigade Combat Teams.

Combined with its proven guidance solution, Saber will significantly shrink the potential impact zone, reducing the possibility of collateral damage.
********************************
On a different subject , Saab Barracuda has announced the award of a $20.2 million delivery order by the U.S. Army to continue production of the company's Ultra-Lightweight Camouflage Net System (ULCANS).

The nets constructed by Saab Barracuda LLC provide the U.S. Army with high-tech camouflage which does more than simply allow the Warfighter and equipment to blend in visually with surrounding environments.

ULCANS represents the most advanced camouflage technology available on the market today, with multispectral capabilities which provide protection against visual, near infrared, thermal infrared and broadband radar threats.

Cheers . :3starSK:

[12Alfa]

Canada was working on our C-Kem. It is to be placed on our MEWS veh, a ADATS turret on a LavIII. :shock:
Another big waste of $ our leaders are famous for. The ADATS being one of them.
We are told it's the best in the world, however no other country thinks this or bought it, kinda make one wounder dosen't it? :wink:

Don't know the status on the C-Kem as of yet, probly another "make work project" :roll:

[DUKE]

Thats Damn Kool BW SEP Strikes Again

[Scorpius]

I'm waiting for the day when they replace the TOW launcher on a Bradley with a Hellfire pod or something similar....

[Ssnake]

Sounds like LAHAT. Alliant is years behind, actually.

[TankHunter]

Is this an ATGM or HEAT round?

[Bluewings]

Good question .

It is more like an ATGR (Anti Tank Guided Round) :wink:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[NEpi]

can anyone explain to me who needs that?
you have such missiles for a long time to engage beyond-LoS targets for years.
someone needs to mark the targets or otherwise control the round in flight. it's a little awkward to use tank platoons with screening infantry like that (tanks 6-8km away from the inf.)
120+mm guns are huge and heavy. they need quite a platform to be used properly. that negates the "lighter, more deployable combat forces" requisition.
when engaging in LoS ranges, having a hi-tech FC on the platform is much more cost-effective than using hi-tech rounds. that's why most western armies didn't bother with through-the-tube missiles (unless they had crappy rounds to begin with). not that having such a system is considered lo-tech FC anyway..

so what is it good for?

[Bluewings]

NEpi , sure the technology is not new but the US never had that kind of weapon before .
In fact , they 're catching up .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Homer]

Why does the US need a weapon like that? What a colossal waste of money.

[Bluewings]

Because it works and it gives them another thing in their arsenal .
Hitting a target beyond LOS is not such a bad thing ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Homer]

Works? Show me an operational AFV-based weapon system that "attack battlefield targets at extended ranges, including beyond line of sight, autonomously or designated with external laser target designation."

[Bluewings]

I can 't think of any . Not operational anyway ...

Why do you believe that is a "colossal waste of money" ?

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Homer]

BW,

I looked at what is required of this weapon system.... which I quoted in my last post: ""attack battlefield targets at extended ranges, including beyond line of sight, autonomously or designated with external laser target designation." Let's break this down and look at what is required as far as the technology and money that is needed to accomplish this...

1. "designated with external laser target designation" This exists now in the form of systems such as the LAHAT. Cost of this system added to existing tanks - about $100,000-$150,000 each ($50,000 for a new laser system and a useful load of 3-4 missile at $20,000 a piece). However, if you look at the ranges they are talking about for the new system, 5-7km, you also need a fire control system that would be able to offer reliable target identification out at those ranges. I dont know for sure but I think I would not be wrong to say that isnt possible with today's operational FCS (at least reliably) which already costs $500,000 to $700,000. So if you were to add a laser guided only system with a range of 5-7km, you're looking a least a million dollars per tank. Now if you also consider how easy it is for the laser beam to get disrupted and the defensive systems available to counter laser guided munitions....

2. "autonomously" This is where it gets expensive because the guidance system changes from semi-active to active. It requires the acquisition, tracking and designation systems to moved from the launching platform onto the weapon itself. Example of such a system is the Javalin ATGM which costs $75,000 (? going off memory here). Thats 3x the cost of the LAHAT missile. The new system will undoubtable much more expensive because its going to require a dual sensor system: Semi-active laser seeker and probably a millimeter radar based system. There is not enough information about the new weapon to speculate beyond this point but its safe to say that its not going to be cheap.

