User:MisterEdmund55

""ARCHING FIRES - A Concept for long Range Modern Military Small Arms Engagements"""".

The term 'Arching Fires' was first created and coined by LTC Edmund C. Blash, USA, Retired, as a denotation for a concept in which military small arms can be aided with Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and weapons mounted electronic signal receivers and display devices to display in a real-time manner, the targeting information of a distant, out of human sight target up to several thousand yards away and to engage that target set with extreme accurate small arms fire. The concept and genesis of this proposal is that 'Arching Fires" is the asymmetric application of modern technologies unto battlefield small arms by modern military forces.

"Asymmetric Warfare: A dual-edged sword". The Coalition powers fighting the current armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, almost exclusively envision that the advantage of the asymmetric concept* lay exclusively with that of the enemy; that conventional western military forces have an inherent battlespace disadvantage when facing such an enemy, an enemy who while armed primarily with small arms, rocket propelled grenades and Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs), can hold the modern western forces at bay for indefinite periods of time. Indeed from most popular accounts, one could well come to believe that the enemy insurgents hold an inherent military advantage to which the western conventional military forces are forced to concede their hard earned and well deserved military superiority. Yet this popular sentiment is both limited in its’ scope and untrue in its’ foundation. Both friend and foe alike are equally capable of utilizing asymmetric or novel tactics, techniques, capabilities and weaponry. When a western conventional military forces meet upon the Plain of Mars in a battle for which the enemy is using novel or non-conventional methods, the reaction should not be one of using additional conventional forces that attempt a metric solution or that of conceding the kinetic advantage to the enemy by withdrawing or merely adapting passive methods. Instead, the modern western military forces must develop and adapt their organizations, tactics and equipment in such a manner to which the enemy is placed at a decidedly military disadvantage, a disadvantage which the enemy does not possess and will not possess in the existing battle space for the near future, if such a capability t is ever possessed by the enemy at all. If such modern asymmetric advantages can be developed and employed by modern military forces, it may eventually play a major role in defeating the enemy from at least a purely military perspective and therefore racket up the war strategy into the political solution realm.

"New Life for Aged Weaponry". Since the time of the early 20th century, the basic battlespace implement of war for the ground warrior, the rifle, has remained more or less intact in terms of its technological genes. Yes, the rifle has been given a new veneer of clothing in terms of a smaller caliber, automatic functionality and some optics for direct firing, yet in its’ bareness it is still essentially the same old warhorse that fires a chemical reaction projectile some distance with an assured trajectory to a desired target. As the late, great Ian Hogg and other noted firearms authorities have lamented, ‘the infantry rifle as we know it has reached a plateau of development’1, to which there is the waiting for a major breakthrough in the filed of physics and energy storage. Yet this expert observation is not the dead knell for small arms; indeed it is an opportunity to breath new life into a tried & true efficient mechanism of war. The small arms from many decades ago are far from obsolete; these weapons can kill easily enough today as these could when these came off the production line. The element that is wanting today is the added ability to truly extend the capabilities of the modern firearm to its’ maximum ballistic capabilities while also providing a modern tactical advantage that had not previously existed. The one element lacking in modern small arms capabilities is that of a robust ‘target acquisition and engagement’ system above and beyond that of mere optical sights, thermal/imaging devices and lime-of-sight laser rangefinders.

"Elevating the Small Arms Plateau". Infantry rifles possess an inherent lethal capability that far exceeds their stated operational use of several hundred yards. This combat effective limitation, and all others stated for small arms used previously by all armies, has been one of a human limiting factor. The average human eye is challenged to readily distinguish a human-sized target much beyond 400 meters and even at this great range using optical scopes, hitting a target beyond even 1,000 meters is not practical except for trained snipers and even then, at this long range, precision shooting still requires a relatively known line-of-sight that is un-obscured from the shooter-to-target. The firing dilemma is made even more acute in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, where the distances between the firer and the target are great, additionally the target is often obscured from direct observation and the target is most likely not static (combatants tend to move about on the modern battle-space) or is camouflaged from direct ground-level observation. Yet with the advent of the tactical battlespace UAV, global positioning devices and miniaturized computer calculation systems, for the first time in history, the ground fighter can have their small arm weaponry directly and precisely aimed at distant enemy ground targets. The UAV system can provide a ‘just-in-time’ solution to Coalition ground forces facing hidden enemy insurgents snuggled within the niche and grannies of mountains and valleys.2

