Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[FJAG]

What you, and probably some Canadian Artillery officers, would also find interesting is that despite the insistence that OPs should be in the Bty, it’s becoming increasingly common to see them separated. The Polish operate a Bde JFO platoon - essentially an Op Bty, to support their operations, it lives far for the gun Bty, their infantry Bns own their own FST platoons.

That’s not unusual. The Americans have had their FSCoords, FISTS etc separate from the gun batteries for many decades. They are part of the CS bn HQ. The Brits have had “tactical batteries” for years. Some aren’t even part of a regiment. Strangely though we tend to think and deploy in battle groups and inevitably a bn has a battery in DS with an FSCC and several FOO parties.

In the past we had separate command lines for the field and garrison. A FOO also was the Tp Comd for a gun troop with the troop’s two lts as his subordinates. A battery had one maj, three capts and six lts. Now it averages out to one maj, seven capts and two, maybe three lts if the establishment is filled.

Our current system is “clunky.” Some capts command a troop of thirty, others a party of five. Career flow has become less regular with some folks in STA and soon in air defence (which used to be its own field in days past)

I know why we went to the OP battery and it has some merit, but, we spend the vast bulk of our time in peace time administering ourselves, training for war and deploying only occasionally. A system where the FOOs and the OP parties return to the gun battery facilitates admin, career flow and training and creates a stronger bond between the gun line and their supported FOOs and FSCC on deployment. We need to rethink how distributed gun line operates. Three lts used to do that, now if there were full three-troop batteries you’d have three capts, three lts and capt BK. Tech has made disbursed troops easier to operate. IMHO, there is a bigger role for NCMs in the structure. Do FOOs really all need to be capts who have had “time in” on the gun line? It is getting very difficult to generate sufficient officers to feed the system. AD will complicate that even more.

I admit that I’m a bit removed from the current practical experience of a proper regiment, but sitting on the outside looking in, having spent my RegF career in one, I see stress points that need to be addressed if we want to have a structure that can be easily sustained.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Anyone know much about this new French product coming online to compete against HIMARS?

Turgis Gaillard to unveil new French-made MLRS Foudre at Paris Air Show

French defence firm Turgis Gaillard will present its new multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), named Foudre, at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget from 16 to 22 June.

defence-industry.eu

Turgis Gaillard to unveil new French-made MLRS Foudre at Paris Air Sho​

French defence firm Turgis Gaillard will present its new multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), named Foudre, at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget from 16 to 22 June. The Foudre system has been developed in secrecy over the past two years and marks a strategic entry into a segment dominated by the U.S.-made HIMARS.

 

[KevinB]

Anyone know much about this new French product coming online to compete against HIMARS?

Turgis Gaillard to unveil new French-made MLRS Foudre at Paris Air Show

French defence firm Turgis Gaillard will present its new multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), named Foudre, at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget from 16 to 22 June.

defence-industry.eu

Turgis Gaillard to unveil new French-made MLRS Foudre at Paris Air Sho​

French defence firm Turgis Gaillard will present its new multiple launch rocket system (MLRS), named Foudre, at the Paris Air Show in Le Bourget from 16 to 22 June. The Foudre system has been developed in secrecy over the past two years and marks a strategic entry into a segment dominated by the U.S.-made HIMARS.

What we do | Turgis Gaillard

We strive to provide our partners with simple, pragmatic, economical solutions, in order to win their trust, and help them rely on us and focus on their own challenges.

www.turgisgaillard.com

Small French Company that seems to mostly sit on the fringe. Seems to be a systems integrator, and job shop.

This would appear to be there first real ground program offering.

 

[Czech_pivo]

What we do | Turgis Gaillard

We strive to provide our partners with simple, pragmatic, economical solutions, in order to win their trust, and help them rely on us and focus on their own challenges.

www.turgisgaillard.com

Small French Company that seems to mostly sit on the fringe. Seems to be a systems integrator, and job shop.

This would appear to be there first real ground program offering.

So someone who might be looking to partner with a potential CDN company?

