• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Norway's Ramjet Developments - Ukraine?

Kirkhill

Fair Scunnert
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,073
Points
1,160
The Ukrainians are asking for range.

Norway's NAMMO has been touting their Ramjet developments since 2015 at least (150 successful test burns as of 2019). I wonder if any of these systems are making it into the field.

When applied to 155mm x L52 artillery NAMMO claims ranges of up to 150 km. That means that Caesars, PzH2000s, AS90 Bravehearts, and the Polish Krabs are all potential launchers.

Further down the road it is reasonable to envisage Ramjet versions of every missile fielded with either 5 times the range from the same size missile or the same range from a missile 20% of the size (allowing them to be launched from smaller platforms or carried in larger numbers)


 
Progress - 155mm Ramjet projectiles tested in Norway in April of this year.

The M777 and M109A7 Paladin howitzers will be able to destroy tanks on the move at a distance of 70 km due to the new Ramjet projectile

By: Maksim Panasovskyi | yesterday, 20:14


The U.S. company Boeing and Norwegian Nammo tested a new 155 mm Ramjet projectile for NATO standard artillery.

What we know​

The Ramjet is being developed as part of the modernization of existing weapons for the U.S. Army. Despite the fact that the tests became known only now, the tests took place at the end of April 2022 in Norway. The military checked the operation of the jet engine, which "showed flight stability.
Work on the new artillery projectile began in 2019 as part of the XM1155 Extended Range Artillery Projectile program. The project was funded by the U.S. Army. The Ramjet is equipped with an air-jet engine, thanks to which it requires less fuel and can accelerate during flight. The maximum launch range is 70 km.
The Ramjet is designed for the advanced ERCA (Extended Range Cannon Artillery) project, which was previously called the M109A8. However, the M777 and M109A7 Paladin howitzers will also be able to use the new projectile. With its help they will be able to destroy enemy tanks on the move.


Nammo and Boeing are also partnered with Saab on the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb based on the M31 rocket.


Ramjets are a key to the Hypersonic world. And NAMMO has a head start.

Next step - Mount a Ramjet munition in place of the SDB on top of the M31. And containerize.
 
Progress - 155mm Ramjet projectiles tested in Norway in April of this year.
Not to question a nice article but ...

Why would one need to build a cannon launched ramjet when a simple ground launched rocket ramjet would cut out the middle man, simplify the technology, and call for a cheaper and more rational launch and support system?

Something that looks something like this:

0.jpg



🍻
 
Not to question a nice article but ...

Why would one need to build a cannon launched ramjet when a simple ground launched rocket ramjet would cut out the middle man, simplify the technology, and call for a cheaper and more rational launch and support system?

Something that looks something like this:

0.jpg



🍻

True.

Why would you need cannons to launch anything at all if rounds can be launched with a puff of air and a self-contained power supply?

The whole problem with ramjet technology, as I understand it, is you have to achieve a fairly high minimum velocity before the ramjet kicks in. Once it kicks in you get the advantage of a lighter round because it doesn't need an oxidizer. Consequently a 90 lb 155mm shell only needs a 10 lb motor instead of a 45 lb motor to drive it the extra distance once it leaves the tube.

At least that is what I gather from the NAMMO literature and videos.
 
what is the cost difference between a ramjet 155mm round and an equivalent loitering munition whatever that would be?
 
True.

Why would you need cannons to launch anything at all if rounds can be launched with a puff of air and a self-contained power supply?
Mostly because its a lot cheaper to produce the unguided type in quantity and you can launch many more rapidly when needed and when other things can't fly.

The whole problem with ramjet technology, as I understand it, is you have to achieve a fairly high minimum velocity before the ramjet kicks in. Once it kicks in you get the advantage of a lighter round because it doesn't need an oxidizer. Consequently a 90 lb 155mm shell only needs a 10 lb motor instead of a 45 lb motor to drive it the extra distance once it leaves the tube.

At least that is what I gather from the NAMMO literature and videos.
True enough but a little Wikipedia research gets you the information that efficiency kicks in with airspeeds of 280m/s and falls off after 2,000m/s. The 122mm BM-21's rockets, as an example, have a velocity of 690m/s (Mach 2) is well within the envelope and at the point of efficiency. The M777 firing 8S is 827m/s. An M1299 will be higher.

The issue is that a rocket assisted boost to get to ramjet speed will be a softer launch than a cannon launch and thus technically simpler. In addition a rocket will not be limited by the existing gun chamber restrictions so that a if the package needs a 170mm diameter then its simple - you make a 170mm launch tube rather than try to miniaturize the projectile.

I agree on the motor issue insofar as the projectile's ramjet motor is concerned. As to the booster system there is the gun's propellant charge as compared to the rocket's initial booster motor and in that respect a BM 21 rocket motor is only slightly more complex than a gun's propelling charge.

1660781664454.jpeg

In many ways I look at this from the point of view of complexity of delivery organizations. The 155mm makes a good and versatile close support weapon system and is employed universally in that role. The further out that you strike, the more you want to have specialized organizations that look at the deep battle, whether it's counter-battery or logistics or C2 interdiction. It needs specialized target acquisition organizations and command and control systems and at the same time, the delivery systems can be less protected and slightly less mobile (i.e a lot cheaper) than the close support elements.

