• 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

FJAG said:
I know I'm being contrarian here, but why should a missile with an 80 lb payload cost USD 150,000. Explosives are cheap. Solid-propellant rocket motors flying at Mach 0.7 are well known and cheap. Ramjets are even faster. The electronics doing guidance do not have to withstand much shock and should be cheap. And the body is just some stamped sheet metal.

I Know, I know. We're in the world of the $2,000 hammer but while this is rocket science, it's not "rocket science."

:unsure:
Click to expand...

Consider the price of a Javelin ATGM. It is somewhere in the 200,000 range for a 19 lb warhead delivered to a maximum range of 5 km.

JAGM is 300,000 for 8 km.
 
markppcli said:
the questions isn’t the cost it’s the use case. What does that 80 lb Mach .7 missile do for us, and what do we give up to have people man and operate that systems.
Click to expand...

I think we are starting to overlap with this observation.

www.twz.com

Army “Absolutely Needs” Drones Like Russia's Shahed-136: 25th Infantry Division Commander

The commanding general of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division is the latest U.S. Army senior officer to push for long-range one-way attack drones. The commanding general of the Hawaii-based 25th Infantry Division is the latest U.S. Army senior officer to push for long-range one-way attack...
www.twz.com www.twz.com

The Shahed is 110 lb to 2500 km at 185 km/h.

I think I would be right in suggesting the Shahed target sets (military, not civilian) would previously have been helicopter targets. These new, cheaper missiles are pushing depth targets further back which both extends your logistics and the enemy's.

Concurrently, all that range means being able to apply effects across a broader front with impacts (sorry) on dispersal.
 
The US Army is pushing for munitions that can extend the range of their cannons.
They are striving for 150 km.
But it seems that the only way they can get there is by propelling the rounds by rocket or ramjet.

If that is the case why worry about constraining the round's dimensions by the gun? Why worry about having to over-engineer the projectile to withstand the shocks of launch?
Why worry about wear and tear on rifled barrels from these projectiles?

Why not just focus on guns doing what guns have been demonstrated to do well, deliver volume to the close battle?

Rely on cheap rockets/ramjets/jets/props for ranges beyond the guns?
 
Competitors..

armyrecognition.com

AUSA 2025: Anduril’s Barracuda-500 Redefines Logistics for Modular Long-Range Strike

Anduril’s Barracuda-500 promises 500+ nm range and 100+ lb payload with air, palletized, and surface launch options, pitched as a mass-producible long-range str
armyrecognition.com armyrecognition.com

www.twz.com

Ragnarok Mini-Cruise Missile With Big Range Targets $150K Price Tag

Kratos has unveiled its low-cost cruise missile that it says can fly a whopping 500 nautical miles while carrying an 80-pound payload.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
Cost of a rocket vs a guided rocket

~2800 USD for a 70 mm rocket with an unguided ballistic range of 8 to 12 km when carrying warheads in the 10 to 20 lb range.

Adding a guidance kit and proximity fuse increases the price to something in the 30,000 USD range.

....

A dumb 155mm round costs something like 3,000 to 10,000 USD.
The M1156 kit costs between 6,500 and 13,000 USD apiece
Excalibur costs have ranged between 65,000 and 150,000

.....

250,000 will buy you 5 micro turbine jets a gas tank and a set of controls that you can strap on your back.
Jet engines can be bought for 2,000 USD.

All the costs are in the guidance/avionics end of things.


And the cost of labour and QA.


.....


That is why Kratos is looking at supplying CCAs for prices comparable to the Tomahawk in the 1 to 4 million USD range while its competitors are struggling to achieve 40,000,000.
 
Kirkhill said:
The US Army is pushing for munitions that can extend the range of their cannons.
They are striving for 150 km.
But it seems that the only way they can get there is by propelling the rounds by rocket or ramjet.

If that is the case why worry about constraining the round's dimensions by the gun? Why worry about having to over-engineer the projectile to withstand the shocks of launch?
Why worry about wear and tear on rifled barrels from these projectiles?

Why not just focus on guns doing what guns have been demonstrated to do well, deliver volume to the close battle?

Rely on cheap rockets/ramjets/jets/props for ranges beyond the guns?
Click to expand...
I suspect the money is in the "Development cycle" so years of testing, trials, redefining scope, watering down requirements, followed by more testing and trails, repeating the cycle keeps many defense industry types employed. If you field a working system quickly and it's accepted. That cycle fizzles out.
 
Kirkhill said:
nextgendefense.com

AM General Reinvents Hawkeye 105mm Mobile Howitzer With Soft Recoil Tech

Hawkeye 105mm Mobile Howitzer is a next-gen, lightweight artillery system from AM General designed for rapid, mobile fire support in modern combat.
nextgendefense.com nextgendefense.com

New Hawkeye 105. 19 km. Crew of 3. 4.5 tonnes.

Alternative to 120mm?

Too bad it couldn't be dismounted as well.
Click to expand...
Payload.
No one in their right mind is going to give up a 120mm Mortar BN controlled asset for a 105mm howitzer.
 
Kirkhill said:
What are you complaining about? The howitzer or the control?
Click to expand...
Both. The 120mm Mortar offers the BN Comd an exceptional asset. In terms of weight of fire, and let’s face it the range is significantly more than capable of the needs of the BN depth.

