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

Ukraine - Superthread

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,706
Points
1,090
Isn't there a risk that any strikes within Belgorod would force Belgorod's forces into the battle?
Possible but they are likely heavily battle damaged units meant to simple hold Ukrainian forces in place.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,494
Points
1,060
there is a range of these weapons between the very small which are more appropriate for use by manoeuvre units and very large which are more an RCAF system, that I believe need to be employed by the artillery).

... Even rocket launched projectiles are generally of one or two specific types. Gun launched artillery on the other hand is the most versatile as a battery could have a half dozen or more different types of rounds on hand and can easily switch back and forth between them as required. This is why there should always be a mix of artillery systems deployed.

🍻

The one system that has always fascinated me, and continues to do so, is the 70 mm rocket system. It has as many effects as the 105mm howitzer and can be compactly stowed.

The issue is: Would you consider it artillery or a manoeuvre unit support or even an RCAF system? Or all of the above? :unsure::giggle:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,706
Points
1,090
The one system that has always fascinated me, and continues to do so, is the 70 mm rocket system. It has as many effects as the 105mm howitzer and can be compactly stowed.

The issue is: Would you consider it artillery or a manoeuvre unit support or even an RCAF system? Or all of the above? :unsure::giggle:
Direct or indirect fire? How is it mounted and fired? What is its intended role?
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,677
Points
1,040
The one system that has always fascinated me, and continues to do so, is the 70 mm rocket system. It has as many effects as the 105mm howitzer and can be compactly stowed.

The issue is: Would you consider it artillery or a manoeuvre unit support or even an RCAF system? Or all of the above? :unsure::giggle:
Clearly useable as an RCAF system (I always wondered why we needed to dispose of 80,000 of them back in the '00s. - I would have liked to see them on pods on helicopters)

The rocket engine as such makes it more a direct fire weapon (such as ground to air). I'd have to know more about its characteristics as to whether it would be suitable in an indirect fire role (I'm not sure what the motor burn time is, what its ground to ground range is, what its CEP is) but there are other systems which have been used like that so I presume its useable.

11164773_897108883680907_8606343963479125408_n.jpg


The real question is are there systems that provide the same or better effects for the same investment in resources (people and cost)?

I think it's one of those systems that would have a specialized use - such as dropping a mass of fire on top of a large target area - and thus would not be a tool for envisioned day-to-day operations. As you have garnered by now, I'm a fan of massed fires; the CA - not so much.

I think they would be of limited value in the manoeuvre unit because, while it has an excellent anti-armour capability there are better systems out there which provides very efficient anti-armour capabilities which would be less of a logistics burden on the manoeuvre unit.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,494
Points
1,060
Direct or indirect fire? How is it mounted and fired? What is its intended role?

Both. All sorts and remotely. The same as a battery of howitzers.

Common warheads[edit]​

The most common warhead for the Hydra 70 rocket is the M151 "10-Pounder," which has a blast radius of 10 meters and lethal fragmentation radius of around 50 meters.[6]

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
DesignationDescriptionWeightPayloadFuze TypeFuzing options
M151High explosive (HEDP) '10 pounder'8.7 pounds (3.9 kg) (w/o Fuze)2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) Comp B-4 HEM4231,2,5,7,8
M156White phosphorus munitions (WP)9.65 pounds (4.38 kg)2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) WPM423 M4291,2,6,7
M229High explosive (HEDP); elongated M151 '17 pounder'17.0 pounds (7.7 kg) (Fuzed)4.8 pounds (2.2 kg) Comp B-4 HEM4231,2,6,7
M247High-explosive anti-tank (HEAT)/high-explosive dual purpose (HEDP)8.8 pounds (4.0 kg)2.0 pounds (0.91 kg) Comp B HEM438 PD4 (integral to warhead)
M255APERS (anti-personnel) warhead2500 28 grains (1.8 g) flechettes9
M255E1/A1Flechette warhead14.0 pounds (6.4 kg)1179 60 grains (3.9 g) flechettesM4399
M257Parachute illumination11.0 pounds (5.0 kg)One M257 Candle (Flare) 1 million candelaM44210 (integral to warhead)
M259White phosphorus (WP)9
M261Multi-purpose submunition (MPSM)13.5 pounds (6.1 kg)9 M73 (Grenade) SubmunitionsM439 with M84 electric detonator9
M264Red phosphorus (RP) Smoke8.6 pounds (3.9 kg)72 RP PelletsM4399
M267MPSM Practice13.5 pounds (6.1 kg)Three Marking SMs, 6 Metal WeightsM439 with M84 electric Detonator9
M274Practice (Smoke)9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)2 ounces (57 g) of potassium perchlorate and aluminum powderM4231
M278Infra-red (IR) parachute illumination11.0 pounds (5.0 kg)One M278 IR FlareM44210 (integral to warhead)
M282Multipurpose penetrator warhead13.7 pounds (6.2 kg)0.98 pounds (0.44 kg) PBXN-110delayed
Mk 67 Mod 0White phosphorus (WP)1,2,6,7
Mk 67 Mod 1Red phosphorus (RP)1,2,6,7
WTU-1/BPractice9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)InertNoneNone
WDU-4/AAPERS warhead9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)96 flechettes of unknown weight12 (integral to warhead)
WDU-4A/AAPERS warhead9.3 pounds (4.2 kg)2205 20 grains (1.3 g) flechettes12 (integral to warhead)

The AGR-20 Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a design conversion of Hydra 70 unguided rockets with a laser guidance kit to turn them into precision-guided munitions (PGMs).[7] APKWS is approximately one-third the cost and one-third the weight of the current inventory of laser-guided weapons, has a lower yield more suitable for avoiding collateral damage, and takes one quarter of the time for ordnance personnel to load and unload.