Yup. You can make a cannon launched 155mm ramjet that shoots four times as far, but is that the optimum solution for the deep battle? Or do you want a lighter, cheaper version of HIMARS and MLRS?

All that said, here's another article on it:


🍻
 

The M777 and M109A7 Paladin howitzers will be able to destroy tanks on the move at a distance of 70 km due to the new Ramjet projectile

I'm all for improved range and improved precision for weapons but this seems a little bit of a distraction from the primary role of tube artillery to me.

Are you now going to specifically task one or more Batteries of guns for precision deep-strike missions or would you distribute these rounds across the Regiment for use as required? Presumably you'd have to have a UAV (or a nearby ground spotter) to find and designate a moving vehicle 70km away and maintain lasing of the target for the entire flight time of the round.

I'm thinking that if you're using a UAV to spot for the artillery shot anyway why not just use a loitering munition/armed UAV which can do both the spotting and execute the attack without such a high tech and expensive round?

Using these rounds in a 5" Naval gun however makes more sense to me. Increase the range for firing, target is moving slower than a ground vehicle and doesn't have terrain to hide behind and the round is likely cheaper than a missile.
 
Are you now going to specifically task one or more Batteries of guns for precision deep-strike missions or would you distribute these rounds across the Regiment for use as required?
That really is the million dollar question.

Much of it depends on what role you think your army will play. We have brigades but think primarily in battlegroups whereas the real issue one needs to address is how do you fight within a divisional framework. Typically a brigade has a certain frontage and depth it is responsible for covering with flanking units and something else from division and above covering the further out deep areas.

The current 155 guns and ammunition adequately cover the depth that a brigade is responsible for. Adding longer range capabilities would either expand the depth the brigade is to cover or alternately allow the brigade's guns to participate further into the div's depth battle.

My personal opinion is to not use a brigade's close support artillery in the divisional depth battle because every time you use it you expose it to destruction and will not have it available anymore when the brigade's close battle takes place. My preference is to husband brigade artillery resources for that close battle.

That, of course means, that if the div is to fight a deep battle it needs its own artillery. That in the US and Brit organization is the artillery brigade which is usually made up of a mix of both guns and rockets. In the US M109s, HIMARS and/or MLRS and in the UK AS90 and MLRS. I think that in the future we will see loitering munitions added to those organizations as well.

Do the 155mm guns need more range? Tactically, no. There are sufficient artillery manoeuvre areas available for both the close support folks in their role and the deep battle folks in theirs. However, as you develop longer range than the enemy then you can position your artillery further back out of the enemies reach and still strike the targets you need to. Remember artillery primarily does area neutralization while missions to destroy single targets is more an anti-armour role.

The real issue here, IMHO, is cost and its resultant ability to sustain the fight. Dumb rounds are cheap and easy to produce in bulk. Complex rounds are pricey with much lower production rates. Rather than some pricey cannon launched projectile, I would prefer to see the technology move towards cheap, guided soft launch munitions fired by units specifically organized and equipped to do the non-line of sight battle against point targets. Leave the guns for the area neutralization issues when they appear.

Whether these are fired by a 120mm mortar group with the divisional covering force or a tailor made artillery battery matters not so long as there is a relatively decentralized target acquisition and control cell far forward which can acquire and engage individual targets as they appear.

In my mind I see platoons and companies (whether regular line infantry or reconnaissance troops or specialized anti-armour elements doesn't matter that much) equipped with UAVs to look over the horizon and with links to individual loitering munitions that can be fired and guided onto the target. I see them also equipped with direct fire anti-armour systems in the event the enemy force penetrates the first layer. In addition I see a number of guns with dumb rounds held back quietly in reserve to take on the deploying dismounted infantry that the enemy will undoubtedly deploy once its vehicles start being hit.

To answer the question, I see this as a specialized task. I would see armoured cavalry units equipped for this role as well as battalion anti-armour platoons for when the fight becomes near enough for the close. I would generally equip line rifle units generously with direct fire anti-armour weapons but leave over-the-horizon work to specialized teams.

🍻
 
Are you now going to specifically task one or more Batteries of guns for precision deep-strike missions or would you distribute these rounds across the Regiment for use as required?


I think the answer to your question is Yes.

If your brigade had a 4 battery regiment then you could arm 3 of the batteries with conventional short range ammunition (with each firing point having its own UAS) while the 4th battery was armed with long range ammunition. Then, as the situation morphed the same 4 batteries could be issued different ammunition.

You have one launch system, one C2 system, and multiple options. And fewer supply and training head aches.

Meanwhile you could task HIMARS systems to the Reserves - very low manpower, training and maintenance. And a multitude of missile options.
 
Its too bad Gerald Bull was assassinated. I am sure he could have solved the issue of ballistics etc.
It’s not exactly rocket science to realize that if you have a ridiculous large muzzle blast and flame that you where not burning all the propellant in the barrel and it was extremely inefficient- and a longer barrel would do better.