The proposed solution is to develop a miniaturized electro-optical rifle-mounted, Global Positioning System (GPS) target acquisition device that can provide an electronic long distance firing solution through the provision of targeting data derived from a remote, highly accurate target acquisition sensor suite. Using a scope-like electro-optical device, coupled with real-time targeting information - will permit the rifle’s kinetic projectile to engage and deliver pin-pint precise accurate fires from a distance of 1 mile or more through the integration of the small arm weapon with the modern battle-space data senor suites, using laser designation devices. The engineering of an electro-optical data viewing device (a bit larger than a few packs of cigarettes) mounted onto a rifle or machine gun, can provide near-real-time targeting & engagement data to the firer. An electro-optical devices similar to the modern optical devices being used by military forces today, can precisely display to the shooter, an acquired distant target and present to the shooter a precise aiming solution that directs the shooter to move their weapons ‘up & down’ or ‘right or left’ in response to given target solution. Firing target data, such as ‘required angle for weapon placement (i.e., elevation of the pointed weapon), distance-to-target and target type (single enemy soldier; a group of insurgents or vehicle) is displayed on a miniature electro-optical viewing display similar to that of a rifle scope. The entire objective is to allow an infantryman or Marine to employ a organic small arms weapons unto a enemy target at the projectile’s maximum range in respect to the existing environmental data. Thus a tactical engagement solution is provided to the US and Coalition forces with a marked advantage over the enemy and allowing one to be in a position of pro-active enemy engagement instead of in a less desirable reactive mode (‘he/she who fires the first short or salvo has the marked advantage’).

Fire Diagram #4.ppt Arching Fires OV-1 Diagram.jpg

Figure 1: (OV-1) Concept of ‘Arching’ small arms fire

Figure 1 is a simple illustration of the Operational View (OV) for the employment of small arms Arching Fires perpetuated against a distant deployed enemy force. The Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) accurately, silently and safely collects data on the target, while conversely providing an on-board target solutions to the potential firer. Upon an on-demand electronic invocation request by the soldier or Marine, the UAV provides specific aiming data to a weapon-mounted electronic receiving device, which also contains a GBS receiver that orients the weapon in respect to the UAV firing target data solution being calculated on the UAVs on-board sensor-ballistic computer system. Data respective to the enemy target and that of the firer’s location is computed (known distance to within a few inches), along with associated data on the weapons’ system/ballistics and that of the UAV collected ‘environmental data’ (i.e., air density, humidity, wind speed, elevation direction of fire or Coriolis factors3, etc)- is computed and displayed onto a small weapon-mounted electro-optical viewing device that displays the firing data and weapon aiming information to the firer. Within a matter of a few seconds, the deadly Arching Fires are impacting onto the enemy in a silent barrage of ‘death from above’. While having the UAV remain affixed over an enemy target area with the provision of a continued sensing and ballistic presence is desirable, it is not necessary with the concept of ‘Arching Fires’; the UAV merely needs to present itself over the target acquisition area for that sufficient time necessary to confirm the enemy and for a small arms ballistic solution to be generated from the friendly firer’s point to that of the enemy target. Once the ballistic solution is computer, it is down-loaded into the firer’s weapon component viewer device. The data is as valid and relevant for as long as the target acquisition entity (the enemy) remains in place. This dynamic will allow for a UAV to be more flexible for multiple Allied units to take advantage of the UAV’s full span of in-fight availability, while conversely presenting multiple firing solution to many on-ground small unit forces. The projectiles with the best travel/energy capabilities for ground targets at 1,000 plus yard/meter ranges are .30 caliber and above, as these projectiles offer the most potent remaining muzzle energy at extreme ranges vice those of the 5.56/.223 caliber round, which tends to lose muzzle effectiveness after 400 yards/meters, yet even the smallest of military small arms projectiles can benefit from ‘Arching Fires’ given the proper engagement ranges and ballistic environmental conditions.

Yet the proposal for the real world implementation of small arms indirect Arching Fires is not that of pure theory or conjecture, it is a reality that exists today (as it has in the past absent modern technology), the novel factor of this new proposal is the marriage of modern targeting technologies with standard small arms projectile capabilities. The ‘proofs’ or facts for the validity of ‘Arching’ indirect small arms fires lay with the following evidence:

1). The historical documentation of accurate, long range and indirect small arms firing. There are numerous documented instances of long range small arms engagements in both the civilian and military arenas. The most striking and dynamic use of the inherent lethality of a small arm rifle projectile was that demonstrated and documented in the Army Sandy Hook tests late in the 19th century. During a 1879 Army test at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, by Mr. R.T Hare of the Springfield Armory was documented to shoot a black powder .45-70 cartridge to make multiple hits at the 'Bull's-Eye' six feet in diameter at 3,200 yards with three different rifles. The gun was held under the arm, a muzzle rest only being used." 4

2). The present documentation of long range small arms engagements in both military and competitive sports shooting. In the military actions in Iraq and in US western long range shooting events, precise target engagements with human sized targets at distances up to ¾ of a mile have been fully and consistently documented. 5

3). The laws of physics and ballistic science. The inherent ballistic capabilities of the modern small arms projectile permit the free in-flight distance of a small arm projectile filed at the appropriate maximum elevated angle to travel distances up to two miles6 or more, depending upon the projectile, bullet drag, muzzle energy and other atmospheric variables.