 

[Halifax Tar]

What we do | Turgis Gaillard

We strive to provide our partners with simple, pragmatic, economical solutions, in order to win their trust, and help them rely on us and focus on their own challenges.

www.turgisgaillard.com

Small French Company that seems to mostly sit on the fringe. Seems to be a systems integrator, and job shop.

This would appear to be there first real ground program offering.

I fully read that as Tulsi Gabbard and had to do a triple read lol

 

[dapaterson]

I fully read that as Tulsi Gabbard and had to do a triple read lol

Before this administration I would have said "a senior government official running a foreign arms company? Don't be ridiculous!"

Today, however, meh, that's Wednesday.

 

[KevinB]

That’s not unusual. The Americans have had their FSCoords, FISTS etc separate from the gun batteries for many decades. They are part of the CS bn HQ. The Brits have had “tactical batteries” for years. Some aren’t even part of a regiment. Strangely though we tend to think and deploy in battle groups and inevitably a bn has a battery in DS with an FSCC and several FOO parties.

In the past we had separate command lines for the field and garrison. A FOO also was the Tp Comd for a gun troop with the troop’s two lts as his subordinates. A battery had one maj, three capts and six lts. Now it averages out to one maj, seven capts and two, maybe three lts if the establishment is filled.

Our current system is “clunky.” Some capts command a troop of thirty, others a party of five. Career flow has become less regular with some folks in STA and soon in air defence (which used to be its own field in days past)

I would hope AD becomes its own stream again, as it really needs to have experienced folks at the table at least at the Divisional level and ideally even higher, simply to be able to be an adult in dealing with Joint Operations.

I know why we went to the OP battery and it has some merit, but, we spend the vast bulk of our time in peace time administering ourselves, training for war and deploying only occasionally. A system where the FOOs and the OP parties return to the gun battery facilitates admin, career flow and training and creates a stronger bond between the gun line and their supported FOOs and FSCC on deployment. We need to rethink how distributed gun line operates. Three lts used to do that, now if there were full three-troop batteries you’d have three capts, three lts and capt BK. Tech has made disbursed troops easier to operate. IMHO, there is a bigger role for NCMs in the structure. Do FOOs really all need to be capts who have had “time in” on the gun line? It is getting very difficult to generate sufficient officers to feed the system. AD will complicate that even more.

I think the entire FOO/FOO Tech/MFC and potentially JTAC need to revisited.

I like the Commonwealth approach to Fire Missions not the Call for Fire down here, as it gives the FOO or BC the ability to fire his/her troop or Battery based on their perspective on the ground.

While any idiot can call for fire, simply having a radio doesn’t make one a forward observer.

Personally I’d prefer a Fire Controller career stream - irrespective of cap badge - where Capt-Maj and M/Cpl-WO will be for 5 or more years that provide a FDC/FDCC and FC Det’s for the Bde Units and Subunits, with secondary FC Dets able to deploy below the Coy level as needed.

 

[KevinB]

So someone who might be looking to partner with a potential CDN company?

I’m sure they have their partners already.
I’m also equally sure that Canada shouldn’t jump into bed with any unproven system (Eryx ring any alarm bells).

HIMARS is realistically the best game in town at this point and I think it would be foolish to try to grab onto a new unknown item given the lack of capability Canada currently has.

 

[FJAG]

I’m sure they have their partners already.
I’m also equally sure that Canada shouldn’t jump into bed with any unproven system (Eryx ring any alarm bells).

HIMARS is realistically the best game in town at this point and I think it would be foolish to try to grab onto a new unknown item given the lack of capability Canada currently has.

To me it’s not so much the launcher as the missiles. Most any good fabrication shop ought to be able to cobble together a launcher given the missile specs and an existing digital positioning and pointing system.

I think that I’d put my money behind anyone willing to share missile production with Canada.

We simply need to get control over our own consumables production.

 

[KevinB]

i suspect with enough actual demand (meaning dollars behind it) LocMart would be happy to make a rocket line in Canada, maybe not PrSM, but probably everything else.

