• 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

Cloud Cover said:
Ok well, is 150 KM too far away for 155 mm rounds? Seems to me the target would need to be fixed or asleep…

www.calibredefence.co.uk

Tiberius Aerospace unveils Sceptre; a 150 km 155 mm round -

Tiberius Aerospace has emerged from stealth to launch Sceptre, a ramjet powered 155 mm artillery round with a range of 150 km.
www.calibredefence.co.uk www.calibredefence.co.uk
Click to expand...
The round is fueled in the field with diesel, JP-4 or JP-8. Interesting concept. I want to see an autoloader do that. :giggle:

It appears to be a GPS, IMU and AI guidance system which basically means its deployed against fixed, and not mobile, targets.

Nothing is "too far" for a 155mm round. What matters is whether the round provides the required effect at the target end regardless of the range. 150 kms is a very useful range as it would allow divisional artillery to attack, in all weather conditions, numerous enemy installations directly involved in commanding, controlling or sustaining the enemies front line troops.

I'm a believer in the potential of ramjet because it can increase range substantially without the need to increase the in-chamber propellant pressures which create the very high G rates that can be destructive to GPS and IMU components. It took a lot of work to get rounds like Excalibur to withstand that. So far their test firing is from an M777. Future testing on L52 or longer systems will provide data on just what the G limits are (I've seen some glossy IMU brochure materials that claim a 20,000g of shock capability). And one doesn't need to fire a ramjet at full charge anyway in order to get the range. One just needs the required ramjet activation speed.

Joking aside on the liquid fuel. An increase to a twenty year shelf life do to storing rounds without propellant is a big bonus in building and maintaining war stocks.

In any event, if one can manage 150 kms out of an M777 one has a valuable tool for select, high-value targets. Hope it gets beyond the glossy brochure stage.

🍻
 
KevinB said:
Which absolutely flies in the face of reality.

You are missing that your are trying to decrease the #'s in your "solutions" and increase the tasks they need to do -- that isn't making anyone more effective.

You seem to be missing the forest from the trees.

No, I see automation as a continually improving process - that may or may not lead to autonomy.
But my #1 goal is combat effectiveness.

You and a lot of others are simply trying to leap a lake way beyond the ability you have to jump right now.
Click to expand...

You are envisioning leaps. I am envisioning steps. Always keeping one foot on the ground.

I don't talk about eliminating what is. I talk about procuring what isn't.
 
KevinB said:
To me it appears that you are trying to leap.
Click to expand...

KevinB said:
You have utterly lost me on this.
Click to expand...

I am not proposing getting rid of existing inventory. I am proposing adding new items to the inventory to increase the options available to troops on the ground.

If the troops on the ground still find a place for M777s then maintain and replace the M777s. If they are looking for SPHs then fine. They can buy what the market offers. At the same time they should be alive to new developments and be buying them in parallel. This is especially true in a fast changing environment.
 
FJAG said:
The round is fueled in the field with diesel, JP-4 or JP-8. Interesting concept. I want to see an autoloader do that. :giggle:

It appears to be a GPS, IMU and AI guidance system which basically means its deployed against fixed, and not mobile, targets.

Nothing is "too far" for a 155mm round. What matters is whether the round provides the required effect at the target end regardless of the range. 150 kms is a very useful range as it would allow divisional artillery to attack, in all weather conditions, numerous enemy installations directly involved in commanding, controlling or sustaining the enemies front line troops.

I'm a believer in the potential of ramjet because it can increase range substantially without the need to increase the in-chamber propellant pressures which create the very high G rates that can be destructive to GPS and IMU components. It took a lot of work to get rounds like Excalibur to withstand that. So far their test firing is from an M777. Future testing on L52 or longer systems will provide data on just what the G limits are (I've seen some glossy IMU brochure materials that claim a 20,000g of shock capability). And one doesn't need to fire a ramjet at full charge anyway in order to get the range. One just needs the required ramjet activation speed.

Joking aside on the liquid fuel. An increase to a twenty year shelf life do to storing rounds without propellant is a big bonus in building and maintaining war stocks.

In any event, if one can manage 150 kms out of an M777 one has a valuable tool for select, high-value targets. Hope it gets beyond the glossy brochure stage.

🍻
Click to expand...