"The ‘Sensor-to-Shooter’ Solution". Given the preceding argument and proposition that the modern small arms can be readily fitted with advanced engagement electronics that will permit a modern rifle or machine gun to be fired at its’ maximum possible effective range against an enemy at distances approaching or in some cases exceeding 1 mile away from the firer, the challenge remains one of delivering consistent, reliable and accurate real-time target acquisition firing solution data, by which the soldier or Marine will be provided with the necessary enemy location information and sensor data and thereby provide deadly, inherent small arms fire onto an enemy position before the enemy is within equal small arms engagement distances.

The remedy for modern battlefield ground target acquisition has been with US and Coalition forces since the timeframe of 2001. The ability of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), which were once dismissed by the traditional military as mere ‘boy toys’, have in fact proven to be a decisive, precise and proven modern military weapon system, the absence of which today all would consider to be all but unfathomable. The UAVs have the proven capabilities to go into Harm’s Way for prolonged periods of time and providing critical sensor data on enemy forces in all types of terrain and weather in a 24X7 operational construct. The larger UAVs like the Predator and Reaper platforms have proven to be uniquely skilled at battlespace ISR arts of: collection, target acquisition, monitoring and engagement. Enemy targets down to an individual entity have been proven in various videos and reported in the commercial news media and while there have been errors in target reporting, the future development in UAV sensor technologies only promise to add greater precise capabilities and thus offering far fewer mistaken targets being destroyed or killed.

It takes only one small developmental engineering step to extend the UAV’s sensing capabilities and provide this sensor data on the enemy back unto the platoon, squad, team or even individual soldier or Marine. Imagine engaging a enemy on a high ridge, assembly area or reserve slope with decisive small arms ‘arching firs’ before that enemy even knows of the unit’s presence. Weapons such as medium machine guns will be especially devastating to the enemy, as the capability to ‘rain down’ hundreds of projectiles from a distance of 1 or 2 miles arrive on impact with devastating results, precisely killing all those in the impact area and with zero exposure to one’s own assets with a minimal expenditure of assets or costly munitions. For more precise and singular target interdiction, a sniper or small infantry teams will also benefit from this same Arching Fires capabilities, being able to pin point and kill a target from the distance of 800 to 3,000 yards depending on the caliber of the small arms being employed (7.62 through .50 caliber). No longer will the enemy be able to assemble and ambush US or western infantry forces without first being subject to deadly Arching small arms projectiles fired from great distances.

"Arching Fires’ to a Distant Target". The entire concept of ‘Arching Fires’ for small arms is that of taking an inherent, proven technological capability that exists within the constructs of existing military rifle and machinegun weaponry/ballistics and coupling the ballistic characteristics with modern sensor and information technologies to allow afford precise and deadly indirect small arms projectile fires to distant, non-line-of-sight targets miles away. Such a technological leaps will allow the infantryman to employ their small arms in a manner akin to a battleship lobbing its shells unto inland targets. In both WWI and WWII, machine gunners, and sometimes riflemen, employed the concept enfilade and defilade small arms fires against distant and often unseen enemy positions by firing their projectiles against distant enemy targets either from a frontal arching fire or from a franking arching fire.7 By many accounts of the day, the effects of these indirect small arms fires were deadly, economical (when so compared to artillery fires) and very demoralizing on the enemy’s morale. Imagine the silent ballistic projectile death striking unexpectedly from above and how very demoralizing a combat factor it was that kept the enemy off-balance, in addition to having the very real value of killing the enemy. The past can be rejuvenated again with modern technology.

Nor is this the concept of Arching Fires limited unto non-regular warfare or operational scenarios. The same ‘sensor-to-shooter’ concept for insurgency warfare can be applied effectively and with equal devastating results to conventional operations as well. Conventional military forces can utilize and apply Arching Firs to their tactical operations plans, with especial advantage to be gained for Special Forces and Reconnaissance/Scout units. The major limiting factor is that afforded as to the availability (or lack thereof) of the sufficient battlespace aerial target acquisition platforms. If a UAV platform (or another substitute aerial platform) is not available for both enemy detection and Arching Fires ballistic computational data to the ground firer, then the only remaining target acquisition device that can be utilized by ground forces will be limited to solely ground surveillance assets, which do not possess the capability to best gather and calculate atmospheric conditions for small arm ballistics.