3. "including beyond line of sight" Here is where it starts getting tricky and really expensive. To blow something up with a guided weapon, you need to acquire, track and designate the target. Since the requirement is non-line of site, The minimum needed is the targetting data needs to be obtained by a remote observer and then passed onto the missile so it knows where to go. Again, there is not enough information to speculate beyond this point because items such as the type of guidance that is to be used in this mode, kill mechanism, range requirement, etc will drastically affect what technologies are needed. The US Army has been working on precision non-LOS systems for decades now (e.g. FOG-M and Copperhead) and they never could develop anything that worked reliably and now they are going to throw more money at it.

Each of these requirements on their own has unique "challenges" and now they want to roll them all up into 1 system, shrink it down to the size of a tank round and then it has to work reliably under battlefield conditions.

Can you honestly say this is possible without having to spend billions to make it work? (Think I'm exaggerating? Check out how much the US Army spent trying to get the Sgt York anti-aircraft system to work) Does a tank really need this capability in the first place since there are other systems available to do the same job or will it just be a $200,000 tank round that lays there unused 99.99% of the time? After all, when was the last time the russian "Refleks" destroyed a tank at the range of 5000m?

The US military has a tendency to try to build "all in one" weapon systems and thats how we end up with billion dollar ships, billion dollar submarines, and billion dollar airplanes. I see this pattern repeating itself in the Army's FCS system (which by the way is the 2nd or 3rd time they are doing this). It's structual disarmament (but that is another rant).

[Homer]

P.S. What's the non operational weapon that you referred to?

[Bluewings]

The guided projectile with semi-active laser seeker (SAL) is based on the NLOS PAM .
The datalink enables targeting updates by any kind of forward observer, like e.g. surveillance UAVs, automatic sensors or forward personnel.

All this technology is to be used by the Army's new mobile FCS (Future Combat System) .

Homer , I disagree with you . R&D (Research and Developement) is a VITAL part of a Country 's ability to maintain an even more effective Fighting Force . Without R&D , you loose your expertize and have to rely on foreign technology .
Being able to seek/designate/track a target beyond LOS is now a reality , and has been for a while .
As an exemple , around 2012-15 the Leclerc will have the capability to launch its own flying drone who will scout ahead at up to 15 km , searching for target and sending datas back to the Tank via secure links .

All of this is part of the futur and WILL be implemented one day . I cannot see anything wrong with that ...
If you have a new Force Multiplier , you can save the money you spent in the founding of the new technology by cutting down the number of your Units . You kill more with less .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Ssnake]

I disagree with Homer, too.
I looked at what is required of this weapon system... Let's break this down and look at what is required as far as the technology and money that is needed to accomplish this...

1. "designated with external laser target designation"
This exists now in the form of systems such as the LAHAT. Cost of this system added to existing tanks - about $100,000-$150,000 each ($50,000 for a new laser system and a useful load of 3-4 missile at $20,000 a piece). However, if you look at the ranges they are talking about for the new system, 5-7km, you also need a fire control system that would be able to offer reliable target identification out at those ranges.
Why?
The idea is that someone else uses the laser designator. He could be closer (infantry, special forces, ...), he could have better optics (helicopter, artillery observer, ...). The whole point of a BLOS system is to separate the effector from the observer/designator. Now if you also consider how easy it is for the laser beam to get disrupted and the defensive systems available to counter laser guided munitions....
Ah, but that's the kind of killer argument with which you can label any improvement as "futile".
Who needs tanks? There are anti tank missiles.
Who needs helicopters? Cheap MANPADs will down them.
Why crawl out of the sea? It's nice in here, plenty of food all around.

I'm not saying that this specific new toy is a good way to spend development dollars, but the idea itself is not as absurd IMO as you make it sound.

[flyboy]

Another consideration is time of flight.Idea is great if the target either stays still or is moving on an open battlefield without obstructions.Would be considered useless in or near urban areas or near treelines where the ability to retreat is available.History will repeat itself.Once a new technollagy is found on one side,the other side soon finds a way to counter it.With this round onboard warning systems would be vital.A target 5 miles plus away firing a supersonic round would have a flight time of ??Sorry maths isn,t my strong point,but maybe it would be enough lead time for the target to, switch on or fire decoys,drive to cover or simply to get the hell out of the tank.

[Ssnake]

But that's not the point. Sure, it will be possible to develop tactics and technology one day to counter the treat - but it forces the enemy to take these threats into his calculation, and do something about it (or risk defeat).

And there's always a time gap between the introduction of a new technology and the development of a counter, and it's this time gap that enables easy victories.

