New Brit "Search & Destroy" Artillery shells

The MoD has recently awarded a contract to GIWS in Germany for a new breed of anti-armour "Smart" Artillery shells for the 155mm AS90 Self-propelled gun.

MoD Defence News

The Ballistic Sensor Fused Munition (BFSM) fires a 155mm shell that splits over the target, dropping a parachute-equipped sub-munition that locks on to enemy armour, attacking it from above.

The BSFM is the first component of the £1.5 billion Category A Indirect Fire Precision Attack (IFPA) procurement programme. The IFPA programme envisages a mix of five munitions, acquired incrementally, which will provide the British Army with a new capability to attack and destroy high value targets, such as enemy armoured vehicles, including tanks, and fortifications, at ranges up to 300km, around the clock and in all weather conditions. It will consist of munitions for both gun and rocket launcher platforms and will build to full capability by 2017. Wargaming has concluded that IFPA will be a key battle winner in any future conflict.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by PaddyInf]

mod edit: changed quote tags to external quote tags.
Quote Reference (review link)

[edit on 5-12-2007 by UK Wizard]

hmmm i thought the British Army was using `Skeet` rounds for the MLRS they use (MGM-140A) - i know they were sent to Helmand in april with `new` guided munitions.

The MGM-140 drops large numbers of AP/AT duel purpose sub munitions over a large area. They cost a lot of money and don't go down too well with the tree huggers, due to the large number of UXOs it can potentially leave behind.

The 155mm option above is more accurate over its' effective range (30km), targets a single vehicle, and is considerably cheaper than a MLRS rocket. The base system (AS90) is also cheaper than the MLRS and more are in current service.

It is being introduced as part of a new system of overlapping weapon systems that will allow individual precision target engagement at ranges up to 300km. No doubt MLRS will play some part in this new system.

Its almost a twenty year old concept, I'm quite frankly surprised that its taken this long. When I first read about this type of system it was being studied in two forms, one was as a sub-munition from an from an airborne canister, just like a cluster bomb. Except that the sub munitions an infra-red detector to locate the target vehicle. The submunition was then steered towards the target while in the parachute, and when in range it fired its exposivley formed copper penetrator throught the top of the tank. If no suitible target is located before it hit the ground then it lands and becomes an pop-up anti-vehicle mine. It was to have used milimeter wave radar to seek the target while in the air, along with the infra-red detectors, or mass proximity sensors in the case that it is on the ground.
It also surprises me that the the MOD is procuring it from german company as it was designed by the british with input from the US DOD.

Seems like the Excalibur munition would be more efficient than this.

But interesting design.

Shattered OUT...

Let the British Empire prevail.

Thanks for the news.

Would a well placed round from a standard issue rifle put one of those floating bad boys out of action? (before it acquires it's target of course)

I think I just invented a new game - It's a hybrid of clay pigeon shooting and Russian Roulette!

Originally posted by Now_Then
Would a well placed round from a standard issue rifle put one of those floating bad boys out of action? (before it acquires it's target of course)

I don't know to be honest. The thing is it would probably be dropped along with AP munitions to engage supporting infantry, or possibly smoke to obscure the slow-moving sub-munition.

Its almost a twenty year old concept, I'm quite frankly surprised that its taken this long. When I first read about this type of system it was being studied in two forms, one was as a sub-munition from an from an airborne canister, just like a cluster bomb.

This has indeed been used for several years in the form of various MLRS missiles. The new part is that it's being fired singly in a standard artillery shell.

If no suitible target is located before it hit the ground then it lands and becomes an pop-up anti-vehicle mine.

This would have implications regarding the laying of minefields under the Ottowa Convention regarding landmines. Mines are not a great choice of weapon considering the various PR wars we're fighting at the minute.

I hope the unexploded oridnance don't look like little yellow drop packs of food.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Seems like the Excalibur munition would be more efficient than this.

But interesting design.

Shattered OUT...

I'd like them to get Excalibur as well as BSFM (based on GIWS SMArt 155mm)

Now if we talk about Excalibur block I which users just a explosive warhead

Most armoured Vehicles can withstand 155mm shell fragments so you would need a direct hit and Excalibur only gets you within 10 meters of the GPS co-ord given 50% of the time. So the best targets are softskin vechicles, infantry and buildings. Excalibur also gives you longer range.

So for armoured targets BSFM is the most effective, provided they within range to get the shell close enough to the target.

Now Excalibur block II (initial operational capability of 2016) uses a different warhead, 1 of the contenders is GIWS with a warhead based on there SMArt 155mm.

So for armoured targets you could use BSFM upto 22.5km (maybe less dependiing what the hit ratio is like) and the Excalibur block II from 22 km to 36km. Since the BSFM must be a lot cheaper the the Excalibur block II.

For non armoured targets use the Excalibur block I and probably still plain old shells when you want an area hit

reply to post by PaddyInf


The thing is with the mine warfare laws- persistent mines have been outlawed, but these submunitions comply as they don't present a persistent threat(their fuses disarm after 90 days if they haven't detonated). Of course some poor schmo could happen upon one within that window, but it's not a case of the old mines that were a threat 40yrs after they'd been in place.

