ST 120 SRAS is better than US M150/151 Dismounted Mortar FCS
-
his " M150/M151Dismounted Mortar Fire Control System, Winner of the 2007( US) DOD Top 5 Program Award." looks very clumsy.
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System of ST Engineering is much better.
Risks of M 150--
Towed sys bad for movement
Needs to lower the mortar
unprotected for crews
wat do u think?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/7938tillinghasttuesday.pdf
Technology Innovations Realized in the M150/M151 Dismounted Fire Control System Development Authored By AmitMakhijani & Ralph Tillinghast
7938 - Technology Innovations Realized in the M150/M151 Dismounted Fire Control System Development, Mr. Ralph Tillinghast, U.S. Army ARDEC - Picatinny
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009gunmissile/2009gunmissile.html
http://www.stengg.com/upload/919W2DVfEKcZfUCEYDK.pdf
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System (SRAMS) Singapore Technologies Kinetic'
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
120mm Super Rapid Advanced Mortar System
look how nice of ST 120 SRAS--below
on ATTC
on
M150/M151Dismounted Mortar Fire Control System---below
look for yourself
-
Mounted on a light vehicle like Spider ??
Sure or not 
Hahaha..... fire 2-3 rounds the bottom give way
But jokes aside.... that would give the Spider - Fire Support - capablility.....
-
make that, shoot and scoot fire support capability...
-
i wonder if the recoil from the mortars firing will move the LSV and will effect the accuracy of the next few rounds.
-
Originally posted by Man!x:
i wonder if the recoil from the mortars firing will move the LSV and will effect the accuracy of the next few rounds.
The SRAMs has supposedly pretty low recoil to allow wheel vehicles to mount it. Also, being a mortar, its not terribly accurate in the first place. What it makes up for quality, it makes up in quantity of firepower delivered.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
The SRAMs has supposedly pretty low recoil to allow wheel vehicles to mount it. Also, being a mortar, its not terribly accurate in the first place. What it makes up for quality, it makes up in quantity of firepower delivered.
Modern mortar can be pretty accurate. In Vietnam war, A stray tank can be quickly zero in a dozen of seconds and destroy in few kilometre away.Not to mention in the 21st century, better mortar is produced.The only problem with present mortar is calibre is getting bigger and bigger to meet more well protected enemy in modern times and this causes quite a logistic problem to a have continue reliable, accurate and heavy firepower mortar.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
The SRAMs has supposedly pretty low recoil to allow wheel vehicles to mount it. Also, being a mortar, its not terribly accurate in the first place. What it makes up for quality, it makes up in quantity of firepower delivered.
But due to the 'small' size of the Spider..... and the huge size of the 120mm rounds.... won't they at least need 2 Spider (1 carry Mortar, another carry Rounds) just to be able to support troops from more than a few minutes
-
I found a website (in armytechnology.com) with more detailed info on the various configurations of the Spider, including for SRAMS here. It says a single Spider can only carry 6, so you'll need a tandem vehicle.
-
Sorry, in my previous post, I meant a single Spider can only carry 6 SRAMS mortar rounds.
-
If all 6 are PGMMs, like the himars, then it could be sufficient. Otherwise agreed resupply is necessary.
-
Are SAF Spiders equipped with SRAMs ?
Or is it in prototype stage only ?
-
Originally posted by Sepecat:
Are SAF Spiders equipped with SRAMs ?
Or is it in prototype stage only ?
According to the Website - OldBird69 - provided.... SAF have already procured 50 Spider SRAM units..... Interesting....
-
Originally posted by hloc:
According to the Website - OldBird69 - provided.... SAF have already procured 50 Spider SRAM units..... Interesting....
That may not be correct. The original source appears to be an interview during the Singapore airshow with a senior engineer at ST engineering who mentioned 50 units but did not specify that it was the SRAM version. He may also have been referring to 50 units of SRAM (which may include bronco units)
http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDS&i=3379541
If one can't access the link directly, you can try here and click on the story for Feb 19 2008 under "ST engineering shows off spider"
-
weasel1962 is right ; it is unclear if the person interviewed meant 50 Spiders , 50 Spiders with SRAM or just 50 SRAMS.
The interviewee has truly weaved a "web" of confusion.
