• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement


COLOGNE, Germany — The German army has received parliamentary approval to buy an initial batch of Elbit-made PULS rocket artillery systems, a decision that could see Berlin look to European munitions suppliers in the future.

The move, announced just before the Christmas holidays as part of a larger raft of funding approvals for Germany’s armed forces, means the Bundeswehr can spend roughly €65 million, or $68 million USD, on five systems.

The PULS pick, offered by Elbit in conjunction with German-French contractor KNDS, puts an end, for now, to a highly contested race for Germany’s next-generation, multiple-rocket launcher system.

Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall had pitched a competing offer, named GMARS, that came with the lineup of Lockheed’s munitions offerings, including the ubiquitous Guided MLRS rockets, baked into it.

The decision in favor of PULS is meant to deepen cooperation between German artillery forces and those of the neighboring Netherlands, which has previously purchased the Israeli product and whose contract provides a piggybacking option for Germany’s impending buy.

The PULS, which is short for Precise and Universal Launching System, allows for the deployment of a national fire-control system, thereby enabling user nations to pick their own munition types for integration, the spokesman added.

“Our MLRS Family of Munitions cannot be integrated into the PULS system — if Germany was to opt for PULS they could not gain access to our missiles,” he told Defense News on the sidelines of the Eurosatory defense trade show in Paris.

The same would apply to the U.S. Army’s newer Precision Strike Missile, which boasts a range of 500 kilometers and more, according to the company.

It’s unclear how prominent the assured access to Lockheed rockets is in Germany’s long-term defense planning, as German and European manufacturers have adjusted to a surge in demand for munitions of all ranges and propulsion types, guided and unguided.

In September, Elbit and Germany’s Diehl Defence signed a cooperation agreement tailored to PULS users in Europe and Germany in particular. In addition, pan-European missile maker MBDA is jockeying for position in the emerging market of longer-range weapons, deemed a critical element of Europe’s deterrence posture vis-à-vis Russia.

Elbit Missiles -

Accular 122 - 122mm, 35 km and 10 m CEP, 20-35 kg warheads
Accular 160 - 160mm, 45 km and 10 m CEP, 46 kg warhead
Extra - 306mm, 150 km and 10 m CEP, 120 kg warhead
Predator Hawk - 370mm, 300 km and 10 m CEP, 140 kg warhead

MBDA Missiles -

Surface Launched Brimstone
Land Precision Strike - long range Surface Launched Brimstone
(LPS is looking at a common launcher to the MBDA CAMM series of SAM missiles)
Exocet
Marte
Otomat
Teseo
NCM
Joint Fire Support Missile - 499 km cruise missile

....

The Korean Chunmoo, adopted by the Poles on a Polish Jelcz 8x8 chassis as the Homar-K can launch the American MRLS family of missiles as well as indigenous Korean missiles

K33 - 131mm 36 km
KM26A2 - 230mm 45 km
CGR080 - 239mm 80 km

...

Maybe we buy American for North America and follow suite with the Poles and Scandinavians for Europe.

....

At first blush, given a choice between MLRS, HIMARS, PULS and Chunmoo/HOMARS-K my lean is towards the Polish-Korean solution.
 
The Norwegians have their Kongsberg NSM/JCM

NSM™ CDS system is selected by Poland, USA, and Romania. The NSM™ missile is selected for ship-based systems by Norway, Malaysia, Germany, USA, Canada, Australia, Spain, United Kingdom, and the Netherlands. NSM™ is interchangeable between ships and trucks.

In the US it mounted on the USMC ROGUE Fires NMESIS JLTVs for Coastal Defense.

The FCC is the central integrating element for the NSM™ CDS system. It is based on the similar proven KONGSBERG BMC4I FDC used in the NASAMS System. More than 120 FCC/FDCs have been delivered worldwide in different configurations including several NATO countries and the USA. The FCC is vehicle type independent.

