Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[NavyShooter]

Having recently observed how a 105mm shoot is done, a take-away from my perspective was how completely handraulic it was.

There was not a heck of a lot of digital solutions in the fire control solutions that were implemented.

My first suggestion would be to find a means to push out hardened, connected, digital fire control plotting and firing systems. The C1A1 panoramic telescope is a very neat piece of gear - I've been arms deep in the guts of a bunch of them over the past 4 months. However. There's got to be a way to make it easier to point and shoot.

Having a consistent fire control system across the entire spectrum of indirect fires capabilities would be a good step forward I think.

Infantry with their C-6's, Arty with 105/155/81, whomever runs the C-16 AGL, and so forth.

Whatever gun system is used, there should be some form of common indirect fire control system that can be slapped onto the mount, given a GPS position, an accurate bearing, and can then spit out a fire control order.

Standardized fire control should be a part of this.

I won't say 'who cares' about the gun/weapons/missiles used, but that should honestly be a secondary consideration to upgrading an integrated fire control solution.

 

[Kirkhill]

But back to the Boxer/RCH155 combination

Boxer tested to see how far RCH 155 howitzer variant can tip before it topples

A testbed weighted to represent the Remote Controlled Howitzer manages to tilt a staggering amount before its wheels lift off.

www.forcesnews.com

45 degree side slope with the turret in static load tests.
Nothing yet on firing stability.

 

[Kirkhill]

Having recently observed how a 105mm shoot is done, a take-away from my perspective was how completely handraulic it was.

There was not a heck of a lot of digital solutions in the fire control solutions that were implemented.

My first suggestion would be to find a means to push out hardened, connected, digital fire control plotting and firing systems. The C1A1 panoramic telescope is a very neat piece of gear - I've been arms deep in the guts of a bunch of them over the past 4 months. However. There's got to be a way to make it easier to point and shoot.

Having a consistent fire control system across the entire spectrum of indirect fires capabilities would be a good step forward I think.

Infantry with their C-6's, Arty with 105/155/81, whomever runs the C-16 AGL, and so forth.

Whatever gun system is used, there should be some form of common indirect fire control system that can be slapped onto the mount, given a GPS position, an accurate bearing, and can then spit out a fire control order.

Standardized fire control should be a part of this.

I won't say 'who cares' about the gun/weapons/missiles used, but that should honestly be a secondary consideration to upgrading an integrated fire control solution.

Something like this?

Fire Control Systems for the Canadian Army

The Canadian Army has awarded Aimpoint a contract to deliver an unspecified quantity of Aimpoint FCS13-RE Fire Control Systems (FCSs) and the TH-60 thermal sight systems.

euro-sd.com

Aimpoint FCS13, suitable for any ballistic trajectory weapon -

The FCS13-RE provides a high first hit probability on both stationary and moving targets at extended ranges and utilises an intuitive user control interface.

We are pushing the limits and squeezing technology from larger vehicle-based fire control systems into a smaller sight housing and introducing them on support weapons, like the 84 mm Carl Gustaf, 40 mm high velocity (HV) grenade launchers, and 12.7 mm heavy machine guns (HMGs).

Interview with Magnus Andersson, Director FCS Sales at Aimpoint

ESD’s Mark Cazalet conducted a brief interview with Magnus Andersson, Director FCS Sales at Aimpoint, on the future of the small arms optics market, and developmental challenges of miniaturised fire control systems.

euro-sd.com

 

[FJAG]

Having recently observed how a 105mm shoot is done, a take-away from my perspective was how completely handraulic it was.

There was not a heck of a lot of digital solutions in the fire control solutions that were implemented.

You didn't see the digital solution because we haven't bought enough to equip the reserve guns that you saw. With the exception of the IFCCS computer they have, the reserve's systems are not much advanced from what I did as a young gunner back in 1965.

The system for the M777, however, is a highly sophisticated digital system (with a handraulic fall back) It's based on the UK/IT LINAPs system which is installed on the Brit 105mm light guns which are comparable to the Canadian G1. It could easily be installed on the G1 and the C3 for that matter if Canada chose to spend the money to do so. They won't for the LG1 and C3 but I can pretty much guarantee that whatever we get next will have a digital system as part of it.

Effectively we do have the capability of delivering digital fires data from the observer to the gun without any voice communication. It's there. They used it recently for multinational fires in Latvia. But its not perfect yet. There are currently two other projects moving through the system to accompany the indirect fires modernization project called the "Joint Fires Modernization (JFM)" project and the "Land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) Modernization" project. I'm a sceptic as to the latter. I've seen army ISR integration and digitization as a priority for almost two decades now and I keep seeing the goal posts moving ever further out. We keep hitting the target on some elements but missing the 'total integration' that is the Holy Grail. The artillery's sensor to shooter link (i.e JFM), however, should be starting implementation this year and should be FOC by 2029/30 - knock on wood. That will give you what you are suggesting.

