On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:

On 16 May 2016 at 12:15, Grimmund <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Greg Chalik <mrg3105@gmail.com> wrote:
This drone and its operator would be priority targets for the said sniper.

And yet it seems to be very popular with the user community.
This is because the user community doesn't pay for it.

Your answer appears to be unrelated to your earlier point.

If the operators saw themselves as at heightened risk while they were operating the drone, it would presumably be less popular.

Since it is popular with the troops, they would appear to not have any significant concerns about using it while under fire.

Reading more on the weapon, it seems to me counter-sniper role is not what it is intended for.
Finding a sniper from a flying platform would be quite a task

There are already plenty of systems that will give an approximate range and elevation of the source of gunfire, based on the sound of the shot.

So, presumably, you've already got the *approximate* location of your problem before you launch the munition.

One of the purposes of this munition is to perform visual reconnaissance for the sniper (or mortar, or machine gun, or whatever) and be able to attack them using, essentially, indirect fire.

As a bonus, no trooper has to stick their head up above cover to recon the opposition using mk1 eyeball.

As a bonus, you can use it on targets that are behind cover.

(Note that cover is a matter of perspective; if I hide behind a wall to shoot at some goober, and keep the wall between us, that doesn't necessarily mean I have a roof, or that I have cover from behind....

However, the article says a loiter of 20 minutes at 100m altitude for the armed version.

Yes. You seem to be assuming the users are not aware of flight speed of the drone, and will use it ineffectively.

Meanwhile launching the munition discloses the operator's location if the enemy is not without their own 'tricks'. UAVs are widely advertised, but not the counter-UAV measures that are also prolifirating.

It appears that the users are only using it when they are already under fire.

The person launching the munition does't have to be the person operating the munition.

Launching the munition doesn't appear to be likely to give much away, except notifying any direct observer that it's in the air.

Which would seem to operate in favor of the users; if the opposition observes the launch and breaks contact, rather than waiting for the users to fly a suicide drone into their position, it's still a win for the user.

Even better, if the opposition decides to cut and run, the operator can potentially keep them under observation, if they flee on foot.

If the targets flee in something faster than the drone, it can be safely landed without detonating and potentially causing pointless civilian casualties.

*American* counter-sniper tactics tend to depend on what's available. Generally, when American units get into trouble, they call for artillery and air support. Given the terrain in Afghanistan, air strikes, while slower, are more likely to be available.
Everyone's infantry depend on what's available.

Doctrine recommends overwhelming force. Again, by preference, we'll call for an air strike or artillery rather

Terrain is terrain. Why do you mention Afghanistan?

lol. really?

It's being *used* in Afghanistan.

Rugged, mountainous terrain in Afghanistan limits the availability of artillery support.

Which leads to reliance on air support.

Air support tends to be slower to respond than artillery, other things being equal, since the aircraft has to fly to your location before it can do much good, while artillery, if in range, can start work almost immediately.

(Although use of artillery is generally frowned on in urban areas.)

Air support is almost certainly going to be more expensive than a single $40k munition.

A cheaper idea is to mount a laser reformatory on the drone and use conventional munitions to engage.

$40k IMHO is too expensive a 'consumable' for infantry, particularly on foot.

Half the price of a Javelin, 2.5x the cost of a SMAW. Slightly less than the cost of an hour of flight time for an F-15, with a wait time of zero minutes.

This is why infantry like to work alongside tanks. Combined Arms.

Infantry like having tanks because having a heavily armored 120mm for direct support is handy. And tanks draw fire away from the infantry.

The modern tank HE ammo is ~$100 ea.

Source? What little data I can find suggests M830A1 HEAT rounds are about $5k each.

Dan

"Any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from a genuine kook." -Alan Morgan