The FCC is the same for NASAMS.
 
If the Canadian Army isn't looking at HIMARs, M270, EuroPULS, Chunmoo/Homars-K, NASAM, SkySabre and the needs of the RCN and the RCAF holistically then it is doing this thing wrong.

Not to mention the Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher (designed to launch longer missiles) and this beast


1742000382388.png


Whether any other munitions (other than the MLRS Family of Munitions) might already be compatible with the new launcher concept is unclear. Follow-on variants and derivatives of the PrSM are already in active development for the Army. This includes a version with an additional seeker system that has a demonstrated capability to engage moving ships. There are also plans for a type with a maximum range of at least 1,000 kilometers (approximately 621 miles), which could incorporate an air-breathing propulsion system. The baseline PrSM has a range of at least 310 miles (500 kilometers), which can grow to 400 miles (650 kilometers) in the future.

The new launcher concept “may also be applied to Integrated Air Missile Defense interceptors,” the Lockheed Martin spokesperson told The War Zone, but provided no specific examples.

Lockheed Martin is the manufacturer of the combat-proven PAC-3 series. The PAC-3 family is currently used in the Patriot surface-to-air missile system, but is also now being developed in a configuration compatible with MK 41 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS). Variants and derivatives of the MK 41, yet another part of Lockheed Martin’s portfolio, are found on various U.S. and foreign warships, as well as in static and mobile ground-based configurations.

The vehicle is the HEMTT replacement and is based on the PLS trucks.

....

All that said, this is Canada. We have nothing. If somebody is writing checks today, buy the HIMARS and get started with a couple of batteries.
 
Last edited:
That's a positive move. We still have the 80kmph limit which takes the tracked guns with larger magazines out of the competition.

:(
 

competition opens up a bit with firing on the move not an absolute necessity anymore
Hmmmm

Wasn't Carney just in France a mere few hours ago, most likely right around the same time that this RFI change occurred? And doesn't France produce the CAESAR?
I think CAESAR is still dq'd based on the requirement for the crew to be protected during operation, no?
I think the new version that they are just now producing might address that concern.
 
Eh, CAESAR could be modified a bit to meet that requirement I'm sure.

That's a positive move. We still have the 80kmph limit which takes the tracked guns with larger magazines out of the competition.

:(
Link? Just curious as to what we're looking at here.

Korea almost immediately offered the K9 to us as soon as the RFI came out, my main concern with all these wheeled variants is that they only build like 15 a year total. Takes forever. K9 we could have 40 in a month as Korea would just give them to us from their war stocks. I suppose Ukraine experience has a vote as well. Do tracked SPG's have disadvantages that are very relevant from that experience?

I know that the wheeled variants seem very survivable as they are quite good at avoiding counter battery fire.
 
Eh, CAESAR could be modified a bit to meet that requirement I'm sure.


Link? Just curious as to what we're looking at here.
Many of the tracked systems can do 80kph, just not necessarily safely…


Korea almost immediately offered the K9 to us as soon as the RFI came out, my main concern with all these wheeled variants is that they only build like 15 a year total. Takes forever. K9 we could have 40 in a month as Korea would just give them to us from their war stocks. I suppose Ukraine experience has a vote as well. Do tracked SPG's have disadvantages that are very relevant from that experience?

I know that the wheeled variants seem very survivable as they are quite good at avoiding counter battery fire.
Biggest issues seems to be employment. Tracked SPA are placed (or had been) in more dangerous positions. The assumption had been made earlier that they could take some hits. Splinters yes - SUAS not so much.

Most of the tracked systems seem to have similar (.if not better) in and out of action times as the wheeled systems.
 
