Maybe you can put a seeker head on an arty shell but it is not a good match. Better to just make a bigger dedicated missile with better range and a bigger warhead and let arty do what arty is better at.
Copperhead
Copperhead was basically a laser guided missile fired from arty. We don't use or make things like that anymore. We just use actual missiles.
STRIX
is a mortar with only short range meant to hit tanks.
Also, ships don't move fast enough to EVADE artillery.
lol yes they do when you are talking about long ranges
In WW2 naval battles they weren't evading the shells
WW2 naval gunnery was insanely inaccurate, with only a tiny % of shells actually hitting, even with radar assisted firing solutions.
You're mistaken.
I'm really not. It's good you've done some research but I'm still a few tiers above you in knowledge of this stuff. Everything I wrote was 100% accurate for doctrine & tech being used today. You're having daydreams about possibilities which aren't real, and they aren't real because they don't make sense.
For example: if you think you can defend a beach against landing craft with artillery firing "guided" shells, you know what would be a far superior & cheaper way to kill those landing craft? Just using a TOW missile. They only cost about 100k. An excalibur shell, which can NOT hit moving targets costs a similar amount, $112,800. Guided HIMARS, which are also only GPS guided, cost more.
Harpoons are far more expensive but also have much bigger warheads and reach out to much longer ranges.
By the time the chinks are in arty range, they're already dashing for the beaches. You need to hit them further out.
Once the Ford Mark 1 had a target fix you were basically ****ed
Not as much as you think. The earliest FCS like the Mark 1 effectively only let you shoot in obscured conditions (night, fog, etc) and allowed you to correct for the Coriolis Effect. You even still had to ladder shoot to get the range on the early systems. Even with the advanced systems like the Mk 38 used on the Iowas, that was still a hit rate of like 35-40%. On the other hand, that was indeed a massive step up from "traditional" fire control which would have an accuracy rating of like 5% on a clear day.
That said, the point about guided artillery being no good against ships is true. If they are sitting around or moving slow, sure. But if they are going full bore its out of the question.
Although if you are in the market for cheap anti-ship method (which btw, is compatible with the F-16's the Taiwanese air force is rocking), they recently discovered you can destroy a ship with JDAM's.
Raytheon added semi active laser targeting to the M982 in the Excalibur S, so that 155mm shells could be directed in descent by apaches and reapers. The firing battery only has to get them in the ballpark.
They then added fire and forget capability with an onboard radar in the Excalibur N5, which is intended to be shot from the 5"/54 M45. Again, the firing battery only has to get it in the rough ballpark of where the target will be.
arty rounds don't have seeker heads like a missile, just GPS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M982_Excalibur
Maybe you can put a seeker head on an arty shell but it is not a good match. Better to just make a bigger dedicated missile with better range and a bigger warhead and let arty do what arty is better at.
Copperhead was basically a laser guided missile fired from arty. We don't use or make things like that anymore. We just use actual missiles.
is a mortar with only short range meant to hit tanks.
lol yes they do when you are talking about long ranges
WW2 naval gunnery was insanely inaccurate, with only a tiny % of shells actually hitting, even with radar assisted firing solutions.
I'm really not. It's good you've done some research but I'm still a few tiers above you in knowledge of this stuff. Everything I wrote was 100% accurate for doctrine & tech being used today. You're having daydreams about possibilities which aren't real, and they aren't real because they don't make sense.
For example: if you think you can defend a beach against landing craft with artillery firing "guided" shells, you know what would be a far superior & cheaper way to kill those landing craft? Just using a TOW missile. They only cost about 100k. An excalibur shell, which can NOT hit moving targets costs a similar amount, $112,800. Guided HIMARS, which are also only GPS guided, cost more.
Harpoons are far more expensive but also have much bigger warheads and reach out to much longer ranges.
By the time the chinks are in arty range, they're already dashing for the beaches. You need to hit them further out.
Taiwan has a solution for that already.
Not as much as you think. The earliest FCS like the Mark 1 effectively only let you shoot in obscured conditions (night, fog, etc) and allowed you to correct for the Coriolis Effect. You even still had to ladder shoot to get the range on the early systems. Even with the advanced systems like the Mk 38 used on the Iowas, that was still a hit rate of like 35-40%. On the other hand, that was indeed a massive step up from "traditional" fire control which would have an accuracy rating of like 5% on a clear day.
That said, the point about guided artillery being no good against ships is true. If they are sitting around or moving slow, sure. But if they are going full bore its out of the question.
Although if you are in the market for cheap anti-ship method (which btw, is compatible with the F-16's the Taiwanese air force is rocking), they recently discovered you can destroy a ship with JDAM's.
Raytheon added semi active laser targeting to the M982 in the Excalibur S, so that 155mm shells could be directed in descent by apaches and reapers. The firing battery only has to get them in the ballpark.
They then added fire and forget capability with an onboard radar in the Excalibur N5, which is intended to be shot from the 5"/54 M45. Again, the firing battery only has to get it in the rough ballpark of where the target will be.
In short... we have the technology.