Putting it all together: Death from Above- the Arching Fires. The operational asymmetric advantages to be gained by the marriage of battlespace UAV sensing suites and modern electro-engagement display devices in the proposed construct named as ‘Arching Fires’, the advantages of which is to provide a technological asymmetric battlespace advantage to US and Coalition military forces over those of the insurgent. The major tactical and operational military advantages are as follows:

• Battlefield Decisiveness for the small operating unit. • Dynamitic increase for unit/individual self-protection & self- integrity. • Inherent Availability & Demonstration of both UAV platforms and small arms capabilities. • Cost-Effectiveness. • Minimal Collateral Damage. • Psychological dominance. • Combat multiplier effect. • Tactical shaping effectiveness. • Optimum utilization of small arms weapons to maximum advantage. • Offers technological asymmetric advantages with no inherent countermeasures.

"Limitations & Constraints". Like any other proposal or idea, the concept of small arms Arching Fires is not without risks. This is an entirely new concept for employing indirect, precision small arms fires onto the target battlespace and thus the engineering solution for a small, lightweight and rugged weapon sighting and information module is not fully known. The plethora of existing small arms weapons sight systems and all weather sensors such as imaging intensifiers, laser rangefinders and thermal detection devices, do illustrate the path of precedent for lightweight small arms mounted optical devices, so an extrapolation for a similar type of sensor receipt module should not be ruled out.

The main operational constraint for the successful employment of Arching Fires system is the very limited battlespace availability of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for tactical troops, the appetite for which has proven insatiable in Iraq and Afghanistan. The unrivaled success of these unmanned aerial warriors of the modern battlefield is that this aerial asset has become a hot commodity with finite mission support. Unless and until small Army and Marine Corps units possess readily available and fully configurable UAVs that can be readily available for their unit mission requirements like artillery and Close Air Support (CAS), the concept of Arching Fires will not be able to be effectively employed to support small infantry units on the battlefield.

"Conclusion/Way-Ahead". The challenge for the US and Coalition forces in their tactical kinetic operations against the enemy is that the terrain, tactics and entire operating environment in the 21st century military battles to date, have inversely favored the enemy over their own conventionally constructed and employed high technology weapons. The US Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) and USAF F-22 fighter are two prime examples of high technology gone amuck, programs that had noble objectives, yet were lacking in both conceptual and technological maturity. While ‘Arching Fires’ technology is not a singular or omniscient savior for the US or western military establishments, it need not be ignored either. Correctly engineered and employed, it can provide a battlefield tactical advantage that the improvised insurgents cannot thwart, when so used, the enemy will be forced to drastically change tactics or seek other non-military means for their cause.

Yet the mega technological defense failures of the past need not condemn the promise of technology to deliver promising application for future endeavors, as there is no alternative to technological progression. Given further programmatic investigation, the potential exist to explore the tenants of UAV sensors, electronic weapon information displays and infantry small arms – to provide an economical, cost-effective and practical solution to the enemy that we face today and in the future. Should this ‘Arching Fires’ concept be further entertained to a physical operational conclusion, the technological and engineering talents of the US Defense battle labs that manage UAVs, small arms and electronic/communications specialties are amply qualified to provide for a fielded prototype system in a reasonably short period of time.

--MisterEdmund55 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)AUTHOR: Edmund C. Blash _____________________________________________

Footnotes:

1. Ian Hogg, “Introduction & Forward - Jane’s Infantry Weapons”, 1989 Edition., (United Kingdom: London, IHS (Global) Limited., 1989), pp. 1-4.

2. Col. Philip S. Meilinger, “Airpower’s Precise Advantage: C4ISR Journal”.,  (Springfield, Va: Defense News/Media Group Publishing)., August 2009, pp. 34-36.

3. “External ballistics”, available from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade, accessed on 12 December 2009; Arthur J. Pejsa, “New Exact Small Arms Ballistics: The Source Book for Riflemen”., (Kenwood Publishing, Stevens Point, WI, 2008)., pp. 77-80. 4. W. John Farquharson., “.45-70 at Two Miles: The Sandy Hook Tests of 1879”., (Prescot, AZ: Wolfe Publishing Company)., November 1977; Internet site, Posted on February 14, 2003 8:18:19 PM EST by 45Auto, accessed on 10 December 2009. 5. “U.S. Army sniper nails record shot: Washington Times Magazine”., (The Washington Times: Washington, D.C., 2006)., Sunday Edition, January 15, 2006, Internet Electronic Edition. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/15/20060115-111618-6393r/ 6. Arthur J. Pejsa, “New Exact Small Arms Ballistics: The Source Book for Riflemen”., Kenwood Publishing: St. Paul, Minn, 2008)., pp. 89. 7. “Enfilade and defilade” from the Internet Source, “Wikipedia., accessed on 10-13 December 2009, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enfilade_and_defilade

NOTE: A summary & abbreviation of the 'Arching Fires" concept was published in: "Jane's International Defense Review", by LTC Edmund Blash, USA, Retired, VOL. 43, June 2010, p. 65.