Responder al tema

Mensaje: <blockquote data-quote="LEVIATAN" data-source="post: 2246405" data-attributes="member: 29890"><a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=es&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zona-militar.com%2Fforos%2Fthreads%2Fisrael-fotos-militares.32444%2Fpage-57">http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=iw&tl=es&u=https://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/israel-fotos-militares.32444/page-57</a> <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pn_-PmhnbYM/VHlu7NbD61I/AAAAAAAABLs/bDnWAMSDgaY/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pn_-PmhnbYM/VHlu7NbD61I/AAAAAAAABLs/bDnWAMSDgaY/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> Comparison of precision between conventional armaments and guidance by first generation fuse It was recently reported that the IDF as a "lesson" from Operation Tzuk Eitan will purchase precision munitions for the 155mm cannons. The purchase is made of a fuse composed of an existing shell, and according to the publications, it is reaching a level of accuracy of 10 meters or even below that, the candidates are the "Top Gun" fuse of Israel Aircraft Industries, and the "Bolt" bolt made by Rocard, an Israeli subsidiary of BAE The World. A significant improvement in the accuracy of artillery shells will have a significant impact on the battlefield in terms of the ability to strike rapidly (low number of shells) at targets and reduce confidence intervals in artillery fire, but the purpose of this post is to examine the economic efficiency of the passage of precision artillery munitions, which is one of the "arguments" The move. The economics of making a precision artillery shell lie in the relationship between the range and accuracy of conventional ordnance that requires the firing of a number of shells in order to destroy a target or achieve a defined mission objective, with the accuracy of an artillery shell decreasing with distance. The ratio between precision and reduction in armaments is illustrated in the following graph, but it should be borne in mind that this is a total savings against all types of uses and ranges. According to the graph, a precision of 10 meters will save about 85% of the armament. <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vUW4D3RZHhs/VHlsMmHtqaI/AAAAAAAABLQ/HwxurfgxPxE/s1600/chart.png"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vUW4D3RZHhs/VHlsMmHtqaI/AAAAAAAABLQ/HwxurfgxPxE/s1600/chart.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> Reducing the amount of shells as a function of improvement exactly Assuming that the price of a bomb that turns a shell into precision munitions is about $ 10,000 per shell, economic feasibility is a function of the price of the unexploded shell (a standard explosive shell costs about $ 440) and the method of operational use. For example, statistical firing of "launching areas" - which constituted most of the Israeli artillery fire in recent rounds - will not be improved with the increase in accuracy and therefore not relevant in the cost / benefit calculations, because there is no point in making it more accurate. The benefits of increasing the accuracy of artillery shells are against identified and stationary targets . From the graph below it can be seen that the accuracy of about 10 meters to an artillery shell is effective against targets of soldiers in the open field and soft vehicles - when ignoring casual damage. If the truck with the rockets is parked in a neighborhood or village - accuracy of 10 meters will destroy the vehicle but with environmental damage. The relevant scenario for the IDF is identifying an antitank squad in an open area, launching a rocket or even launching a rocket in the field, and firing with an improved shell against a person / light vehicle that costs $ 2,500-3,000. In this case, in a relatively long range, the replacement of statistical fire with accurate shooting will save the ammunition cost (if the ratio is one accurate shell instead of 4-5 inaccurate shells). <a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rFaqJjFsYR4/VHmjPKef65I/AAAAAAAAB3k/Mk2CKww5YJ4/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rFaqJjFsYR4/VHmjPKef65I/AAAAAAAAB3k/Mk2CKww5YJ4/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> Adjustment of armament type = accuracy level - target In practice, the calculation of the savings should be different, but it requires a change in the mode of fire - if the transition to precision artillery makes it possible to destroy a pickup truck with rockets or a launcher deployed in the field by firing two 20-kilometer shells with an armament of $ 20,000 H), which constitutes a sixth of the cost of the Tammuz or Hellfire missile (the cost of NIS 500,000), which is doing the work today - this is the real savings . In other words, in places where the accuracy of 10 meters (accuracy) can replace the accuracy of 1 meter (high accuracy) - will certainly be achieved. The problem is that the number of targets in which the accuracy of 10 meters provides is small relative to the other goals that require high accuracy. The main objective that requires high precision is that these buildings - because they are used from ammunition depots, command and control posts, hideouts for snipers, anti-tank squads and lookouts - target two are launching pits, in both cases, accuracy of 10 meters is not enough and accuracy is required at level 5 Meters and down. The US understood the matter and developed the Excalibur - an accurate artillery shell to a level of 4 meters, and today it is also added to the ability to strike at a laser that will allow it to hit the target of a point: <a href="https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=iw&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy%3Furl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fi.kinja-img.com%252Fgawker-media%252Fimage%252Fupload%252Fs--gRFzpNLk--%252Fxz5hfirbkkosma0ejf6k.gif%26container%3Dblogger%26gadget%3Da%26rewriteMime%3Dimage%252F*&usg=ALkJrhjDy_84HhqmdcTH7fIQavWtvdPVDg"><img src="http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--gRFzpNLk--/xz5hfirbkkosma0ejf6k.