Dragon Fire II 120mm Mortar

Suhiir · #1 May 2nd, 2007, 03:46 PM

Looks like the USMC is getting a new toy.

USMC Link

Global Security Link

SGTGunn · #2 May 2nd, 2007, 06:35 PM

This thing is wild. I watched a segment about it on the Military Channel's Future Weapons show(the clip is on Youtube I think). It can sustain an ROF of 10rds per minute, and can start firing a mission within 16 seconds of receiving it digitally. Talk about rapid response for supporting fires!

Hopefully we'll get in the Army as well! =)

Adrian

Pats · #3 May 2nd, 2007, 07:04 PM

10 rnds/min -> see here that would be 8/min (4/20sec) with semi automatic...

Bighorn

PlasmaKrab · #4 May 3rd, 2007, 08:50 AM

I heard of the first Dragon Fire back in 1998 or so already, shame the program didn't move any faster... The LAV-based version is slated for 2008, dunno if that's IOC, opeval or development start.
Now fire-on-the-move mortar LAV, that sounds yummy!

pdoktar · #5 May 3rd, 2007, 09:00 AM

Ever you guys heard of AMOS..

http://www.amos.fi/main.html

Multiple rounds simultaneous impact up to 10km..

Performance
Time to fire < 30 sec
Time to scoot < 10 sec
Max. rate of fire 26 rds / min
First 4 rounds < 8 sec
Range > 10 km
Multiple rounds
simultaneous impact
(MRSI) up to 14 rds

Pats · #6 May 3rd, 2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

pdoktar said:
Ever you guys heard of AMOS..

http://www.amos.fi/main.html

Multiple rounds simultaneous impact up to 10km..

Performance
Time to fire < 30 sec
Time to scoot < 10 sec
Max. rate of fire 26 rds / min
First 4 rounds < 8 sec
Range > 10 km
Multiple rounds
simultaneous impact
(MRSI) up to 14 rds

that looks like the winner

pdoktar · #7 May 3rd, 2007, 10:14 AM

Yep. And I�ve heard the americans were / are also very interested in it. But their problem is that they never want to buy anybody elses equipment (except the rheinmetalls guns).

As a grunt in the same formations as these mortar systems in the event of war, it sure feels good to have an umbrella like this.

PlasmaKrab · #8 May 3rd, 2007, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Yep. And I�ve heard the americans were / are also very interested in it. But their problem is that they never want to buy anybody elses equipment (except the rheinmetalls guns).

And the FN guns, the Beretta pistols, the Bofors LAWs, Rafael ERA... oh, and the latest, the UH-72A Lakota aka Eurocopter* EC-145!
*OK, it's a joint American Eurocopter-Sikorsky venture 100% built stateside, so the only winners on the European side are EADS shareholders...

Back to the topic, I wonder if there couldn't be a cultural shock related to the fact that all older US mortars (including the Dragon Fire) are able to be fired from outside their carrier vehicle, which the turreted AMOS can't do.
Given the USMC still focuses on infantry-based units and tactics and airmobility (correct me if I'm wrong), a vehicle-only solution might not be the best.
Now if we're only talking about the FCS...

Suhiir · #9 May 3rd, 2007, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Given the USMC still focuses on infantry-based units and tactics and airmobility (correct me if I'm wrong), a vehicle-only solution might not be the best.

I'm NOT gonna claim to know the thinking of the "Powers That Be" at HQMC, but as a retired Marine Gunny I'd say the focus is on flexibility rather then on mech, airmobile, infantry, or what-have-you.

What we can do, that the Army can't is "do it all".
I'll be the first to admit the USMC can't compete with the US Army "specailized" units. We can't out-tank the 1st Armored; we can't out-helo the 101st; we can't out-infantry the 10th Mountain in rough, cold terrain; we can't out-spec-ops the Green Benies; etc, etc, etc.
But the average Marine can do any and all those things. From many discussions with various Army types over the years most of them would be just plain lost outside the specialized, narrow role they've been trained in.

That's why our gear is made to be helo/foot mobile, we don't WANT to be tied to "only" vehicle mounted/mobile systems.

pdoktar · #10 May 4th, 2007, 08:20 AM

Oh, I thought it couldn�t be dismounted from the vehicle. And didn�t they hate the crappy, wrong calibre, no-stopping-power-whatsoever-beretta? I am very surprised that they purchased the AT4 and didn�t try to make one self, since the M72 is a very good LAW in it�s own category.

And back off-topic:

My point being, do you know any large equipment (like the AMOS), being ever purchased by the americans after WW2 (without being a joint operation). Small arms and LAWs and extra armour packages not included?

Why on earth don�t they buy a desent HE shell for 120mm from germany or sweden or israel. The simplest thing to do considering Iraq. Or have they done so already?