Something like this?

No. We're talking apples and oranges here.

 

[FJAG]

Just as a quick follow on, the artillery's UAV and radar programs pretty much grew out of the earlier ISR programs. DLR 8 back just after the turn of the century had a program going respecting the integration of ISR components and in that respect there were fledgling testbeds for radars and UAVs being looked at in order to work out how dat linkages could and should work.

When the decision was made to go into Kabul back in 2003, that material was used to fast track both Sperwer and ARTHUR into the first Op ATHENA rotations by way of UORs. Everything that followed with respect to UAVs and radars (including the current BlackJack and MRRs) grew out of those first steps and the fact that we still had a few folks around in the RCAS and elsewhere who were able to coble things together.

 

[KevinB]

Just as a quick follow on, the artillery's UAV and radar programs pretty much grew out of the earlier ISR programs. DLR 8 back just after the turn of the century had a program going respecting the integration of ISR components and in that respect there were fledgling testbeds for radars and UAVs being looked at in order to work out how dat linkages could and should work.

When the decision was made to go into Kabul back in 2003, that material was used to fast track both Sperwer and ARTHUR into the first Op ATHENA rotations by way of UORs. Everything that followed with respect to UAVs and radars (including the current BlackJack and MRRs) grew out of those first steps and the fact that we still had a few folks around in the RCAS and elsewhere who were able to coble things together.

I really want to know who was asleep at the switch considering the US Military called in Naval Gunfire as well as land based artillery using Predators back in 1991 in GW1.

I’m not sure 12 years should be considered fast tracking

 

[GR66]

I really want to know who was asleep at the switch considering the US Military called in Naval Gunfire as well as land based artillery using Predators back in 1991 in GW1.

I’m not sure 12 years should be considered fast tracking

 

[Rifleman62]

One of the points FJAG was making I believe.

Comparing K9 and Ceasar Shoot and Scoot capacity​

 

[GR66]

One of the points FJAG was making I believe.

Comparing K9 and Ceasar Shoot and Scoot capacity​

It would be interested to see the same comparison between Archer and Ceasar

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I really want to know who was asleep at the switch considering the US Military called in Naval Gunfire as well as land based artillery using Predators back in 1991 in GW1.

I’m not sure 12 years should be considered fast tracking

and we were using a drone in 1984 to call artillery fire in Suffield as well. To bad we did not pursue the field with vigour.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I really want to know who was asleep at the switch considering the US Military called in Naval Gunfire as well as land based artillery using Predators back in 1991 in GW1.

I’m not sure 12 years should be considered fast tracking

I was born too late...

 

[FJAG]

It would be interested to see the same comparison between Archer and Ceasar

There isn't a side by side that I know of but this older video gives a bit of an idea.

I'd say Archer and K9 are roughly comparable.

Since I'm a track-head I give the K9 the nod for higher cross country operation and a larger in-turret ammo load . . . but I wouldn't throw Archer out of bed for eating crackers. I'm pretty much in favour of any 155mm L52 or better barrel where the crew operates under protected armour. I prefer tracks. I prefer better on-board ammo storage. I prefer an armoured limber vehicle to resupply ammo in action. I prefer a domestic manufacturing and maintenance chain. I prefer a gun that has large sales internationally so as not to become a maintenance orphan. I prefer a gun that doesn't need to drop/raise spades or stabilizers when firing at a high charge yet retains its precision.

 

[GR66]

There isn't a side by side that I know of but this older video gives a bit of an idea.

I'd say Archer and K9 are roughly comparable.

Since I'm a track-head I give the K9 the nod for higher cross country operation and a larger in-turret ammo load . . . but I wouldn't throw Archer out of bed for eating crackers. I'm pretty much in favour of any 155mm L52 or better barrel where the crew operates under protected armour. I prefer tracks. I prefer better on-board ammo storage. I prefer an armoured limber vehicle to resupply ammo in action. I prefer a domestic manufacturing and maintenance chain. I prefer a gun that has large sales internationally so as not to become a maintenance orphan. I prefer a gun that doesn't need to drop/raise spades or stabilizers when firing at a high charge yet retains its precision.

 

[Underway]

There isn't a side by side that I know of but this older video gives a bit of an idea.

I'd say Archer and K9 are roughly comparable.

Since I'm a track-head I give the K9 the nod for higher cross country operation and a larger in-turret ammo load . . . but I wouldn't throw Archer out of bed for eating crackers. I'm pretty much in favour of any 155mm L52 or better barrel where the crew operates under protected armour. I prefer tracks. I prefer better on-board ammo storage. I prefer an armoured limber vehicle to resupply ammo in action. I prefer a domestic manufacturing and maintenance chain. I prefer a gun that has large sales internationally so as not to become a maintenance orphan. I prefer a gun that doesn't need to drop/raise spades or stabilizers when firing at a high charge yet retains its precision.