1973 it took the Israelis just a few days to find out how to deal with the threat of Sagger missiles (in suitable situations) - but by then they had already suffered staggering losses of tanks (in the order of several hundred!) which lead to an order to cease offensive operations in the Sinai.
And to further deal with the threat they needed to fight the Sagger teams on their own terms (e.g. there had to be a nearby cover to retreat to when missiles were inbound, otherwise the missile danger remained very real and serious). The deterrence potential of this new technology remained, and in fact you Steel Beasts players have to negotiate with this threat in pretty much every scenario that you play, despite the fact that a Sagger hit doesn't always mean instant death anymore.

[NEpi]

ok, history first:

1973 it took the Israelis just a few days to find out how to deal with the threat of Sagger missiles (in suitable situations) - but by then they had already suffered staggering losses of tanks (in the order of several hundred!) which lead to an order to cease offensive operations in the Sinai.

IIRC, the staggering losses were not due to the Saggers by themselves. they were due to bad force build and deployment (many tanks too far in the back, many airplanes, no artyllery), that were challanged efficiently and specifically by the Egyptians. the Saggers added a new "fear factor" to the equation, but their hit percentage was too low. the SAMs did much more damage (and were a complete surprise to the Israeli Air Force).

So if you were to add a laser guided only system with a range of 5-7km, you're looking a least a million dollars per tank.

tanks are getting more and more expenssive. anti-tank weapons also. I agree that at some point there's no reason to make them any more expenssive, since there's a limit to how much more effective a tank can be confronting a lower grade of armor. land weapons tend to become obsolete much slower than airplanes or ships. it doesn't mean that there's no reason to develop new systems. they get cheaper with time, and you don't really want to fall behind in the tech-race, aspecially when you're casualty-sensitive as most western countries are.

the guidance system changes from semi-active to active. It requires the acquisition, tracking and designation systems to moved from the launching platform onto the weapon itself.

not necessarily, since the tracking can still be done from the platform. for example, TV missiles.

Homer, I think you're assuming that the guided rounds will be operated by one platform alone. no distant designation. I think that's a pretty good assumption, since there are not enough designators to operate a battalion of LGR-spitting tanks. then tanks become "cheap missile platforms", which leads me to my point:

The idea is that someone else uses the laser designator. He could be closer (infantry, special forces, ...), he could have better optics (helicopter, artillery observer, ...). The whole point of a BLOS system is to separate the effector from the observer/designator.

but why having tanks to do this? why having 120mm guns and high survivability, and the cumbersome manueverability of such monster-tanks for a missile platform?
sure, there are uses for NLOS weapons, both "autonomous" or not, but there is no use for them in tank warfare. they can ditch a lot of the extra ruggedness of tanks to be more agile, more quick, and more effective (since noone is firing back, right?)
for that reason, NLOS missiles -yes, NLOS tank rounds - no.

BW, for the UAV vision, a UAV launched from another platform can do the same work, without being as obvious to observations by the enemy. also, seeing what the UAV can see 15km ahead won't help the SA for the 5km range. the UAV has a limited visual range. but that's another story :)

[Homer]

Homer , I disagree with you . R&D (Research and Developement) is a VITAL part of a Country 's ability to maintain an even more effective Fighting Force . Without R&D , you loose your expertize and have to rely on foreign technology .

Last year, the US spent 68.8 billion on R&D whereas France's entire military budget was only 40 or 45 billion US dollars. The US military's total budget was 420 billion and if you include Iraq, it was 517 billion. US R&D has a guaranteed budget of at least 60 billion a year until 2019. I don't think US military industrial R&D is in any danger of collapse soon. In fact, there are two other programs researching the exact same thing as this project.

However, the weakness in western weapons R&D is systemic because there is no continuity. Once a project is complete, the development teams break up and go their separate ways... along with that, most of the experience that was gained as a whole.

Being able to seek/designate/track a target beyond LOS is now a reality , and has been for a while .
As an exemple , around 2012-15 the Leclerc....

Doesnt sound its a reality for the Leclerc yet...

I never questioned whether technology had the ability to accomplish each requirement on its own. In fact, I gave examples of weapon systems that did exactly that.

My point was that it was very unlikely that they will succeed at combining all of them into one package the size of a tank shell and make it work reliably. This is why I think its a colossal waste of money because it wont work. That was the question you asked me, wasn't it?

[Bluewings]

Homer , it is irrelevant to compare France and USA military budget ! :casstet: :lol:

My point was that it was very unlikely that they will succeed at combining all of them into one package the size of a tank shell and make it work reliably
Only the futur will tell . I just found you pretty pessimistic ...

