Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Carl Gustaf is getting a ‘game changing’ laser-guided munition

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Carl Gustaf is getting a ‘game changing’ laser-guided munition


    https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...ided-munition/

    The Carl Gustaf is getting a ‘game changing’ laser-guided munition


    By: Shawn Snow



    The 84mm recoilless rifle known as the Carl Gustaf boasts a number of munitions for a variety of missions, but with one noticeable gap: a precision guided munition.

    Until now.

    Raytheon has been working the past couple of years with Saab, the makers of the anti-tank, shoulder-fired Gustaf, to develop a laser-guided munition, according to Townsend Blanchard, a senior manager with Raytheon’s land warfare systems and Green Beret with the Army National Guard.

    The new Gustaf laser-guided projectile features a multi-target warhead capable of defeating bunkers, concrete, light skinned vehicles and armored personnel carriers, and has a range of nearly 2,000 meters, Blanchard explained.
    2000m range for charlie guts ache. Nice.

  • #2
    Hmm. That looks interesting.

    Comment


    • #3
      Looks like someone is trying to reinvent the wheel. Just buy a Metis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K115-2_Metis-M) instead.

      Also, they propose a Carl Gustav in every squad? What are they smoking? I feel sorry for those poor individuals who would be tasked with lugging around a Carl Gustav + ammunition for it. This is what an AT4/RPG-22 is for.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ak16 View Post
        Looks like someone is trying to reinvent the wheel. Just buy a Metis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K115-2_Metis-M) instead.
        You are comparing apples and oranges
        Not same use
        CG is a RCL, man portable antitank or multipurpose multi shot tube
        Metis is an anti tank (while it exists other kinds of warheads) missile
        Price, complexity of use, weight, easiness of warhead change etc all things are not comparable
        It is like if you asked to adopt an improved Sagger in exchange of an RPG7

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mordoror View Post

          You are comparing apples and oranges
          Not same use
          CG is a RCL, man portable antitank or multipurpose multi shot tube
          Metis is an anti tank (while it exists other kinds of warheads) missile
          Price, complexity of use, weight, easiness of warhead change etc all things are not comparable
          It is like if you asked to adopt an improved Sagger in exchange of an RPG7
          In terms of weight, function and effective combat distance of the guided munitions, a Metis and CG are very similar.
          If someone designed a guided missile for an RPG7 (with size and weight characteristics similar to a Metis), I would also ask "What are they smoking"?

          PS: It is very common practice to use thermobaric warheads for a Metis against bunkers and other emplacements, since its AT capabilities are limited against modern tanks due to the weight and size constraints required for the easy portability by a 2-man squad (A Konkurs or Kornet would perform much better in an AT role).

          PPS: Watch a video of a Metis being transported, installed, fired and reloaded before commenting about the complexity of use.

          Comment


          • #6
            Even if ...we wouldn't buy any Metis sysetm in Europe or the West in general.

            Milan - Spike - Javelin ...you name it...the Russian equivalent would be something along the SPG-9

            Rafael even set up european production for the Spike called Eurospike

            https://www.eurospike.com/index.html


            The CG is really universal and powerfull until today.


            The BW only fires some illumination rounds .







            But it is simple - reliable - cheap.


            As long as there aren't high tech MBTs coming after you it would often do the trick for less money.

            Look here and you'll see teh difference to the missile sysetms




            Norwegians training with it - don't be behind when firing!!

            Comment


            • #7
              In terms of weight, function and effective combat distance of the guided munitions, a Metis and CG are very similar.
              LoL.

              A Metis launcher is more than 14 kg with container.
              A CG tube is less than 10 kg, even less for the composite tubes (M4 variant is about 6.5 kg).
              Same weight, sure

              Same function ? Would you fire an ATGM in a narrow street ?
              How many Metis a platoon on foot would carry and how many CG shells ?

              A Metis is a tripod launched (so fixed position) launched ordnance, the CG can be shoulder fired
              A Metis is a three man crewed weapon (optimaly), the CG is a two man crewed
              The Metis is a company level weapon, the CG is a platoon level weapon
              The traveling-set in battery-fire-return to traveling position takes several tenth of seconds on a Metis, almost none on a GC

              But whatever floats your boat

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ak16 View Post

                In terms of weight, function and effective combat distance of the guided munitions, a Metis and CG are very similar.
                If someone designed a guided missile for an RPG7 (with size and weight characteristics similar to a Metis), I would also ask "What are they smoking"?
                Yes, with their guided munitions, but both the RPG-7 and the CG have a much wider range of uses.

