Gerald Bull is smiling.
Posted on 01/25/2019 9:55:01 AM PST by Red Badger
The U.S. Army is continuing development of a so-called “super gun” artillery piece capable of sending projectiles 1,000 miles downrange, or more than far enough to be free of counterbattery fire from existing enemy guns.
Top service officials say the new gun, when fully developed and deployed, would be able to attack targets in and around China, including Beijing’s bases on the South China Sea islands, well out of range of Chinese defenses.
“You can imagine a scenario where the Navy feels that it cannot get into the South China Sea because of Chinese naval vessels, or whatever,” Army Secretary Mark Esper said during a media roundtable earlier this week.
“We can – from a fixed location, on an island or some other place – engage enemy targets, naval targets, at great distances and maintain our standoff and yet open the door, if you will, for naval assets or Marine assets,” he added.
Testing with extended-range artillery is part of the service’s aim to incorporate hypersonic technology into new weapons systems in which the Pentagon chose some years ago not to weaponize. That’s changing now as near-peer competitors like China and Russia develop and field their own hypersonic delivery systems for both conventional and nuclear warheads.
Task & Purpose asked Esper why the Army believes it needs artillery pieces that can fire shells up to 1,000 miles; he responded by saying that the military has a mission requirement to outrage enemy guns.
“You want to be outside the range that they can hit you,” Esper said.
“Why was the spear developed? Because the other guy had a sword. A spear gives you range,” he said. “Why was the sling developed? Because the spear closed off the range of the sword. You want to always have standoff where you can strike without being struck back. That’s what extended-range cannon artillery gives us, case in point vis-à-vis the Russians.”
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2016, U.S. Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley was asked if the U.S. military was outranged or outgunned by any potential adversary.
“Yes … the ones in Europe, really Russia. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, but yes, technically [we are] outranged, outgunned on the ground,” he said.
Last year, reports noted that the Army was developing a new prototype Extended Ranger Cannon Artillery weapon that had a larger-caliber tube and new grooves designed to hang weights for gravity adjustments, really just a modified M777A2 mobile gun.
Officials noted that the modifications increased the weapon’s range from about 30 km (18 miles) to about 70 km (43 miles).
That said, a senior Army official told Warrior Maven, “Just because I can shoot farther, that does not mean I solve the issue. I have to acquire the right target. We want to be able to hit moving targets and targets obscured by uneven terrain.”
Gerald Bull is smiling.
That was the name that popped into my mind when I read the headline.
Great, how many billions is this boondoggle going to cost us while invaders are streaming over the border and voting in our elections? I wish just one of these “gee whiz” weapons would prove operational in less than a generation. But I guess a military industrial complex generation needs their paychecks.
Who is Gerald Bull. Got me curious.
I don’t see that a gun like that would our-perform a missile. Especially nap-of-the-earth cruise missiles.
A ballistic (non-guided) path is VERY easy to track and calculate when the projectile originated. And answer with a hyper-sonic, nap-of-the-earth cruise response.
...unless the long-range projectile is also stealthy.
Placing it in the center of a 2000 mile border, 1000 miles to the right and 1000 miles to the left, could do wonders.
Gerald Bull was totally amazing.
A maverick, far ahead of this time:
The Werner Von Braun of artillery.
In the end, TOO good for his own good, I guess.
Gerald Bull chose his employers poorly ...
I would prefer Rods From God. Which I happen to think we have tested and deployed. But I have no inside information. I’m just guessing.
See post 8 above, for the nutshell version.
Gerald Bull took on a wide array of int’l clients who had artillery needs.
Eventually the Israelis started to dislike it.
Eh....SOMETHING happened to him, and it wasn’t good.
Same here! Got to be leveraging his research.
Maybe we’ll see the return of Coastal Artillery! Sign me up.
The cost of firing the weapon would be the advantage over a cruise missile.
We can shoot down artillery shells
“I don’t see that a gun like that would our-perform a missile. Especially nap-of-the-earth cruise missiles.
A ballistic (non-guided) path is VERY easy to track and calculate when the projectile originated. And answer with a hyper-sonic, nap-of-the-earth cruise response.
...unless the long-range projectile is also stealthy.”
An artillery shell, even a very sophisticated artillery shell, is way, way cheaper than a missile. So you get lower cost and a much higher number of deliveries on target at a rapid pace.
I yearn more for the days when battleships were the ultimate weapon.
This new stuff is just ridiculous.
Here's an outraged gun's best friend, an angry bullet.
We can shoot down artillery shells
><
Lasers?
Battleships have tremendous romantic appeal. So much firepower. It’s pure, flamboyant Aggro.
But, alas, they don’t make much sense anymore.
Iron Dome missiles
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.