The question I have with the Ramjet is:

Which is the most cost effective means of getting the round up to the velocity at which the Ramjet kicks in?

I see two options -

The 155 mm howitzer and a propelling charge
A launcher (tube or rail) and a booster rocket.

Personally my money is on the launcher and rocket.
 
Kirkhill said:
The question I have with the Ramjet is:

Which is the most cost effective means of getting the round up to the velocity at which the Ramjet kicks in?

I see two options -

The 155 mm howitzer and a propelling charge
A launcher (tube or rail) and a booster rocket.

Personally my money is on the launcher and rocket.
Click to expand...
That's an easy math problem - a standard 155mm propelling charge v a rocket booster. The projectile is basically the same regardless.

If you already have howitzers and their support structure in the inventory its a simple math issue. If you can utilize some other rocket launcher system already in the system then, again, its a simple math issue.

I'm not gonna guess. I'll let the bean counters tell me.

🍻
 
FJAG said:
That's an easy math problem - a standard 155mm propelling charge v a rocket booster. The projectile is basically the same regardless.

If you already have howitzers and their support structure in the inventory its a simple math issue. If you can utilize some other rocket launcher system already in the system then, again, its a simple math issue.

I'm not gonna guess. I'll let the bean counters tell me.

🍻
Click to expand...

I'm just thinking that firing a ramjet, an aircraft with its own gudance and propulsion, is going to eat up lands when the lands are going to add anything to the ramjet operatuons.

Apparently the muzzle velocity of an L39 155 is about 827 m/s or someplace close to Mach 2.5. That is pretty much an optimum speed to initiate a ramjet.

But ramjets can be initiated at minimum velocities of Mach 0.5, so I'm told. The muzzle velocity of a 120mm mortar is knocking on the Mach 1 door at about 330 m/s.

Why waste expensive barrels if there are lower cost means of getting the aircraft into the air and up to speed?

Rockets like the Hydra 70, CRV7 and the MRLS family all operate in about the Mach 2 range.
 
Kirkhill said:
Why waste expensive barrels if there are lower cost means of getting the aircraft into the air and up to speed?
Click to expand...
You're overcomplicating the issue.

The number of these, relatively expensive, rounds being fired is small in comparison to other rounds. Their contribution to barrel wear is insignificant and far outweighed by other considerations.

Look. I'm as much into the use of launchers as anyone; maybe more so. I've come to the conclusion that every CS arty regiment supporting a manoeuvre brigade should have a GS launcher/STA battery in addition to its three gun batteries. It's purpose is to launch and operate surveillance drones, loitering munitions and other systems that operate in the CB role and attack targets in depth. That's over and above launcher resources at div and higher levels. At that point the option between gun-launched and rocket-launched projectiles is then purely the cost based on the propulsion method (which IMHO is probably close to a wash) and perhaps some practical tactical employment considerations.

That organization is not in the immediate cards of Canadian arty units, (but the systems are under investigation.) Assuming something like a gun-launched Sceptre is commercially available, we could use it right now with our existing M777s based on targets acquired by our MRRs or other existing surveillance resources.

The same is not true for a rocket-launched ramjet which would require Canada to acquire and man a whole new launcher capability. To keep things simple and cost efficient, you go with what you already have. When Canada finally decides that a launcher battery is a critical enough requirement to assign resources to (which I already believe it is and which could easily be manned by a low-RegF ratio hybrid org) then we can get one that launches a variety of desirable systems including ramjets if they fit the bill.

🍻
 
Kirkhill said:
I'm just thinking that firing a ramjet, an aircraft with its own gudance and propulsion, is going to eat up lands when the lands are going to add anything to the ramjet operatuons.
Click to expand...
None of those are going to ignite in the barrel.
There is a launch booster and then flight engine. Much the same idea as ATGM’s etc.
The kicker charge gets it going and away from people, material etc. then the main event kicks it off to take it to the target.
 
KevinB said:
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn’t the UK now have less Arty and less tanks than the CA, but have a gun barrel facility…
Click to expand...
:ROFLMAO: - Yeah. You're wrong. They win on tanks, serviceable 105mm, MLRS and air defence. We have a few more 155s at the moment but theirs are SPs and have longer tubes.

🍻
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top