                See it like this you have a CG (or RPG-7) and an AT-13, then someone designs a type of CG munition that eliminates the need for an AT-13.
                You then only have one weapon system to buy, one to train on and it can fill a myriad of rolls.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ak16 View Post
                  In terms of weight, function and effective combat distance of the guided munitions, a Metis and CG are very similar.
                  If someone designed a guided missile for an RPG7 (with size and weight characteristics similar to a Metis), I would also ask "What are they smoking"?
                  Hmmz. Metis is almost twice the weight of the latest versions of CG (M4), has two types of munitions (HEAT and thermobaric) and can penetrate almost twice the armor compared to CG. CG has a dozen different munitions from various HE/HEAT/HEDP to smoke and illumination. Not sure how that counts as very similar in terms of weight and function.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Aint no BBDA on a computer sim
                    10quotesandhints

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Yet another reason never to join Armoured
                      Last edited by Stonecutter; 10-10-2018, 02:57 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by drax View Post
                        Hmmz. Metis is almost twice the weight of the latest versions of CG (M4), has two types of munitions (HEAT and thermobaric) and can penetrate almost twice the armor compared to CG. CG has a dozen different munitions from various HE/HEAT/HEDP to smoke and illumination. Not sure how that counts as very similar in terms of weight and function.
                        Re-read what I wrote: In terms of weight, function and effective combat distance of the guided munitions, a Metis and CG are very similar.

                        What is the point of coupling the functionality of a much larger munition into a weapon system that is designed for something else entirely? CG is turning into a Frankenstein; initially starting out as a recoilless rifle, slowly morphing into a rocket-propelled grenade, and is now trying hard to mimic an ATGM. This obsession by paper-pushers in military leadership to increase the firepower of a squad at all costs and therefore force the poor-arse infantry to lug all that crap around will only result in men having the health of a pensioner upon conclusion of their military service. It's all fun and games on video, until you are the one having to go on a hike with all that weight. If it is necessary to provide some bunker-busting ability to the infantry squad, just replace some of the AT4 with an RShg-2 analogue or similar. In fact, something like this would be a perfect addition to the infantry section and would replace both the RShg-2 and AT4:



                        At the same time, a platoon-level support unit with either MPATS or light, man-portable, and multipurpose ATGM would provide a longer-ranged support option.

                        Originally posted by Stonecutter View Post
                        Yet another reason never to join Armoured
                        Historically, combat statistics shows that crews of combat vehicles suffer a lesser percentage of combat casualties than do infantry, or even aircraft crews (i.e. ratio of number of casualties to number of combat participant). Such statistical tendencies have held since at least WW2. In fact, avoiding joining the infantry at all costs is a much better strategy; let some other poor schmuck die in ones own place.


                        Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                        LoL.

                        A Metis launcher is more than 14 kg with container.
                        A CG tube is less than 10 kg, even less for the composite tubes (M4 variant is about 6.5 kg).
                        Same weight, sure

                        Same function ? Would you fire an ATGM in a narrow street ?
                        How many Metis a platoon on foot would carry and how many CG shells ?

                        A Metis is a tripod launched (so fixed position) launched ordnance, the CG can be shoulder fired
                        A Metis is a three man crewed weapon (optimaly), the CG is a two man crewed
                        The Metis is a company level weapon, the CG is a platoon level weapon
                        The traveling-set in battery-fire-return to traveling position takes several tenth of seconds on a Metis, almost none on a GC

                        But whatever floats your boat
                        Be careful, laughing arbitrarily could be a sign of debilism.

                        I was explicitly referring to the capabilities of the guided munitions. I am well-aware that the closer analogue to a CG is an RPG-7. However, how heavy do you imagine a guided missile that can reach out to 2000m is going to be? Unless someone managed to break the laws of physics, expect such a guided missile to weigh as much as a comparable ATGM missile. How many such guided missiles can a 2-man team lug around, in addition to the rounds that are vital in providing the primary function of a CG team within the battle space (i.e. engaging light armour and infantry to <1000m)? What is the point of turning a CG into an expensive Frankenstein that attempts to be a jack-of-all-trades but master of none? Why not simply add a light multi-function ATGM into the platoon?

                        Logic tells me that the aggregate weight of CG+guided munition+laser designator will be comparable to something like a Korsar (http://www.military-today.com/missiles/korsar.htm).

                        In regards to Metis:
                        1) Metis (like the Eryx) can be shot from the shoulder (although such a mode of operation is not optimal).
                        2) Metis is a company-level weapon. However, it makes significantly more sense to transfer a company-level weapon to platoon-level, than for a platoon-level weapon to move into a section (which is mentioned in the article in regards to CG), or to transform a platoon-level weapon into a RR/RPG/ATGM Frankenstein such that it no longer can optimally fulfil its previous function.
                        3) I think you are being disingenuous when you state that a CG takes almost no time to transition b/w travel ready-fire ready-travel ready.
                        Last edited by ak16; 10-10-2018, 09:01 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by picanha View Post
                          Even if ...we wouldn't buy any Metis sysetm in Europe or the West in general.