And I prefer something that will survive which the K9 will not because it's to slow to evade counter battery fire.

Yah I'm drawing that line. Armoured artillery is yesterday's gun. We're at shoot and scoot survivability now and tracked SPGs just can't do it anymore.

 

[FJAG]

And I prefer something that will survive which the K9 will not because it's to slow to evade counter battery fire.

Yah I'm drawing that line. Armoured artillery is yesterday's gun. We're at shoot and scoot survivability now and tracked SPGs just can't do it anymore.

They'll go faster cross country than wheels. They'll go where wheels won't go. They'll bash through woods and brush and plowed up fields where wheels won't go. They won't be tied to roads which will constantly be monitored. They won't have to run through road intersections which will be prerecorded as targets. They won't be stopped by cratered roads.

I could go on, but if anyone thinks that wheeled howitzers are going to go roaring down highways like a Ferrari stopping every few miles to lob a few rounds downrange while weaving in and out between counterfire and evading FPVs then they need to rethink what "shoot and scoot" 24/7 artillery support really entails.

Here's the thing. A gun that fires will be picked up by radar if you haven't already destroyed all the enemy radars. Since radars transmit, they'll be found and taken out. That leaves acoustics. They're passive thus survivable and accurate enough to throw some spec rounds into the area. But those rounds are unguided and won't destroy an SP. Standard artillery is not very good at tracking moving targets. It takes a lot of luck to get a projectile to land on a point just as a moving target goes through it. Something like SADARM increases the odds but only a bit. One really needs eyes on. One needs guided munitions. That means UAVs. So you send FPVs to monitor likely positions. FPVs are vulnerable to AD - Ukrainians estimate that around 80% of their FPVs do not reach their targets.

So long story short, the max speed of a tracked SP of 70kph (in all terrain) as opposed to a wheeled SPs of 90 kph (on a highway) makes not a whit of difference. What makes a difference is your ability to knock out CM radars before they detect you; knocking their FPVs out of the skies before they can make a hit on you which requires a viable close AD capability; and your ability to hide your gun when its not moving from whatever sensors the bad guys put up.

If we're talking about the ability of a wheeled SP to do an administrative move from Amsterdam to Latvia then sure, I'll give it the nod over a tracked SP without a tank transporter - but that's about it. Is maintenance easier for a wheeled howitzer? Maybe. That depends a lot on how long modified truck chassis can take the stresses of firing and moving on rough terrain on 24/7 operations. The mass of a chassis plays a role in both the stability and durability of an SP howitzer. I don't want to over-emphasize that last bit, but I'm always leery of the low bid.

 

[Infanteer]

The biggest threat to a SPG is not longer CB, its loitering munitions that get them before they shoot, not before they scoot.

 

[KevinB]

The biggest threat to most systems, its loitering munitions that get them before they shoot, not before they scoot.

FIFY

C/UAS systems need to be integrated into all sorts of units.

 

[Underway]

They'll go faster cross country than wheels. They'll go where wheels won't go. They'll bash through woods and brush and plowed up fields where wheels won't go. They won't be tied to roads which will constantly be monitored. They won't have to run through road intersections which will be prerecorded as targets. They won't be stopped by cratered roads.

I could go on, but if anyone thinks that wheeled howitzers are going to go roaring down highways like a Ferrari stopping every few miles to lob a few rounds downrange while weaving in and out between counterfire and evading FPVs then they need to rethink what "shoot and scoot" 24/7 artillery support really entails.

Here's the thing. A gun that fires will be picked up by radar if you haven't already destroyed all the enemy radars. Since radars transmit, they'll be found and taken out. That leaves acoustics. They're passive thus survivable and accurate enough to throw some spec rounds into the area. But those rounds are unguided and won't destroy an SP. Standard artillery is not very good at tracking moving targets. It takes a lot of luck to get a projectile to land on a point just as a moving target goes through it. Something like SADARM increases the odds but only a bit. One really needs eyes on. One needs guided munitions. That means UAVs. So you send FPVs to monitor likely positions. FPVs are vulnerable to AD - Ukrainians estimate that around 80% of their FPVs do not reach their targets.

So long story short, the max speed of a tracked SP of 70kph (in all terrain) as opposed to a wheeled SPs of 90 kph (on a highway) makes not a whit of difference. What makes a difference is your ability to knock out CM radars before they detect you; knocking their FPVs out of the skies before they can make a hit on you which requires a viable close AD capability; and your ability to hide your gun when its not moving from whatever sensors the bad guys put up.

