It's been tested by the US army. Either it's true or several sources are lying. That said, projects that passed the testing phase don't always perform on the battlefield. The GLSDB is one example.
There's plenty of equipment that is worth a $52k round and the $168k missile only has a range of 80 km. There is equipment in the 25-80 km range that can be destroyed by 5 kg explosives, which is less expensive.
As cauldrons are formed, an extended range provides standoff capabilities for artillery that is outside the cauldron, even if the target is only 0-15 km from the zero line. If some guns are in range but cannot fire because enemy reconnaissance drones are overhead, other guns in reserve mode could fire, if needed, from ranges outside of the observation of reconnaissance drones.
In WW2, one of the strengths of the US army was communications. At one point during the Battle of the Bulge, the artillery assets of three US divisions were temporarily transferred to one division to stop a German assault and they provided that support with little to no movement due to their range. On Okinawa, a Japanese regiment started assembling in the open during daylight for a kamikaze charge. Within 15 minutes, every 105 mm, 155 mm, naval destroyer, cruiser and battleship gun within range were coordinated different sectors of the large target and all the shells were fired at different intervals so they arrived at the same time, destroying the regiment.
Theoretically, (with standard communication and coordination among all units), Ukraine could put a gun in Lymanivka (100 km west of Sloviansk) and hit the front line in Kamianske (in Zaporizhzhia oblast) to 22 km north of Kupiansk (Kharkiv Oblast). Depending on needs and target value, a single gun could provide widespread additional capability across half front line.
It is another tool with different capabilities. Battlefield usage has yet to confirm its usefulness.
"In WW2, one of the strengths of the US army was communication"
The main strength of the US army in any conflict has always been that its production, training, administrative and economic centres were untouchable by the enemy.
Thanks Don. With all of the above, it should be taken into account that the speed of building up the military potential of any country is directly related to state funding. That is, if there are relevant state programs and the budget has money to increase the volume of military production, then there will be modernization of production, and there will be space for new workshops and everything else. Here is an example:
FDR was also very creative in getting stuff to the Allies while the US was still "neutral" 300x6tons tanks to Canada as "Scrap" and planes parked beside the border "disappearing" overnite. By the time Dec 7th happened, the USN was already engaging U-boats on the East Coast.
In Ukraine case, they also had to deal with a government that was full of either Soviet trained leaders, or Russian aligned politicians. Russia had hoped that their infiltrations/connections in the political sphere was going to give them a massive advantage in preventing Ukraine from acting in a cohesive manner against them and for awhile that did work. But they underestimated Ukraine nationalism and the desire not to live under Moscow thumb yet again.
The Reuben James destroyer was sunk by a U-boat on 31 October, 1941. 50 WW1 and post-WW1 destroyers were given to the UK and Canada in return for 99-year leaseson multiple bases that Britain and Canada would no longer have to garrison. Planes were flown to the Canadian border and pulled across by tractor or horse.
Very interesting concept of manufacturing there. Open source manufacturing… but I wonder. You wrote: Any changes will be tested and certified by Sceptre and if it passes safety and efficacy standards it will be approved for production. You didn’t misspell here? It is aspected, not Sceptre? :-)
It's a similar project. Nammo is partnering with Boeing and test fired their shell by October 2023 already and it also has a 150 km range. BAE and Raytheon are also working on a competing product since 2020 and tested it in April 2023 and it has a range of "over 100 km."
Really interesting!
Thank you very much.
Interesting, but sorry, Sceptre sounds too good to be true. ramjet re-ignition? good luck!
Also, what is the realistic use-case? what type of targets is worth hitting 150 km away with only 5 kg TNT? it also has to be stationary.
It's been tested by the US army. Either it's true or several sources are lying. That said, projects that passed the testing phase don't always perform on the battlefield. The GLSDB is one example.
There's plenty of equipment that is worth a $52k round and the $168k missile only has a range of 80 km. There is equipment in the 25-80 km range that can be destroyed by 5 kg explosives, which is less expensive.