The 105mm in the LSCO doesn’t truly offer more range even with the RAP rounds as it’s generally positioned further back in the Div depth area - unless you are conducting raid attacks - which are not reliable for BN 24/7 Fire support.

Heck while the advantages of longer barrels is touted often as a range enabling feature, by and larger for a LSCO is sitting further back and less prone to CB or SUAS systems. Real deep target range is achieved by Rocket and Missile systems.
 
BdaDug said:
Interesting remarks on the General Atomics LRMP (long-range maneuvering projectile though no word on any impact to warhead size.

nationalinterest.org

General Atomics May Have Just Revolutionized the Cannon

General Atomics has effectively and cheaply transformed traditional artillery shells into guided missiles, vastly expanding the range and utility of modern cannons.
nationalinterest.org nationalinterest.org
Click to expand...
Significantly impacting…
When one looks at sabot rounds there is a large difference between bore diameter and the actual projectile.

I suspect you are seeing a 155mm launching a 105mm sized projectile and payload.
 
KevinB said:
Significantly impacting…
When one looks at sabot rounds there is a large difference between bore diameter and the actual projectile.

I suspect you are seeing a 155mm launching a 105mm sized projectile and payload.
Click to expand...

And nobody in their right mind wants a 105mm round, especially if it is more expensive, eats up 155mm barrels and ties up the 155mm supply and delivery system. Right?
 
Carl Gustaf 84 mm HE 441B 0.42 kg
Mortar 81mm HE M362/M374 0.95 kg Comp B-4
Rocket 70 mm HEDP M151 1.0 kg Comp B-4

Mortar 120 mm HE NAMMO 2.0 kg TNT
Rocket 70 mm HEDP M229 2.2 kg Comp B-4
Howitzer 105 mm HE M1 2.2 kg Amatol
Mortar 120 mm HE KNDS 2.5 kg Comp B
Howiter 105 mm HE L31A4 2.9 kg RDX/TNT

Howitzer 155 mm HE M107 6.86 kg TNT
Howitzer 155 mm HE M795 9.12 kg TNT or IMV-101

Denel 105 mm Howitzer PFF lethal effect greater than the 155 mm M107.


I appreciate there are differences in materials, construction and angles of attack.
 
Kirkhill said:
Denel 105 mm Howitzer PFF lethal effect greater than the 155 mm M107.
Click to expand...
That is a sales brochure comparing apples to oranges. The effects picture shows frag from a 105mm prefragmented shell and a 155mm solid shell. Of course there will be more fragments and more coverage from a prefragmented shell. Compare it to a 155m PF shell. Also observe the depth of the impact mark, the 155 is significantly deeper and larger. Causing a bunch of hail damage to a LAV and destroying some vision blocks is not the same a ripping through the crew compartment with a foot long piece of frag.
 
AmmoTech90 said:
That is a sales brochure comparing apples to oranges. The effects picture shows frag from a 105mm prefragmented shell and a 155mm solid shell. Of course there will be more fragments and more coverage from a prefragmented shell. Compare it to a 155m PF shell. Also observe the depth of the impact mark, the 155 is significantly deeper and larger. Causing a bunch of hail damage to a LAV and destroying some vision blocks is not the same a ripping through the crew compartment with a foot long piece of frag.
Click to expand...

So you are now talking about the variety of munitions available to achieve a given effect.

Is pre-fragmented 120 in common use?

Which launcher has the best pre-fragmented round? Or the largest variety of rounds? Or the most best of class rounds?
 
Kirkhill said:
So you are now talking about the variety of munitions available to achieve a given effect.

Is pre-fragmented 120 in common use?

Which launcher has the best pre-fragmented round? Or the largest variety of rounds? Or the most best of class rounds?
Click to expand...
No, you are looking at sales brochures and taking them at face value. It never says what target it is more lethal against. A radar sure, troops in cover, nope. Just from that picture it is significantly less lethal against armour.

Saying:
Kirkhill said:
Denel 105 mm Howitzer PFF lethal effect greater than the 155 mm M107.
Click to expand...
and thinking it is measuring the same effect is the same as measuring 150 ml of water and thinking it is the same as 150 grams of mercury because 150 ml of water weighs 150 grams.
They have radically different effects.

As soon as I saw the presentation was by Denel I knew it would be bullshit. My job used to be figuring out how much bullshit manufacturers were pitching. Most of them is a lot. There are few countries who have learnt that is bad, but their brochures still have be approached with caution. There are countries who you would think would make accurate brochures but for some reason don't.
 
In fairness there has been acceptance of the 155mm Assegai range of munitions. I've looked at some of the documentation and spoken with DLR2 folks who went to South Africa in 2009 to look into that and came back quite impressed with it as a class for use with the new M777s that Canada had acquired a dozen of and were getting 25 more of. It provided both better range and better terminal effects. The team also looked at several other countries' lines of ammunition.

Setting new operational stock and training stock levels for the guns was somewhat frustrating at the time. DAEME had been busy with the 120mm rounds for the new LEO2s and it was felt that they simply weren't interested in doing the work to certify and stock new ammo and production cycles but rather just go back to what they'd been doing for years. In the end DLR2 was forced to - and I quote - "spend my [new] money on the same old shit."

Australia had bought Assegai for its M777 and are examining its use with their new K9s.

and at least one other European nation.

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