                          Milan - Spike - Javelin ...you name it...the Russian equivalent would be something along the SPG-9

                          Rafael even set up european production for the Spike called Eurospike
                          SPG-9 has been removed from Russian service decades ago and has been replaced by Metis.
                          Why? Because an ATGM is superior to a recoilless rifle/gun in terms of round weight, range, and accuracy.
                          In fact, there are not many recoilless rifles/guns left in military service in the world. CG might have been one of the very last of such anachronisms. Fortunately for the users of CG, it has been progressively adapting with the times and is now capable of being referred to as an RPG.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ak16 View Post

                            SPG-9 has been removed from Russian service decades ago and has been replaced by Metis.
                            Why? Because an ATGM is superior to a recoilless rifle/gun in terms of round weight, range, and accuracy.

                            You might want to stop comparing Russian stuff/ doctrine, with First World nations. Or, at least, educate yourself better about others practises.

                            Talking about the Metis, in fine in regards to Russia. But, if the West ever had any man portable wire-guided system it's been replaced by the Javelin, or whatever. TOW's, as far as I'm aware, were/ are all veh/ heli/ fixed mounted. Wire-guided is 1960's tech.

                            Originally posted by ak16 View Post
                            In fact, there are not many recoilless rifles/guns left in military service in the world. CG might have been one of the very last of such anachronisms. Fortunately for the users of CG, it has been progressively adapting with the times and is now capable of being referred to as an RPG.
                            No.

                            M72's (or derivatives), Charlie G's, AT4's are all issued in enormous numbers with an enormous number of countries. Think it was on the old Milphotos site where some one posted a story about US soldiers bringing old 105mm recoilless rifles to Afghanistan.

                            You should probably read the article you're commenting on, evolving RR's was exactly what it was about. Although, I suppose if they use guided munitions, you could argue they're not RR's anymore.

                            I'm guessing armytimes.com is an American site due to it's mentioning Raytheon and not mentioning the MBT-LAW. Am not quite sure what Saab Bofors are doing, co- operating with Raytheon on this project, which will be in competition with their MBT-LAW they've developed with Thales.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ak16 View Post



                              Be careful, laughing arbitrarily could be a sign of debilism.

                              I was explicitly referring to the capabilities of the guided munitions. I am well-aware that the closer analogue to a CG is an RPG-7. However, how heavy do you imagine a guided missile that can reach out to 2000m is going to be? Unless someone managed to break the laws of physics, expect such a guided missile to weigh as much as a comparable ATGM missile. How many such guided missiles can a 2-man team lug around, in addition to the rounds that are vital in providing the primary function of a CG team within the battle space (i.e. engaging light armour and infantry to <1000m)? What is the point of turning a CG into an expensive Frankenstein that attempts to be a jack-of-all-trades but master of none? Why not simply add a light multi-function ATGM into the platoon?

                              Logic tells me that the aggregate weight of CG+guided munition+laser designator will be comparable to something like a Korsar (http://www.military-today.com/missiles/korsar.htm).

                              In regards to Metis:
                              1) Metis (like the Eryx) can be shot from the shoulder (although such a mode of operation is not optimal).
                              2) Metis is a company-level weapon. However, it makes significantly more sense to transfer a company-level weapon to platoon-level, than for a platoon-level weapon to move into a section (which is mentioned in the article in regards to CG), or to transform a platoon-level weapon into a RR/RPG/ATGM Frankenstein such that it no longer can optimally fulfil its previous function.
                              3) I think you are being disingenuous when you state that a CG takes almost no time to transition b/w travel ready-fire ready-travel ready.
                              And beating the same horse with jjust conjecture to score points on the netz is a sign of trollism
                              OK i ll go in a simpler way

                              Metis = ATGM = engine + fuel cell + guidance receiving cells + warhead (fuse, explosive and whatever fancy system you want in it)
                              A CG shell has no engine, no fuel cell, it is just a fuse + explosive
                              A laser guiding system is not that heavy if you don't had additional flip flap engine exhausts. Fin controled trajectory is as fine and less heavy
                              This is what is used in laser guided helicopter rockets. It doesn't make the ordnance much more heavy. An APKWS laser guided 70 mm rocket around 14-15 kg. An Hydra 70 mm is around 12-13 kg. Miniaturisation has improved since the 90s (date of service of the Metis), you know ?

                              About 3/, maybe you should have fired an Atk launcher once in your life to know that it takes less than 10 sec from traveling to loading, aiming and firing
                              Which takes more with a tripod missile launcher
                              RoF for the CG is given at 6 / min
                              RoF for the Metis is given at 2-3/ min

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X