1652151752070.png1652151806922.png1652152047554.png1652152210324.png

 
Last edited:

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
11,302
Points
1,160
Buy more Lockheed Martin:

Production Of In-Demand Javelin Missiles Set To Almost Double​

While being able to double Javelin production in the near term is a good sign, it still highlights a worrisome production capacity issue.​


Lockheed Martin is addressing concerns about the continued supply of shoulder-fired Javelin anti-tank missile systems, one of the key weapons being used by Ukraine in its ongoing defense against the Russian invasion. The company has confirmed that the production rate of the anti-tank missile will be almost doubled, responding to the demand from Ukraine as well as the continued requirement for these weapons to arm the United States and other allies and partners.

Speaking to CBS News yesterday, James Taiclet, the chairman, president, and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, said that the company aims to boost production of the Javelin from the current 2,100 missiles per year to 4,000 per year, a process that could take up to “a couple of years” to achieve. One of the sites where the missiles are manufactured is in Troy, Alabama. Overall, production is shared as a collaboration between Lockheed and Raytheon Technologies.

 

Skysix

Full Member
Reaction score
548
Points
810
Buy more Lockheed Martin:

Production Of In-Demand Javelin Missiles Set To Almost Double​

While being able to double Javelin production in the near term is a good sign, it still highlights a worrisome production capacity issue.​


Lockheed Martin is addressing concerns about the continued supply of shoulder-fired Javelin anti-tank missile systems, one of the key weapons being used by Ukraine in its ongoing defense against the Russian invasion. The company has confirmed that the production rate of the anti-tank missile will be almost doubled, responding to the demand from Ukraine as well as the continued requirement for these weapons to arm the United States and other allies and partners.

Speaking to CBS News yesterday, James Taiclet, the chairman, president, and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, said that the company aims to boost production of the Javelin from the current 2,100 missiles per year to 4,000 per year, a process that could take up to “a couple of years” to achieve. One of the sites where the missiles are manufactured is in Troy, Alabama. Overall, production is shared as a collaboration between Lockheed and Raytheon Technologies.

IF they had a supply of semiconductors, there is no reason they couldn't hit 6000 a year without overtime or another production line. Just need to hire and train 2 more shifts of workers. Although the control heads are likely another issue.

Not sure the missile cost or the launcher cost, and how many missiles a launcher can fire before it dies, but I suspect that the NLAW will still be cheaper per launch. And it is likely to be used on bridging equipment, fuel trucks, IFV's, Arty and AA not just tanks.

That said, BOTH should be in the stockpile. The NLAW to be issued at the section level at 1 per man in high intensity situations like Ukraine - as was the M72 or AT4 in years past. More weight (sigh).

Keep the Javelin in the anti-armor section of the weapons platoon at the company level as it has a different targeting and kill strategy IIRC and retire the KarlG other than for bunker busting at the platoon level.
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,494
Points
1,060
Aren't those just Vietnam era 2.75" rockets?
Yep.

But they have found a new life - you can add a precision kit and produce the APKWS to produce a mini ATGM - lower cost and lower collateral damage. And they can still do area suppression.

4 km direct fire
8-11 km indirect.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,057
Points
1,040
The CRV7 is better.
CRV7 - Wikipedia
Are they even still in service? I thought that they were being phased out. Also, I do believe the Hydra had more warhead options though the CRV crowd was working on allowing the warheads to be interchangeable.

I agree that the CRV7 was better (based on the open-source info), not sure if that's still the case.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,281
Points
1,360
It’s as if Carl wasn’t paying attention to Mr.90’s glowing eyes (Shtora)…
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,611
Points
1,090
We are destroying our stocks, I do not know if the British still use it.

In other news, Carl still works fine
Our 7000 Carl G donation doesn’t look too shabby now lol.

On a serious note, I’d love to see at what range, what ammo type and where exactly they hit the T90. Lessons learned or just really really good luck.

Assuming this is all true.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,192
Points
1,090
Our 7000 Carl G donation doesn’t look too shabby now lol.

On a serious note, I’d love to see at what range, what ammo type and where exactly they hit the T90. Lessons learned or just really really good luck.

Assuming this is all true.
1. How the hell did we donate 7000 Carl G’s? Did we really have that many in excess of our requirements?

2. I was under the impression that the newer model Carl G is as lethal as ever, with a variety of guided rounds & warhead options.

Does anybody know if we have any plans to acquire them?

Are they slowly acquired as needed to replace Carl G systems that are taken out of service, or would it be one mads buy like we do everything else?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,706
Points
1,090
1. How the hell did we donate 7000 Carl G’s? Did we really have that many in excess of our requirements?

2. I was under the impression that the newer model Carl G is as lethal as ever, with a variety of guided rounds & warhead options.

Does anybody know if we have any plans to acquire them?

Are they slowly acquired as needed to replace Carl G systems that are taken out of service, or would it be one mads buy like we do everything else?
7000 I think is ammo.

As for the new M4 Carl G, last I was at the weapons school, it was on the table but there hasn't been any movement on the project to replace the entire fleet to M4 standard
 
Top