Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement
- Thread starter MattGotts
- Start date
quadrapiper
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 705
- Points
- 1,040
Seems a bit wobbly at the upper end. Wonder why the arm was chosen, instead of, perhaps, something with the tray running all the way up.
- Reaction score
- 2,559
- Points
- 1,090
Amos and Nemo are breech loading aren't they? Better ?
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,143
- Points
- 960
Originally it looked like the Swedes were going to adopt Amos and I believe it was primarily a cost issue that ended up driving the Molnijar purchase.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,143
- Points
- 960
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 5,208
- Points
- 1,260
For me, this thread had gotten way too technical. Now, I can understand it!
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,737
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 10,065
- Points
- 1,160
So, similar to the L5 problems?
The M777 started out as the Ultra Light Field Howitzer. For the US it was an alternative to the M198. Just as the L5 was an alternative to the M101/C1. In both cases a lot of design compromises were made to lighten the gun and make it suitable for airmobile operations.
What has the US done with all its M198s?
- Reaction score
- 10,065
- Points
- 1,160
Effects of drones on armoured artillery operations
www.removepaywall.com
As soon as they complete a fire mission they have to move. So, do you reload on the Firing Point?
....
Other concerns
www.stripes.com
(Sorry about the paywall) - Key take away - US General Ryan regrets that the US is so far behind in Fiber Optic drones.
Some years back somebody cracked wise about wanting their 1980s strategy back.
I give you the 1980s.
en.wikipedia.org
The Fiber Optic, vertically launched, 15 km version of the TOW missile.
Circa 1984.
One more part of the Assault Breaker family generated post 1978 in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
The key element, in my opinion, was the HEAT warhead. It could be delivered by Sagger or TOW or NLAW. Or Javelin, Hellfire or Brimstone. Autonomously with IR/MMW seeker or command via laser, rf, wire or fibre optic.
And NetFires
en.wikipedia.org
....
The US, and NATO, had a 40 year lead to figure this stuff out. Instead they concentrated on what they knew and ditched the novelties until the Ukrainians were forced by circumstances to reach into the dark corners for things that worked.
RemovePaywall | Free online paywall remover
Remove Paywall, free online paywall remover. Get access to articles without having to pay or login. Works on Bloomberg and hundreds more.
www.removepaywall.com
As soon as they complete a fire mission they have to move. So, do you reload on the Firing Point?
....
Other concerns
Army lags in adjusting to use of unjammable fiber-optic drones, general says
A top Army general, detailing new fiber-optic drone technology that defies jamming and has transformed the battlefield in Ukraine, delivered a pointed warning to American military insiders.
(Sorry about the paywall) - Key take away - US General Ryan regrets that the US is so far behind in Fiber Optic drones.
Some years back somebody cracked wise about wanting their 1980s strategy back.
I give you the 1980s.
MGM-157 EFOGM - Wikipedia
The Fiber Optic, vertically launched, 15 km version of the TOW missile.
Circa 1984.
One more part of the Assault Breaker family generated post 1978 in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
The key element, in my opinion, was the HEAT warhead. It could be delivered by Sagger or TOW or NLAW. Or Javelin, Hellfire or Brimstone. Autonomously with IR/MMW seeker or command via laser, rf, wire or fibre optic.
And NetFires
XM501 non-line-of-sight launch system - Wikipedia
....
The US, and NATO, had a 40 year lead to figure this stuff out. Instead they concentrated on what they knew and ditched the novelties until the Ukrainians were forced by circumstances to reach into the dark corners for things that worked.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 16,172
- Points
- 1,160
Is there a link to the actual report?
What L5 problem are you referring to? Let me simply say that if the barrel ever wore out - which I'm not aware of any having been fired enough for that to be an issue - then a gun detachment could replace the barrel in the field in about ten minutes without any tools or technical assistance. Remember - this gun was designed to break down into mule pack loads - one of those loads was the barrel. Easy-peasy.
Let me assure you that you do not want the M198 back. a) its a beast; b) they were clapped out long ago; c) it's barrel is no easier to replace than the M777 one. The material that was lightened had to do with the carriage. There can be issues with the carriage if its damaged as the titanium steel requires special welding, but that doesn't seem to be the issue being addressed here.
We knew that back in the 1970s when we started into dispersed operations. The tech wasn't quite there to make it simple though.. You're going to have to define "reload." The M777 doesn't carry ammo like an SP. The ammo is either dumped or is on the gun tractor or on an ammo limber. Basically, you can't "load" an M777 until you are on the platform and have a mission. Reaction time is important on a CS mission. That means a gun should be on a firing platform ready for a mission when not moving. It should not wait in a hide and move to a platform when a call for fire comes. That takes too long. That might add some risk but folks need to understand that a moving gun is easier to spot then one properly camouflaged on its gun platform. There needs to be a balance as between hiding and moving.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 14,737
- Points
- 1,260
Is there a link to the actual report?