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> A comparison of the quantity of shells (M107 is a standard 155mm shell) required to strike a target with regard to high precision munitions is shown below. Soft targets in the open space - infantry, mobile radar, or command post - require a very low number of precision shells (1 to 13-10) and there will be little difference between the accuracy of 4 meters and 10 meters, but when The damage to the structures - accuracy has a much greater significance (ratio of 1 to 30 (!)) In terms of the direct cost of ammunition, it can be seen that there is no saving - the destruction of the infantry division requires 43 shells - say shells worth $ 2,500 per unit - $ 107,500, compared to $ 180,000 for the cost of three Excalibur shells. <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5BvHDw4otTw/VHm3woXC7kI/AAAAAAAAB38/r9oCQaYAZI0/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png"><img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5BvHDw4otTw/VHm3woXC7kI/AAAAAAAAB38/r9oCQaYAZI0/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a> A comparison of the amount of shells required between conventional simulations and the Excalibur with 4 meters CEP In contrast to the fuselage that makes a precision artillery shell, the Excalibur shell is a dedicated shell that costs about $ 60,000 per unit - still about 50% less than Tamuz or Hellfire, but in order to damage the structure it is necessary to fire 3 shells at a cost of $ 180,000. ($ 25,000 per bomb and $ 20,000 to $ 50,000 per flight), but when you measure the cost of the entire system (purchase of aircraft, training, fuel maintenance, engine hours, availability, etc.), artillery has a big advantage in price. The big question is how many shells with a precision of 10 meters are needed to knock down a two-story house? Assuming only 3 exact structural hits are required, it is possible to calculate how many shells are required to destroy the structure: A 10-meter (10-meter) CEP means that 50 percent of the shells will fall no more than 10 meters from the target - 50 percent of the shells will fall in a circle from the 314-meter target center. If we assume that the roof of the building is 100 square meters and that we are aiming at the center of the building, then the probability of a shell falling within a radius of 10 meters directly hits the structure is about 33%. 100 square meters close to the building - that is, the shell that hits within the CEP circle has a 33% chance of hitting close. Under these assumptions, 15 shells will be needed - 7-8 hits a 10-meter circle, 1/3 of which will be directly hit and 1/3 will be a close hit, but approximately 6-7 (43%) shells will fall between 10 and 20 A meter from the target and one shell (7%) will fall between 20 and 30 meters from the target. This is equal to the shell of an Excalibur with a CEP of 4 meters - that is, the area of the circle to 50% of the impact is only 50 square meters and the area of the second circle (with a 43% chance of hitting) less than the first circle is 150 square meters - that is 64% of the shells will fall on the house (50% + 1/3 of 43%) and 29% will fall close to the house - meaning that only 4 shells are needed. It is clear from the example that if a 100 square meter structure is to be directly hit, there is a big difference (almost four times) between the CEP of 10 meters and the CEP of 4 meters, but the cost of 15 shells of $ 10,000 is a cost of 150 A thousand dollars, and 4 shells of $ 60 thousand are $ 240 thousand - so that economic savings of about 35% between types of armaments - but the price casual damage may be large. All of this has to be compared to the standard weapon of $ 500 for a shell - even if it requires 200 shells - only $ 100,000 - but there is no doubt that there is a significant difference in logistics, maintenance and quantity of nests when shooting 4 or 15 shells instead of 200. ... A 10-meter artillery shell would be a real multiplier for the artillery corps, but would not bring an economic solution to the Ground Forces problem # 1, which was already clear from the Second Lebanon War - the inability to knock down a house very accurately beyond the direct line of sight - To 5 meters - is it possible that the accuracy of the shell is incorrect and what is more accurate? In terms of economic savings, the cost of ammunition will not be achieved when conventional armaments will be replaced by precision munitions, but on the contrary, the cost of armaments will rise, but the artillery artillery will also increase. The real savings will only be achieved if the IDF succeeds in replacing the use of very accurate and expensive aerial / ground munitions with precision and cheaper artillery. In other words, the well-known explanations that precision artillery munitions save artillery shells are therefore economically efficient - fewer shells are fired, fewer nests are needed and therefore second-class savings are not relevant to the State of Israel where logistics is simple compared to the effort needed for example to bring US artillery to Afghanistan And to distribute it to fire bases. In light of this, it appears that precise armament for the artillery will be an addition to a mix of 120mm precision mortar shells, regular artillery munitions, accurate and future precision artillery munitions. <a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-80sVnbCA_B0/VHlsNp78DEI/AAAAAAAABLc/UxUMD3tRMMU/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-80sVnbCA_B0/VHlsNp78DEI/AAAAAAAABLc/UxUMD3tRMMU/s1600/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA.png" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></a></blockquote>

Verificación: Libertador de Argentina