As cauldrons are formed, an extended range provides standoff capabilities for artillery that is outside the cauldron, even if the target is only 0-15 km from the zero line. If some guns are in range but cannot fire because enemy reconnaissance drones are overhead, other guns in reserve mode could fire, if needed, from ranges outside of the observation of reconnaissance drones.
In WW2, one of the strengths of the US army was communications. At one point during the Battle of the Bulge, the artillery assets of three US divisions were temporarily transferred to one division to stop a German assault and they provided that support with little to no movement due to their range. On Okinawa, a Japanese regiment started assembling in the open during daylight for a kamikaze charge. Within 15 minutes, every 105 mm, 155 mm, naval destroyer, cruiser and battleship gun within range were coordinated different sectors of the large target and all the shells were fired at different intervals so they arrived at the same time, destroying the regiment.
Theoretically, (with standard communication and coordination among all units), Ukraine could put a gun in Lymanivka (100 km west of Sloviansk) and hit the front line in Kamianske (in Zaporizhzhia oblast) to 22 km north of Kupiansk (Kharkiv Oblast). Depending on needs and target value, a single gun could provide widespread additional capability across half front line.
It is another tool with different capabilities. Battlefield usage has yet to confirm its usefulness.
"In WW2, one of the strengths of the US army was communication"
The main strength of the US army in any conflict has always been that its production, training, administrative and economic centres were untouchable by the enemy.
This is rapidly changing.
This is an excellent article Don, really interesting and brilliant detail. Will be sharing and referring to. Good work 👍
Amazing information, thanks for sharing!
Thanks Don. With all of the above, it should be taken into account that the speed of building up the military potential of any country is directly related to state funding. That is, if there are relevant state programs and the budget has money to increase the volume of military production, then there will be modernization of production, and there will be space for new workshops and everything else. Here is an example:
https://focus.ua/voennye-novosti/637869-tysyacha-snaryadov-v-sutki-v-kitae-pokazali-avtomatizirovannyy-zavod-po-vypusku-oruzhiya-video
None of this will be done for private orders. The most striking examples are the production of Patriots and Stingers.
Definitely. All the trade with China is increasing their military capability. The energy that is still being bought from Russia is killing Ukrainians.
FDR was also very creative in getting stuff to the Allies while the US was still "neutral" 300x6tons tanks to Canada as "Scrap" and planes parked beside the border "disappearing" overnite. By the time Dec 7th happened, the USN was already engaging U-boats on the East Coast.
In Ukraine case, they also had to deal with a government that was full of either Soviet trained leaders, or Russian aligned politicians. Russia had hoped that their infiltrations/connections in the political sphere was going to give them a massive advantage in preventing Ukraine from acting in a cohesive manner against them and for awhile that did work. But they underestimated Ukraine nationalism and the desire not to live under Moscow thumb yet again.
The Reuben James destroyer was sunk by a U-boat on 31 October, 1941. 50 WW1 and post-WW1 destroyers were given to the UK and Canada in return for 99-year leaseson multiple bases that Britain and Canada would no longer have to garrison. Planes were flown to the Canadian border and pulled across by tractor or horse.
https://www.mainememory.net/record/103726
Ukraine's military is still suffering from the Soviet mentality at the senior levels.
Thanks again Don for this very important post. The US has to get out of this industrial production slump asap.
Very interesting concept of manufacturing there. Open source manufacturing… but I wonder. You wrote: Any changes will be tested and certified by Sceptre and if it passes safety and efficacy standards it will be approved for production. You didn’t misspell here? It is aspected, not Sceptre? :-)
Nice article, tks.
Is this the same ammo that Nammo is working on?
Or is it just a similar project?
https://www.nammo.com/story/the-range-revolution/
Looks like they are working with Boeing on this. (wich could be a good thing, if u are supposed to crash things into other things to make it explode)
It's a similar project. Nammo is partnering with Boeing and test fired their shell by October 2023 already and it also has a 150 km range. BAE and Raytheon are also working on a competing product since 2020 and tested it in April 2023 and it has a range of "over 100 km."