Originally posted by deckard83
Most armoured Vehicles can withstand 155mm shell fragments so you would need a direct hit and Excalibur only gets you within 10 meters of the GPS co-ord given 50% of the time.

Where did you get these numbers from? The M982 has demonstrated (in actual combat) a CEP of 4 meters or less over 90% of the time. And in testing has demonstrated the capability to retain a CEP of 5 meters or less even when purposely fired several degrees of axis. Also, given that this is artillery, you will likely have multiple M982 rounds simultaneously (MRSI) impacting in a very tight group.

reply to post by WestPoint23


From what I read the requirements of the system was, which was a CEP of 10 Meters.

The definition of CEP (Circular Error Probability) is 50% of the rounds land within the CEP figure, for those reading who might not know.

Thanks for the info of the improved figures from testing, I probably should of tried to find more upto date info. I didn't know that it had been used in combat either.

For armoured targets you still better off with either BSFM or Excalibur block II depending on range (you could use Excalibur what ever the range). As finding those GPS for each armoured vechicle and them not moving must be a pain.

I do like the M982/Excalibur system which is why I think the brits should get that as well, probably have to wait until the unit cost comes down.

"CEP of 4 meters or less over 90% of the time." That's one of my pet hates percent of a percent. That's actually within 4 meters 45% of the time.

The question is whether they're going off the 50% figure for the CEP, or if they're saying that 100% of the rounds landed within 4M, 90% of the time. If that's the case, that's pretty darn good.

Actually I think it's pretty darn good either, in fact I thought the CEP of 10 meters was pretty darn good. It's only if you talking about armoured targets where you want something to find the target at the end of the flight like SMArt 155mm warhead.

I do wonder where the other 50% end up since some of them could be much more off target than normal shells would.

The Excalibur round was shipped to Iraq for field use in late spring of 2007 and it was extensively used during the summer with US artillery units. The figures that I got come from a September issue of AW&ST, as far as 50% of 90, this is the actual quote... "Excalibur in Iraq in the summer of 2007 was so successful (92% of rounds falling within 4 meters of the target) that the US Army planned to increase the production rate..." It goes on to mention the US Army is increasing monthly production of the round by a figure of eight.

Also, all the other information I can find about the M982 seems to suggest that the rounds overall average accuracy is 4 meters or less, and I don't mean only half the time.

Some quotes…

"Precision is defined within 10 meters of the target," said the general. "Both the guided MLRS and the Excalibur have been hitting as close as 2-3 meters from the target. If you take all of the tests that we have done with Excalibur, the average from the center of impact is about 2.7 meters."

Link

Two of the test projectiles were fired to a target range of 40.8 kilometers (25.4 miles), impacting approximately 6.7 meters (22 feet) and 2.2 meters (7.2 feet) from the target center.

Three shots were fired to 35 kilometers (21.8 miles) - one of which was fired at 5 degrees off axis - that impacted between 2.8 meters (9.2 feet) and 6.1 meters (20 feet) from the target center. The demonstrated range and accuracy exceed the Excalibur Block I objective requirements.

Link

Also, about where the other rounds go, probability dictates that if 50 percent of the rounds land within CEP then another 40 percent will land between CEP and 2xCEP. Even if the above was the case you could still effectively target small groups of moving units. Utilizing constant GPS updates from surveillance systems, multiple artillery units and MRSI capability.

reply to post by WestPoint23


Thanks for the further info

That's very good accuracy, must be at the limits of GPS. I guess you will get the odd 1 where the guidance fails, but you could us the off axis firing aimed balistically at a safe empty area if collateral damage is a concern. I think I read if it fails to get a GPS lock the shell just follows a ballistic trajectory.

The MRSI capability is very neat.

I've seen unit cost anywere from $120,000 down to $30,000, by the looks of your info it will come down to the lower figure much sooner than later.

Originally posted by PaddyInf


This would have implications regarding the laying of minefields under the Ottowa Convention regarding landmines. Mines are not a great choice of weapon considering the various PR wars we're fighting at the minute.

Not really, as it wouldn't really be a mine, it would really just be an unexploded peice of ordinance with an active target seeker, frankly that alone should scare the hell out of people as I really don't think they'll be sticking friend or foe identifiers in these things

Originally posted by MisterVoid

Originally posted by PaddyInf


This would have implications regarding the laying of minefields under the Ottowa Convention regarding landmines. Mines are not a great choice of weapon considering the various PR wars we're fighting at the minute.

Not really, as it wouldn't really be a mine, it would really just be an unexploded peice of ordinance with an active target seeker, frankly that alone should scare the hell out of people as I really don't think they'll be sticking friend or foe identifiers in these things

It would hav implications if the weapon was designed to become a mine.

Like I said earlier though- the mine treaty is in regards to persistent mines, and these munitions disarm themselves after 90 days, so they wouldn't present an issue.

[edit on 10-12-2007 by BlueRaja]