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Homer]

Why?
The idea is that someone else uses the laser designator. He could be closer (infantry, special forces, ...), he could have better optics (helicopter, artillery observer, ...). The whole point of a BLOS system is to separate the effector from the observer/designator.

Quote:
Now if you also consider how easy it is for the laser beam to get disrupted and the defensive systems available to counter laser guided munitions....

Ah, but that's the kind of killer argument with which you can label any improvement as "futile".
Who needs tanks? There are anti tank missiles.
Who needs helicopters? Cheap MANPADs will down them.
Why crawl out of the sea? It's nice in here, plenty of food all around.

Yes, I appreciate the concept of buddy lasing and its use in hunter-killer teams. Although it's greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness: if one component goes down for any reason, both components go down. I never was much of a fan of laser guidance because out of all such systems available, it has almost ALL (no wire) the weaknesses of the others combined. That is why most future missile systems will incorporate some form of dual guidance when laser is involved. With the growth of active defensive systems in the last decade, laser is even less attractive now because a laser-warning device is the first piece of countermeasures equipment installed. There are better alternatives to laser.

I'm not saying that this specific new toy is a good way to spend development dollars, but the idea itself is not as absurd IMO as you make it sound.

But that was what I was trying to say exactly, specifically in US terms.

What's absurd are "eye-safe" lasers because they dont want to blind you with one because that would be inhumane, but nevermind about the bomb that it's guiding, that'll only kill you.

[Homer]

Homer , it is irrelevant to compare France and USA military budget ! :casstet: :lol:

You were the who brought R&D and France. I only responded.

[quote]Only the futur will tell . I just found you pretty pessimistic ...

One publication that I subcribe to is Jane's weekly and at the back there is section the lists what governments spent on military procurement for that week. The US expenditures always occupy several pages and I see what they buy and they spend ridiculous amounts of money on nothing items and it pisses me off. I guess thats why I go into rant mode when it comes to this topic because Ive seen them go down this same road many times before.

[Ssnake]

Hey, I won't debate you in principle. There's a tremendous amount of waste in the US military system. I bet one could - theoretically - cut the budget by 10% without any detriment to the warfighting capabilities or endangering the future of the US, if the remeining 90% were spent really efficiently.

Of course, it is nearly impossible to mount the required political support among the House and Senate. But that's a different issue. ;)

[Homer]

I bet they dont even have to do really efficiently, just plain ol' efficient would do. Here is what can be accomplished if they really wanted to.... Check out the GBU-28/B about 2/3rd the way down the page : http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app5/paveway-3.html
2 weeks to develop, manufacture and field the weapon. I know this is an extreme example but on the other side of the coin, is it really necessary to take 10 years to accomplish the same thing?

@BW
I reread what I wrote and I think I might have offended you when I made the post about that budget thing. This is not was not my intent and I apologise if I did.

[Bluewings]

No worries Homer , I know the feeling :wink:

I really think that you make the "laser" thing a big ...thing . The countermesure for it is there , but the threat still potent .
Let set an exemple shall we ?
# The US 101st Para recon has spotted an advancing force of enemy Tanks 7km away (4 miles) from C Company (Abrams , Bradleys , etc) . They report and start "marking" the target . Then , they "illuminate" and send data back to C Company while calling for an additional UAV to hover and circle around .
---> 1 minute later , Platoons 1/A and 2/A (8 Tanks) fire a salvo of Mid Range Munition Chemical Energy at the designated targets .
The enemy , who 's aware it has been "lased" took some defensive mesures like setting a decent smoke screen while retreating to a nearby hull down position or under some close by trees .
If the 101st does the job right , they will still be lasing a couple of targets while the autonomous search&track capability of the rounds will allow them to fing targets of opportunity on their own .

Basicaly Homer , do you know what that situation gives you ?
It gives you a tempo ahead :cvc:

The enemy is NOT in position to return fire , it has been spotted and probably pinned down .
It 's your move again :wink:

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Homer]

Thats a nice story.

But thats all that is..... just a story.

[Banshee-66]

From what I understand the new missle system isn't for the M1A2 it is for our future fighting vehicles. They just wanted to see if the round would survive being fired from the 120mm gun. Our future fighting vehicles are to become lighter, which would mean less armor, but can be deployed faster. So if you look at it that way a guided missle that can hit targets at around 5 miles or even further out wouldn't be a waste of money.

You can click this sentence to see possible US future fighting vehicles (http://www.army.mil/fcs/)