-
Originally posted by zenden9:
Modern mortar can be pretty accurate. In Vietnam war, A stray tank can be quickly zero in a dozen of seconds and destroy in few kilometre away.Not to mention in the 21st century, better mortar is produced.The only problem with present mortar is calibre is getting bigger and bigger to meet more well protected enemy in modern times and this causes quite a logistic problem to a have continue reliable, accurate and heavy firepower mortar.
Fair enough about the accuracy. But with a high firing rate, I highly doubt the intention was to land mortar rounds, one on top of the other but rather in a "footprint" on enemy positions.
Also, high firing rates (thanks to technologies) makes it possible to achieve MRSI effects with just one tube though I'm not sure if the SRAM is capable of MRSI.
-
Isn't MRSI just a function of charge/propellant vs angle? High angle, big charge to travel x distance = standard angle + less charge. More difficult for mortar as shell distance normally shorter.
Considering that 10 rounds per minute = 6 seconds per round, its almost simultaneous already (since MRSI = 4 seconds between rounds impacting). The claims of 18 rounds per minute would have satisfied that claim even without change in charges.
-
Originally posted by weasel1962:
Isn't MRSI just a function of charge/propellant vs angle? High angle, big charge to travel x distance = standard angle + less charge. More difficult for mortar as shell distance normally shorter.
Considering that 10 rounds per minute = 6 seconds per round, its almost simultaneous already (since MRSI = 4 seconds between rounds impacting). The claims of 18 rounds per minute would have satisfied that claim even without change in charges.
Thats how it works, but there is also the technology aspect. A computer can do these calculations once an MRSI mode is selected or enabled.
-
Few SG people would like to accept that SG is ahead of few G8 countries
in some niche markets of military hard wares.
Which countries or which MNC can produce all of the following stuff
like
Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd?
The list is endless here--go to Products
http://www.stengg.com/CoyCapPro/listing.aspx?pdtypeid=1
The whole page advertisements at Janes Defence weekly in mid 2009.
Top row from left--
Primus 155mm 39 Calibre Self Propelled Howitzer
(re Primus--Poor USA NLOS-Cannon is scrapped)
Pegasus 155mm 39 Calibre Light Weight Howitzer
(any comparable products by USA or UK?)
FH 2000 52 Calibre 155mm Field Howitzer
(M 777,whatever the version , is motionless ,ie powerless.
It needs men,women,horse,bulls or donkeys to move M 777 for 10 meters!
The simple reason is some wise men decide that M 777 shall not equipped with
Auxiliary Power Unit-APU,ie a engine!!)
bottom row
120 SARS on Bronco All Terrain Tracked Carrier--(UK MOD ordered this ATTC
and other versions from ST Eng.UK MOD dropped the BvS 10 and 26 ,the few decades monopoly in ATTC,to take Singapore ATTC.)
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Thats how it works, but there is also the technology aspect. A computer can do these calculations once an MRSI mode is selected or enabled.
Its interesting to note current PM Lee being the person to introduce arty calculators to the SAF. -
This is needed by Indian Army...
Singapore does not need it.
Singapore Armed Forces are focused in Naval ships from
Taiwan navy...Taiwanese tanks/military equipment are
supposed to be sold to Singapore.
In January 1952, a conference in Washington DC on the subject of self-propelled artillery indicated an urgent need for improved self-propelled artillery. Preliminary concept studies began for a self-propelled howitzer to replace the existing 155mm M44. The first designs in August 1952 for the new vehicle, designated the Howitzer 156mm Self-Propelled T196, were rejected, as were additional studies presented in September 1953. At a conference in May 1954, a concept was finally approved.
In June 1954, a review of the military characteristics of the entire self-propelled program decided that future concepts of the T196 would be prepared along the design proposed for the Howitzer 110mm Self-Propelled T195, which was already in production. In June 1956, it was decided to use the basic hull and turret of the T195 but the original 156 mm howitzer was replaced by a 155 mm howitzer after NATO had standardized this caliber in 1956.
In October 1956, the mockup of the T196 was reviewed and verbal authority was given to proceed with development of the first prototype. The main differences from the T195 were power elevating and turret traverse mechanisms, different ammunition racks and two spades at the rear of the hull. The first prototype of the T196 was completed in 1959, about six months later than the 105 mm T195. During preliminary User Evaluation at Fort Knox a number of failures occurred in the suspension. The prototype differed from later vehicles in that it had a different shaped hull and turret, the seventh roadwheel acted as the idler and it was powered by a Continental petrol engine.