Successful test of slf-guided tank round

[yokel]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/02/military_tank_round_020909w/

Tank round guides self to target during test

By Kris Osborn - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Feb 10, 2009 16:24:52 EST

An Army Abrams 120mm cannon destroyed a T-72 tank more than 5,000 meters away using a next-generation guided tank round able to find its own way toward a target, service officials said.

The December test at Yuma Proving Grounds, Ariz., was staged to prove that the guidance system of the Mid Range Munition (MRM) would work when fired.

The MRM has two guidance modes.

The first is laser designation, in which the round follows a laser spot generated by some other target seeker to the target, or in so-called offset mode, near the target.

The second is with its 3-inch infrared camera. The guidance system compares the IR images to a target library stored in electronic form.

“The algorithm running through the round is looking at the environment and differentiating the target from items that might be in range in a normal desert environment,” said Jeff McNaboe, Army MRM program manager.

In the December test, the round used only its infrared seeker, the first time it had destroyed a target without laser-guided help, said David Rigoglioso, deputy product manager for large caliber ammo at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.

In the fall, another test will be used to evaluate the airframe, the guidance electronics unit and the control section, said John O’Brien, Raytheon MRM program director.

The Raytheon-General Dynamics-built MRM is 13 months through a 63-month, $232 million development deal with the Army. Initial production is scheduled for 2012.

Pretty soon everyone will want a nice shiny new Abrams tank to shoot guided shells out of.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I'm glad

it's on our side and not the other side.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Dude we are awesome!!!

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Who needs an Abrams? Park a few AT cannons old-school far side of a defilade, and you defeat approaching armor before they can even see you.

Tanks ... for the memories.

 

[Shear_stress]

I can appreciate the technology, but it's twenty years too late. Last I checked, Al-Qaeda's weapon of choice was a Chevy Suburban packed with surplus artillery shells and RDX, not the T-72.

That $232 million dollars would be better spent on M4s, MRAPS, body armor and health care for our troops.

 

[Lightninstrike]

Ah Yuma, I remember it well. Good for two things: boogers and static electricity.

Seriously, what amazes me is the speed of the algorithm. If you have never seen a tank round fired those things are fast.

 

[Eightball]

Park a few AT cannons old-school far side of a defilade, and you defeat approaching armor before they can even see you.

And if someone in SpecOps is shining a laser right on your protective shield, THEN what?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Then you shoot them, assuming they are enemy. Laser pointers are for the Board Room.

 

[Lightninstrike]

And if someone in SpecOps is shining a laser right on your protective shield, THEN what?

Kaboom, I think.

 

[Lucky]

Why? They've made a much more expensive HEAT round, that will be less powerful than contemporary 120mm HEAT rounds, at a time when 120mm HEAT rounds are of marginal effectiveness against modern tanks. At a range that will never be encountered.

Pretty soon everyone will want a nice shiny new Abrams tank to shoot guided shells out of.

Aiui the best can hope for is refurbished, and those will run out since your DOD plans to keep using tanks that are already a 1970's design until 2050 or so.

I'm glad it's on our side and not the other side.

The other side had guided rounds for tanks for 3 decades now. They made sense back then, back when T-series couldn't guarantee hits to 2km, a laser guided missile fired from the gun stretched the range. Guided mortars and artillery that could home on individual tanks and attack from the top, been around a little less. And US already invented artillery shell that carries multiple warheads that disperse and home on multiple tanks and attack from top.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree, I fail to see a good hole in the current setup for this to fill. We already have TOW and Javelin systems that do this. They aren't new. I never heard anyone complaining about the range or effectiveness of the current 120 rounds.

I was a tanker, and you know I love M-1s, but let's be realistic. How does a 68 ton tracked vehicle that gets 4 gpm (that's gallons PER MILE,) that is so heavy they can only be moved one at a time on a C-5 and requires 19 man-hours of maintenence for every hour it spends in the field help our emerging mission? The truth is, the era of the heavy tank may be over. I see a lot more promise and future in lighter, very effective programs, like the Stryker anti-armor vehicle, with the old 105 on it's back.

I swallowed hard when I caught a news story of my sister battalion, 1/64th armor (I was 3/64) deployed to Iraq. Did they take tanks? NO. They took rifles and body armor like everyone else.

 

[rbernie]

A Hellfire launched from a UAV is far more cost-effective and mo' useful.

War via remote control and a streaming video feed (aka 'Kill TV') - it's the wave of the future.