Eh, CAESAR could be modified a bit to meet that requirement I'm sure.
Not easily. Caesar depends on manual loading from ammunition racks on the side of the vehicle to loading trays on the very, very back. It would be a major redesign from the ground up.
Link? Just curious as to what we're looking at here.
Its here - just follow the link on it to the English version of Annex A

Korea almost immediately offered the K9 to us as soon as the RFI came out, my main concern with all these wheeled variants is that they only build like 15 a year total. Takes forever. K9 we could have 40 in a month as Korea would just give them to us from their war stocks
I think that's quite possible.
I suppose Ukraine experience has a vote as well. Do tracked SPG's have disadvantages that are very relevant from that experience?
There's mixed reporting on that. IMHO because of axe-to-grind viewpoints. Tracked SP's are high value targets and a primary target for loitering munitions. Like @KevinB I think the statistics are skewed as there are quite a few older Soviet tracked SPs in the both armies (and very few wheeled ones) and they are employed well forward with mechanized formations. I think the jury is still out on a final evaluation but in the meantime it is giving data for both sides of the argument. I've made no secret as to my stand in favour of tracks.
I know that the wheeled variants seem very survivable as they are quite good at avoiding counter battery fire.
I'm not sure there is a real argument v wheeled and tracked as far as mobility goes. Wheeled have some advantage on roads, tracks have the advantage on cross country. For me the big difference on current models is the on-board storage of ammo (especially for auto-feed systems) where tracks currently have an advantage. I'm also a fan of armoured limber vehicles to resupply guns under armour and in action. Both the M109 and K9 have these. Everyone else seems to ignore it. Archer has an ammo resupply system but its mostly unprotected and really a system based on having a resupply point well towards the rear rather than an "in action" resupply function.

🍻
 

competition opens up a bit with firing on the move not an absolute necessity anymore
If we are to go with SK K9's or French CAESAR's would offering them to ability to train at Suffield be worth anything in terms of part of the bargaining process. I believe that the UK has or is winding down their use of Suffield, maybe offering it up to the SK and/or the French would be beneficial?
 
Rumour has the Brits keeping a single person in Suffield to meet the minimum legal requirement to avoid triggering the remediation and other costs associated with ending the agreement.
 
  • Humorous
Reactions: ueo
Rumour has the Brits keeping a single person in Suffield to meet the minimum legal requirement to avoid triggering the remediation and other costs associated with ending the agreement.

Wrong. Last update from BATUS Comd, reduced and pivoting to stuff like drone experimentation.

 
If we are to go with SK K9's or French CAESAR's would offering them to ability to train at Suffield be worth anything in terms of part of the bargaining process. I believe that the UK has or is winding down their use of Suffield, maybe offering it up to the SK and/or the French would be beneficial?
That's actually an interesting idea. I think the French have some ranges in their former colonies closer to home.

Whenever I see K9s firing in SK it seems like a hub-to-hub affair firing into one target on the side of a mountain. From that I take it that they need ranges. I also take it that shooting in mountains would be a definite plus - last time I looked Suffield was a bit light on high ground.

🍻
 
That's actually an interesting idea. I think the French have some ranges in their former colonies closer to home.

Whenever I see K9s firing in SK it seems like a hub-to-hub affair firing into one target on the side of a mountain. From that I take it that they need ranges. I also take it that shooting in mountains would be a definite plus - last time I looked Suffield was a bit light on high ground.

🍻

Go East, young man.... lots of mountainous desert live fire in Oman as I recall. We spent days shooting stuff up there, quite safely. Very satisfying. Kenya's another good field firing area...

British and Omani Armed Forces train in the Desert​


The UK defence minister, Gavin Williamson rode in the turret of a British Army Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) at the culmination of Exercise Saif Sareea 3 (Arabic for Swift Sword III), the largest combined military training exercise between UK and Omani Armed Forces to be held in the Middle East for 17 years.

The Anglo-Omani land forces trained in Oman during October and naval forces in Omani and international waters nearby while the air forces from the two countries operated throughout in support. Some 5,500 UK Regular and Reserve military personnel participated alongside over 60,000 Omanis from the Sultan’s Armed Forces.