If we're talking about the ability of a wheeled SP to do an administrative move from Amsterdam to Latvia then sure, I'll give it the nod over a tracked SP without a tank transporter - but that's about it. Is maintenance easier for a wheeled howitzer? Maybe. That depends a lot on how long modified truck chassis can take the stresses of firing and moving on rough terrain on 24/7 operations. The mass of a chassis plays a role in both the stability and durability of an SP howitzer. I don't want to over-emphasize that last bit, but I'm always leery of the low bid.

I'm poking you on purpose. I'm going to be wheeled guy from now on. Just to irritate all you irrational tracked folks! (because all falling in line with one way of thinking is boring).

And Ukraine is showing that the long range 155/52's on wheels are very survivable and have higher availability rates than the tracked versions. I'll take an available "can't go through brush" vehicle to fight in Europe any day. To many roads to not be able to move quickly from place to place.

If these things are so bad why is Germany moving to all wheeled SPG's over their amazing tracked one. Is it an expense thing? A maintenace thing? A production thing?

 

[Seyek]

I'm poking you on purpose. I'm going to be wheeled guy from now on. Just to irritate all you irrational tracked folks! (because all falling in line with one way of thinking is boring).

And Ukraine is showing that the long range 155/52's on wheels are very survivable and have higher availability rates than the tracked versions. I'll take an available "can't go through brush" vehicle to fight in Europe any day. To many roads to not be able to move quickly from place to place.

If these things are so bad why is Germany moving to all wheeled SPG's over their amazing tracked one. Is it an expense thing? A maintenace thing? A production thing?

We absolutely need to pay close attention to how different types of artillery are performing in Ukraine, but also take into account the factors behind some of that performance. Do their wheeled SPGs have comparable survivability rates to their tracked platforms? Are they being used in the same areas with the same sorts of threats, to fulfill the same tasks? Is the availability rate purely a function of the ease of keeping a truck in service, or is it because those particular platforms have better support systems in place (either locally available parts like their Bohdanas, or just better support from countries that donated wheeled systems?). Are crew casualties similar? Have they been in limited in how effectively they can employ their wheeled systems due to terrain limitations, or are they able to use both tracked and wheeled platforms in the same environments without limitation?

Re: Germany going to all wheeled over tracked - not sure, there does seem to be a surge in popularity in wheeled guns. You'd have to have an in depth examination of each country's requirements and testing info, though there are plenty of orders for K9s and the US still seems committed to the M109. It is curious as to why you wouldn't just try popping something like the RCH-155 module onto a tracked platform. Commonality with existing or future wheeled systems could be the factor, and cost is probably a big one.

I'm generally inclined towards a tracked system as that seems the logical choice for combining the best all terrain performance and crew protection. The future development plans for the K9A2 offer some interesting capabilities with 58 calibre barrels and potential unmanned vehicles. Though a wheeled platform, either based off a common truck to what we already have in service, or a Canadian version of the 10x10 LAV for commonality in tech training and some parts seem like good options, assuming they aren't limited in performance as a result. The speed requirement seems purpose written for a wheeled platform.

Ultimately any modern SPH will be a huge step up for us, so I'll still be happy no matter what.

 

[Maxman1]

We absolutely need to pay close attention to how different types of artillery are performing in Ukraine, but also take into account the factors behind some of that performance. Do their wheeled SPGs have comparable survivability rates to their tracked platforms? Are they being used in the same areas with the same sorts of threats, to fulfill the same tasks? Is the availability rate purely a function of the ease of keeping a truck in service, or is it because those particular platforms have better support systems in place (either locally available parts like their Bohdanas, or just better support from countries that donated wheeled systems?). Are crew casualties similar? Have they been in limited in how effectively they can employ their wheeled systems due to terrain limitations, or are they able to use both tracked and wheeled platforms in the same environments without limitation?

Re: Germany going to all wheeled over tracked - not sure, there does seem to be a surge in popularity in wheeled guns. You'd have to have an in depth examination of each country's requirements and testing info, though there are plenty of orders for K9s and the US still seems committed to the M109. It is curious as to why you wouldn't just try popping something like the RCH-155 module onto a tracked platform. Commonality with existing or future wheeled systems could be the factor, and cost is probably a big one.

I'm generally inclined towards a tracked system as that seems the logical choice for combining the best all terrain performance and crew protection. The future development plans for the K9A2 offer some interesting capabilities with 58 calibre barrels and potential unmanned vehicles. Though a wheeled platform, either based off a common truck to what we already have in service, or a Canadian version of the 10x10 LAV for commonality in tech training and some parts seem like good options, assuming they aren't limited in performance as a result. The speed requirement seems purpose written for a wheeled platform.

Ultimately any modern SPH will be a huge step up for us, so I'll still be happy no matter what.

Maybe we could get BAE to open a factory in Windsor to build CV-90s, and use the Braveheart turret from the AS-90 to design a SPH, just like the AHS Krab.