Dragon Fire II 120mm Mortar

[Suhiir]

Looks like the USMC is getting a new toy.

USMC Link (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/DayII/SessionII/07Lindsey_Dragon_Fire_II.pdf)

Global Security Link (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/efss.htm)

[SGTGunn]

This thing is wild. I watched a segment about it on the Military Channel's Future Weapons show(the clip is on Youtube I think). It can sustain an ROF of 10rds per minute, and can start firing a mission within 16 seconds of receiving it digitally. Talk about rapid response for supporting fires!

Hopefully we'll get in the Army as well! =)

Adrian

[Pats]

10 rnds/min -> see here that would be 8/min (4/20sec) with semi automatic...

Bighorn (http://www.ruag.ch/ruag/juice?pageID=132938)

[PlasmaKrab]

I heard of the first Dragon Fire back in 1998 or so already, shame the program didn't move any faster... The LAV-based version is slated for 2008, dunno if that's IOC, opeval or development start.
Now fire-on-the-move mortar LAV, that sounds yummy!

[pdoktar]

Ever you guys heard of AMOS..

http://www.amos.fi/main.html

Multiple rounds simultaneous impact up to 10km..

Performance
Time to fire < 30 sec
Time to scoot < 10 sec
Max. rate of fire 26 rds / min
First 4 rounds < 8 sec
Range > 10 km
Multiple rounds
simultaneous impact
(MRSI) up to 14 rds

[Pats]

pdoktar said:
Ever you guys heard of AMOS..

http://www.amos.fi/main.html

Multiple rounds simultaneous impact up to 10km..

Performance
Time to fire < 30 sec
Time to scoot < 10 sec
Max. rate of fire 26 rds / min
First 4 rounds < 8 sec
Range > 10 km
Multiple rounds
simultaneous impact
(MRSI) up to 14 rds




that looks like the winner http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[pdoktar]

Yep. And I´ve heard the americans were / are also very interested in it. But their problem is that they never want to buy anybody elses equipment (except the rheinmetalls guns).

As a grunt in the same formations as these mortar systems in the event of war, it sure feels good to have an umbrella like this.

[PlasmaKrab]

Yep. And I´ve heard the americans were / are also very interested in it. But their problem is that they never want to buy anybody elses equipment (except the rheinmetalls guns).

And the FN guns, the Beretta pistols, the Bofors LAWs, Rafael ERA... oh, and the latest, the UH-72A Lakota aka Eurocopter* EC-145 (http://www.uh-72a.com/index.htm)!
*OK, it's a joint American Eurocopter-Sikorsky venture 100% built stateside, so the only winners on the European side are EADS shareholders... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Back to the topic, I wonder if there couldn't be a cultural shock related to the fact that all older US mortars (including the Dragon Fire) are able to be fired from outside their carrier vehicle, which the turreted AMOS can't do.
Given the USMC still focuses on infantry-based units and tactics and airmobility (correct me if I'm wrong), a vehicle-only solution might not be the best.
Now if we're only talking about the FCS...

[Suhiir]

Given the USMC still focuses on infantry-based units and tactics and airmobility (correct me if I'm wrong), a vehicle-only solution might not be the best.



I'm NOT gonna claim to know the thinking of the "Powers That Be" at HQMC, but as a retired Marine Gunny I'd say the focus is on flexibility rather then on mech, airmobile, infantry, or what-have-you.

What we can do, that the Army can't is "do it all".
I'll be the first to admit the USMC can't compete with the US Army "specailized" units. We can't out-tank the 1st Armored; we can't out-helo the 101st; we can't out-infantry the 10th Mountain in rough, cold terrain; we can't out-spec-ops the Green Benies; etc, etc, etc.
But the average Marine can do any and all those things. From many discussions with various Army types over the years most of them would be just plain lost outside the specialized, narrow role they've been trained in.

That's why our gear is made to be helo/foot mobile, we don't WANT to be tied to "only" vehicle mounted/mobile systems.

[pdoktar]

Oh, I thought it couldn´t be dismounted from the vehicle. And didn´t they hate the crappy, wrong calibre, no-stopping-power-whatsoever-beretta? I am very surprised that they purchased the AT4 and didn´t try to make one self, since the M72 is a very good LAW in it´s own category.

And back off-topic:

My point being, do you know any large equipment (like the AMOS), being ever purchased by the americans after WW2 (without being a joint operation). Small arms and LAWs and extra armour packages not included?

Why on earth don´t they buy a desent HE shell for 120mm from germany or sweden or israel. The simplest thing to do considering Iraq. Or have they done so already?

[PlasmaKrab]

Why on earth don´t they buy a desent HE shell for 120mm from germany or sweden or israel. The simplest thing to do considering Iraq. Or have they done so already?

Alliant Tech has come up with an elegant solution called M908 HE-Obstacle Reduction (http://www.atk.com/Customer_Solutions_MissionSystems/cs_ms_w_tgs_120ammo.asp), which is basically a M830A1 converted to APHE. Dunno if it is fielded yet, but from what I could hear I wouldn't rule out that this one or another similar round is being field-tested in Iraq.
Still not proper HE though...

Edit: Just found out that it is listed as operational round in a USMC tanker manual from June 2006, call that a positive sign.

[thatguy96]

pdoktar said:
My point being, do you know any large equipment (like the AMOS), being ever purchased by the americans after WW2 (without being a joint operation). Small arms and LAWs and extra armour packages not included?


No, but then again does Russia or China? Does Germany or the United Kingdom? I would say the United States isn't exactly any more or less "patriotic" in this realm than anyone else with the money to do so.

Furthermore, we seem to be missing two of the most integral elements to US defense procurement.

Number 1 is that any patents on the purchased equipment has to be turned over to the US government (this is one of the biggest reasons for Glock not seeking a contract for instance). The reasoning behind this is that following the initial contract the US government opens it up for bidding, where small contractors usually get undercut by larger concerns. Good example? Colt's CGL-5 loses out to AAI's XM203 during trials, AAI produces the first run and then Colt produces the majority of subsequent units.

Number 2 is that these "foreign" systems we're using are mostly made in the United States, another common requirement for foreign equipment to be purchased by the US government. We're a capitalist economy. If we're buying something, we'd like to see jobs go to Americans so we can feel like we're paying ourselves. With globalization this has become more prevalent anyways.

Just important things to remember when you discuss US defense procurement.

[loktarr]

We're a capitalist economy.



I would call that protectionnism http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif true capitalism ignores borders. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[thatguy96]

loktarr said:


We're a capitalist economy.



I would call that protectionnism http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif true capitalism ignores borders. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


Quite right, but true capitalism also believes that markets balance themselves out on their own 100% of the time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I'm sure US economists would say the protectionism is required for proper functioning...ie, so we don't lose out http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[narwan]

Some would, most don't though as free trade is a win/win situation per defenition. It's protectionistic measures that turn it into a win/lose situation instead. And then it becomes a fight of who'll 'win' and who'll 'lose'. In fact both will lose as the net benefit in a non-protectionistic win/win situation will be higher for both...

Narwan

[Randy]

The Marine Corps LAVs were Canadian built! These are about two generations behind the current Army Strykers which I think are built by General Dynamics.