The British Army deployed 2,000 soldiers on the exercise, with around 800 on the ground as exercising troops, 185 armoured fighting vehicles and other equipment from the UK by ship and air to Oman. The British Forces included a C2 Headquarters and an Armoured Group HQ, a field role hospital and two Medical Emergency Response Teams (MERTs). Vehicles included 61 BAE Systems Warrior IFVs; 18 Challenger 2 MBTs; 43 Scimitar IRTs; four AS90 155mm propelled artillery and 54 Bulldog APCs. British air support was provided by three Apache AH.1s; three Puma HC.2s; three Chinook HC.6s; eight Typhoons FRG.4s; two Voyager tanker/transports; an A400M Atlas; two Sentry E-3Ds and one BAE 146. The maritime task force comprised HMS Albion LPV; HMS Dragon Type 45; two Bay-Class RFAs and two mine counter-measure vessels supported by two Wildcat helicopters. Operating from the flagship HMS Albion, 40 Commando Royal Marines were equipped with BAE Systems Viking all-terrain armoured vehicles

 
Elbit Missiles -

Accular 122 - 122mm, 35 km and 10 m CEP, 20-35 kg warheads
Accular 160 - 160mm, 45 km and 10 m CEP, 46 kg warhead
Extra - 306mm, 150 km and 10 m CEP, 120 kg warhead
Predator Hawk - 370mm, 300 km and 10 m CEP, 140 kg warhead

MBDA Missiles -

Surface Launched Brimstone
Land Precision Strike - long range Surface Launched Brimstone
(LPS is looking at a common launcher to the MBDA CAMM series of SAM missiles)
Exocet
Marte
Otomat
Teseo
NCM
Joint Fire Support Missile - 499 km cruise missile
Note that getting away from the US is not as easy as you think - as MBDA JV'd with LocMart and RTX (Raytheon) on many of those, as well go digging in some of the Elbit missiles and you may also find some stuff...
....

The Korean Chunmoo, adopted by the Poles on a Polish Jelcz 8x8 chassis as the Homar-K can launch the American MRLS family of missiles as well as indigenous Korean missiles

K33 - 131mm 36 km
KM26A2 - 230mm 45 km
CGR080 - 239mm 80 km

...
and yeah, well the SK's too.
Maybe we buy American for North America and follow suite with the Poles and Scandinavians for Europe.

....

At first blush, given a choice between MLRS, HIMARS, PULS and Chunmoo/HOMARS-K my lean is towards the Polish-Korean solution.
Pick the best system for the role -- don't get too wrapped up in who makes it, just make sure you have a domestic munitions industry for it...
 
Note that getting away from the US is not as easy as you think - as MBDA JV'd with LocMart and RTX (Raytheon) on many of those, as well go digging in some of the Elbit missiles and you may also find some stuff...

and yeah, well the SK's too.

Pick the best system for the role -- don't get too wrapped up in who makes it, just make sure you have a domestic munitions industry for it...
The highlighted is exactly what I think Canada should focus on. Platforms, while obviously still important, are less and less the key element in the combat system. It's the variety of munitions carried by the platform that make the difference.

Even with things as "basic" as armoured vehicles the on-board armour is being becoming less of the defining factor as APS allows for lighter vehicle weight and missiles and loitering munitions are supplementing the gun systems.

We have good tech companies that are already providing components in the defence industry. We should seek to make Canada a leader in things like sensors, specialty materials and AI that are used in munitions in partnership with existing global defence firms. We should also make the less complex munitions that are used in large quantities (artillery, autocannon and small arms shells, low cost rockets and missiles, etc.) Having an industry that builds those in bulk can then have a large enough base to support the development of more complex/expensive rockets and missiles using the sensor and guidance technologies that we build up.

Let the US and Euros spend their billions on fighters while we produce the electronics for the sensors on their aircraft, ships and missiles.
 
Back
Top