I would assume if you visit one of the IG profiles who posted it you will find a report.
But I really don't know. Apologies my friend.
- Reaction score
- 7,386
- Points
- 1,090
I'm going to highlight something very clearly here. I can confirm the following:
The 120mm mortar solution will not be exquisite. It will be a tube with people dropping rounds into it. It will be fully dismountable from what vehicle it attaches to. It will be used exclusively by the infantry (explaining why the first two points are important).
The example shown above with the GDLS 120mm mortar (and the Stryker system) will likely be the solution or one of the proposed solutions. The GDLS mortar has a baffle attached to it to avoid TBI from shooting a mortar out of a metal box that reflects concussive waves back at you.
So the Mjonir system and all the other cool heavy mortars listed here, nope. Its going to be old school, simple, and proven.
The 120mm mortar solution will not be exquisite. It will be a tube with people dropping rounds into it. It will be fully dismountable from what vehicle it attaches to. It will be used exclusively by the infantry (explaining why the first two points are important).
The example shown above with the GDLS 120mm mortar (and the Stryker system) will likely be the solution or one of the proposed solutions. The GDLS mortar has a baffle attached to it to avoid TBI from shooting a mortar out of a metal box that reflects concussive waves back at you.
So the Mjonir system and all the other cool heavy mortars listed here, nope. Its going to be old school, simple, and proven.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 26,250
- Points
- 1,260
Oh like what was tried down here and it didn’t really work…
Jesus wept.
Proven to cause issues - have an open top that is tactically unsound - and cause TBI still even with the deflector (that has been used in the US Military for a a while and didn’t really do shit for the troops firing it.
- Reaction score
- 10,065
- Points
- 1,160
I was wondering about sustained fire (WW1/Ukraine). Days, if not months, in the same firing position chucking rounds downrange. Would the L5 manage to function effectively in that environment? My expectation is that lightened weapons give up life expectancy for other attributes.
Fair enough if the M198s are clapped out. I was thinking that the Ukrainians might be able to find a use for them given that they were happy enough to be using old Soviet kit.
We knew that back in the 1970s when we started into dispersed operations. The tech wasn't quite there to make it simple though.. You're going to have to define "reload." The M777 doesn't carry ammo like an SP. The ammo is either dumped or is on the gun tractor or on an ammo limber. Basically, you can't "load" an M777 until you are on the platform and have a mission. Reaction time is important on a CS mission. That means a gun should be on a firing platform ready for a mission when not moving. It should not wait in a hide and move to a platform when a call for fire comes. That takes too long. That might add some risk but folks need to understand that a moving gun is easier to spot then one properly camouflaged on its gun platform. There needs to be a balance as between hiding and moving.
- Reaction score
- 10,065
- Points
- 1,160
PS - Stumbled across this one - Patria's entry into the wheeled SPH sweepstakes an L52 K98 on the back of an 8x8 Sisu.
Designed for Arctic use.
Designed for Arctic use.
- Reaction score
- 7,386
- Points
- 1,090
That might not be the final solution, its a GDLS solution. It might be a 120mm that is lowered from the back of a lighter vehicle to the ground. But it's not going to be overly complicated over engineered high maintanence required system.
I agree with the army's direction on this. Exquisite systems are a mistake in this case.
- Reaction score
- 10,065
- Points
- 1,160
This might suggest that infantry are going to infantry and armour is going to armour.
By that I mean that the focus of the infantry may be on the foot-borne fight while armour focuses on the vehicular fight.
If that then the infantry's vehicles are first and foremost carriers for the infantry and their weapons. The weapons are intended to follow the infantry when they leave their carriers into terrain the carriers can't traverse.
Conversely the armour focuses on fighting while mounted which means that their weaponry is integral to the vehicle.
Turrets, especially with heavy weapons, don't seem compatible with all-terrain dismounted ops.
Mjolnir/AMOS/NEMO seem like excellent additions to an armoured brigade. Probably not so much for a light brigade.
Which leaves one struggling, again, with the gray zone in between, the medium brigade. Is it a motorized light brigade (original Stryker) or a terrain restricted light armour brigade?
If this decision on mortars has any intellectual cohesion it might suggest that the infantry is to focus on the dismounted battle. Turrets on the carriers could then focus on short range self-defense against aerial and ground targets.
I would love to hear that the complementary decision is to create a proper armoured brigade based on the CV90 or some such, and exploit the capabilities of tracks a full array of heavier, turreted, weapons (Sky Ranger and NEMO for example).