I’ve watched a number of articles and documentaries on him and/or his work — I don’t think he was nearly as revolutionary as folks credit him to me — he simply was smart enough to be a good observer and use that data to find solutions.

While those ranges where new to 155mm, older 175mm ‘Long Tom’ M107 artillery was a 40km system in the 60’s
 
It’s not exactly rocket science to realize that if you have a ridiculous large muzzle blast and flame that you where not burning all the propellant in the barrel and it was extremely inefficient- and a longer barrel would do better.

I’ve watched a number of articles and documentaries on him and/or his work — I don’t think he was nearly as revolutionary as folks credit him to me — he simply was smart enough to be a good observer and use that data to find solutions.

While those ranges where new to 155mm, older 175mm ‘Long Tom’ M107 artillery was a 40km system in the 60’s
I never really understood why the US, in the 1970s, rebuilt its 175mm M107s into the upgraded 203mm M110 which had a significantly shorter range. I do understand why they scrapped the M110 at the end of the Cold War because the longer barrelled 155mm calibre guns filled in much of that range gap, albeit with a lighter projectile, and the USAF was assuring everyone that with its guided weapons it could take care of all those pesky in-depth targets.

The Russians maintained the 152mm 2S5 and the 203mm 2S7M both in reserve and a few active units which continued to provide a divisional counter-battery capability. Their doing so provided them an ability to reach out and touch the Ukrainians with little fear of being touched back until the HIMARS systems came on line.

I keep saying that rockets are all fine and good, but dumb cannon rounds, or semi guided cannon rounds, with their low relative cost are still a very viable system.

As I keep saying, we NATO folks are mesmerized by new and expensive systems and rather than keeping valuable equipment with some service life left in reserve, we consign it to the cutting torch as scrap.

🍻
 
If it’s shiny and new….

I’m not an indirect fire expert but the weight of fire ie how many rounds can you put on target- is a consideration
 
I never really understood why the US, in the 1970s, rebuilt its 175mm M107s into the upgraded 203mm M110 which had a significantly shorter range. I do understand why they scrapped the M110 at the end of the Cold War because the longer barrelled 155mm calibre guns filled in much of that range gap, albeit with a lighter projectile, and the USAF was assuring everyone that with its guided weapons it could take care of all those pesky in-depth targets.

The Russians maintained the 152mm 2S5 and the 203mm 2S7M both in reserve and a few active units which continued to provide a divisional counter-battery capability. Their doing so provided them an ability to reach out and touch the Ukrainians with little fear of being touched back until the HIMARS systems came on line.

I keep saying that rockets are all fine and good, but dumb cannon rounds, or semi guided cannon rounds, with their low relative cost are still a very viable system.

As I keep saying, we NATO folks are mesmerized by new and expensive systems and rather than keeping valuable equipment with some service life left in reserve, we consign it to the cutting torch as scrap.

🍻

The advantage of the Ramjet system that I can see is that the 155s can continue to fire HE and provide weight of fire. At the same time they can be used to launch precision strikes at range. Why would 105s carry a few HEAT, Smk and Ill rounds along with their HE? Doesn't that just decrease the number of rounds available for neutralization and suppression? The weight of fire?

I don't think it has to be an either or.

And as for the interest in rockets, - I don't see them primarily as a replacement for guns. I see them as a replacement/complement to aircraft for Close Air Support type missions.
 
NAMMO and Boeing continue to pursue hypersonic RAMJET munitions

Longer range - 100 to 150 km

While Boeing could not provide a definite range, Nammo seems to be able to. At the Norwegian company’s booth, a display states the Ramjet 155 could range between 100 to over 150 kilometers. And in a press release, it is stated that during long-distance tests the shell could “fly well over 100 km.”

Compatible with all 155s

Ramjet 155 is to be compatible with all existing NATO 155mm guns. Going forward, the project aims to have Ramjet 155 fired out of the 155mm L/58 cannon.

“It’s a common round for all three platforms, the L/39, the L/52, and the L/58. We recently demonstrated it in Norway with the L/39. As far as what’s next, what we did with the L/39 we want to fast-forward that and take it to the L/58. The next big thing is we want to do what’s called the charge establishment test on the L/58. We want to see what kind of a mach we’re going to need coming out of that gun. Following that, we want to demonstrate the L/58 ballistically like we did the L/39 (referring to the Norway Test).”

Less wear and tear - the gun is only the booster to get the munition up to speed.

One notable point highlighted by the Boeing representative was the impact, or “brute force,” of Ramjet 155 on the barrels of guns compared to conventional shells. Ramjet 155 is to have drastically less wear on the systems it is fired from.

“The current munitions are just really beating the tubes up pretty hard. And with everything going on in the world right now, there’s a lot of munitions getting shipped, of course to Ukraine. A lot of M777 howitzers too that are getting really, really worn out. So this is an option for the army that gets them away from what I grew up with as a kid as an artilleryman, that old thing called brute force on the guns.”



Meanwhile they continue working on THOR-ER (similar in appearance to the ESSM)


IMG_2911-1024x768.jpg
essm_missile_hero-(1).jpg



 
Back
Top