 

[Pulse]

@mljdeckard

the Leopard2 of the Canadians and Danish troops is in very high demand in A-stan.

quote from a danish officer:
""Although tanks are big and heavy, the precise fire they delivered proved to be perfect close support to light reconnaissance troops on the ground. The Taliban were dealt a stinging defeat by a well-prepared force consisting of Afghan, British and Danish elements.""

many consider them like Arty or CAS, just without the wait..
and i am quite frankly not realy sure that the stryker and other light cannon vehicles could stand up to the power a tank bring to the field.

 

[jws527]

Truth is, that's simply $232 million spent through the government subsidy of an enormous defense industry - the so-called military-industrial complex.

I like toys and tech as much as the next guy (I'm an engineer, after all), but this is money that could and should be going elsewhere - like back into the pockets of taxpayers, or into a new energy and transportation infrastructure, or into rifles, and body armor and health care for soldiers as stated above.

 

[mljdeckard]

The 105 on that Stryker is the same gun that was on the original M-1. It's lighter, more mobile, more fuel efficient, and much easier to maintain than the Abrams. The sabot it fires is VERY effective against other armor. It weighs 19 tons.

In the first gulf war, we destroyed over 4,000 Iraqi tanks. They damaged between 4 and 19 of ours. Between air superiority and better logistics, we have the armor game beat six different ways. We can afford to sacrifice some weight for better mobility and transportability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Gun_System

And the Leopard 2 is 42.2 tons. A full 25 TONS lighter than the Abrams. It's a MEDIUM tank, not a heavy one. I lived a couple of years in Denmark, and I actually got some familiarization with the Leopard 2. It's NOT the same machine as an Abrams.

 

[jerkface11]

That $232 million dollars would be better spent on M4s, MRAPS, body armor and health care for our troops.

Do you watch the news? They're blowing TRILLIONS on every congressman's pet projects RIGHT NOW. $230 million is nothing at all.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

That was my thought as well.

We are through the looking glass.

Bill Clinton couldn't even get a 13 billion dollar stimulus through in 1993 with control of both houses of Congress and higher unemployment. Too much pork, then. Now we are potentially blowing trillions.

 

[mljdeckard]

+1000^^

 

[Shear_stress]

Do you watch the news? They're blowing TRILLIONS on every congressman's pet projects RIGHT NOW. $230 million is nothing at all.

So one pointless boondoggle justifies another? I didn't realize it worked that way.

 

[Pulse]

And the Leopard 2 is 42.2 tons. A full 25 TONS lighter than the Abrams. It's a MEDIUM tank, not a heavy one. I lived a couple of years in Denmark, and I actually got some familiarization with the Leopard 2. It's NOT the same machine as an Abrams.

see the picture below.

one is a leopard2A6, the other is a Leopard1

the leopard2 weights 62.2 tons up to 73 tons, depending on configuration and loadout.
the leopard1 weights a maximum of 42.2 tons.

Abrams currently has the Rheinmetall 120/L44 gun.
Leopard2 has the upgraded Rheinmetall 120/L55 gun.

the reason Leo2 is used in A-stan to great success is his mutch better fuel efficiency of 7 miles per gallon (yes that is miles per gallon, not gallon per miles), depending on what stats you take for Abrams, that some 12 to 21 times higher and compares to even some of the lighter vehicles.

btw: look up LAHAT, a gun launched missile developed by Israel for the Rheinmetall 120/L44 gun, fully functional and combat tested.. i am preaty sure the Israelies would be willing to give you the Planes or built them for you for mutch less then 232millions.

 

[Lucky]

I never heard anyone complaining about the range or effectiveness of the current 120 rounds.

My understanding as well was that anything in visual range was within gun range too.

Between air superiority and better logistics, we have the armor game beat six different ways. We can afford to sacrifice some weight for better mobility and transportability.

Unfortunately FCS is another trillion dollar sham. The vehicles are already too heavy to fly cheaply. And they're too lightly armoured to do what an Abrams does. If things go down as envisioned some quick response battalion would be landed in a hostile country, say like in Georgia, for some reason, and at the outset air could be contested. LAV's are many decade old design as well, copied from old Swiss Pirahna, modified by Canada, then modified again by the US.; Armoured car vs. main battle tank...

What US should do with $300,000,000 is design another tank to replace Abrams, just to have the design. New armour technologies, new unmanned turrets, new powerplants, new active defenses, They could get the same or better protection ni far less weight. minus the gold plating.

Look what Jordan did with the old BritishChallenger 1: upgrade armour, slap an unmanned South African turret on.

 

[Flyboy]

+1 for the cool technology, -$232 million for fighting the last war.