The Army and Marines both train hard to conduct artillery raids. The basic concept is to fly in your artillery, set it up, fire a few rounds and then depart before the enemy can react.
But is the concept dead? Is it a hold over of the aviation and artillery communities that no longer really applies in today's era of warfare?
I think so.
The only modern examples that I could find of "true" artillery raids occurred during Gulf War 1. Stuff is sketchy on whether these raids took place during Gulf War 2.
The issues with doing an artillery raid today are plentiful. Detection of aircraft flying in the guns. Saturation of the firing point by counter battery fire before the raiders even get the first round out. The ability of a couple of Multiple Launch Rocket Systems to lay down more fire in a single salvo than a battery of guns can in several minutes of action....the list goes on.
For land forces, in my opinion, the artillery raid is dead.
It's just another arrow in the quiver. It was never a widely used but it's not hard to imagine a scenario where it would still make sense. It's always going to be something done very infrequently. That said with guided artillery and mortar rounds the utility of this type of raid has probably increased. It's not so much dead as something that was always just barely been breathing.
ReplyDeleteHow about just mounting an MLRS system on a cheap trailer/mount and just fire the system remotely from the departing helicopters and just consider the trailer disposable?
In any case I do take your point regarding all the reasons this raid doesn't make sense, I'd personally add rarely to make sense, but all you have to do is imagine some scenario where you can't use a bomb or missile- even if only for political reasons.
I'd argue it's worth keeping the arrow in the quiver if for no other reason to realize our enemies will be doing these against us, even if it's only a few rockets carried on a truck and not bothering to recover the launcher.
i can't see where they've ever made sense in the modern world of warfare. hell they're only used in cross border situations and during those events you could just have the air force launch a missile from the friendly side and have that do the work. you could set up an MLRS box (i guess) and have it fire remotely but why bother? if that's the case then just drive a truck. too rough a terrain? back to the air force launching from safety or if we're really going to be real then have a uav drop.
Deletei really think this is just a fantasy mission for aviators and cannoneers...
Another thing to consider about counter-battery radar is calculating the point of origin. In traditional artillery the shells fly a ballistic profile and the point of origin can be calculated fairly easlly.
DeleteHowever, using modern GPS assisted shells ranging from GPS fuzes which can correct the CEP to shells that mount fins (Excalibur) and can drastically alter the flight profile.
How long is it till we see GPS & Fin mounted shells that alter it's flight profile (prior to breaking the horizon line) in order purposefully fool the radar to think the origin is miles from where it actually is?
Obviously, any deviation from an optimum profile will reduce range, but maybe survival and the ability to lob more shells during the "raid" before bugging out is more important than absolute range.
Not tube artillery or MLRS, but you could do something with the IAI Juniper. An autonomous system that a helicopter could drop someplace. Distribute them in a decentralized belt and you'd have indirect fire on call.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iai.co.il/16147-40145-en/Business_Areas_Military_Land_PrecisionStrike.aspx?btl=1
It's a wonder why more armies aren't considering a mix of weapons rather than just tube artillery. More militaries are looking for precision rather than tons of ordnance be dropped in a small area so there won't be a need for 3 6-gun batteries of 155mm howitzers.
Look at the Spike NLOS, European Polyphem, Avibras FOG-MPM, Raytheon N-LOS systems should be put into artillery batteries.
You not need raids or reduce your CAS requirements:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1998/dot-e/army/98mlrser.htm
Guided MLRS Rocket, M30/M31:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mlrs.html
I might be way off, but if you look at this economically, it would seem that just using missiles or rockets off of the helo itself would be just as effective and cheaper/less risky for the military.
ReplyDeleteWhy would the advantage of carrying the artillery piece?
You can airlift a gun quickly to any place, and establish firebase available 24/7 to any ground unit in the area, capable of providing continuous fire support regardless of weather circumstances, fuel shortages, etc.
ReplyDeleteCheap and effective, have longer range than mortars, and much cheaper per shot than missile based systems.
Almost irreplaceble piece of hardware in modern and future counterinsurgency wars IMHO.