 

[KevinB]

Germany did it, no reason Canada can't.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920503258193293480

 

[Czech_pivo]

Germany did it, no reason Canada can't.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1920503258193293480

RM must already have customers lined up for those 10,000 missiles.

 

[KevinB]

RM must already have customers lined up for those 10,000 missiles.

LocMart cannot supply the current US demand. So I have no doubt there is a large market.

 

[Czech_pivo]

LocMart cannot supply the current US demand. So I have no doubt there is a large market.

Along these lines - what are the chances of say, Roshel teaming up with a Hanwha Land Systems to make the K9 here? Volumes too small? Too much of a 'mismatch'?

 

[shiska]

The expertise and facilities exist in Winnipeg for a rocket factory. Magellan/Bristol was building CRV7 and Black Brandt here not too long ago. I dont imagine it's THAT much of a stretch to scale up to larger weapons

 

[KevinB]

Along these lines - what are the chances of say, Roshel teaming up with a Hanwha Land Systems to make the K9 here? Volumes too small? Too much of a 'mismatch'?

No idea, but I doubt Roshel has much to offer Hanwha. Like anything it comes down to money, will Canada pay exponentially more for a made in Canada option? The limited # of platforms Canada wants means if it is made in Canada the cost of the manufacturing plant will be amortized into the cost of the product.
Now if I was Hanwha, I would create a Hanwha Canada subsidiary - and go after the entire CA fleet.

Media Relations

hanwhadefenseusa.com

K9 Artillery
K2 for MBT and variants
Redback or K21 for a Tracked IFV

 

[GK .Dundas]

The expertise and facilities exist in Winnipeg for a rocket factory. Magellan/Bristol was building CRV7 and Black Brandt here not too long ago. I dont imagine it's THAT much of a stretch to scale up to larger weapons

The Rockville plant is still up and running more or less.
The Black Brant was as I recall somewhat larger the a MLRS .

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to demand and supply:

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the UK’s capacity to produce air defence and land-attack missiles is under active review as part of the ongoing Strategic Defence Review (SDR), which is expected to shape future procurement priorities in response to modern threats, according to written responses published on 30 April 2025.​

Answering two separate questions from Daisy Cooper MP (Liberal Democrat – St Albans), Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated: “The Strategic Defence Review is looking hard at the threats we face and the capabilities we need to meet the challenges, threats and opportunity of the 21st century.”

The Minister made clear that the review’s purpose is to ensure “the UK is secure at home and strong abroad, now and for years to come.”

Britain considering expanding missile production

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the UK’s capacity to produce air defence and land-attack missiles is under active review.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Brimstone 3 missile programme is progressing through its Demonstration and Manufacture phase, with major integration milestones expected in 2025 and 2026, according to a written response published on 30 April 2025.​

The missile is set to be integrated onto both the RAF’s Protector RG Mk1 drone and Typhoon fighter aircraft, with a first key firing test expected this summer.

Also, relatively recently, according to the latest Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) report, “the Senior Responsible Owner’s Delivery Confidence Assessment rating at 23/24-Q4 increased from Red to Amber.” This change was endorsed by a formal IPA review in February 2024. The assessment also flagged ongoing challenges with resourcing skilled personnel across delivery teams and industry, but highlighted that officials are considering “opportunities to spiral capability developments to ensure capability is delivered at the earliest opportunity.”

Britain’s new Brimstone 3 missile project moves forward

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Brimstone 3 missile programme is progressing through its Demonstration and Manufacture phase, with major integration milestones expected in 2025 and 2026, according to a written response published on 30 April 2025. The missile is set to be...

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

• UK scientists complete major hypersonic propulsion test, enabled by close collaboration between UK government, industry and US government.
• The propulsion system is set to power a cutting-edge hypersonic cruise missile concept.
• 233 test runs were carried out at a number of hypersonic speeds, marking a critical step forward in UK Defence capabilities.

This research aims to support delivery of a hypersonic weapon technology demonstrator by 2030 through the MOD’s Team Hypersonics (UK) programme. This will provide a transformational capability that delivers operational advantage for the future UK armed forces.

National security is a foundation of this government’s Plan for Change and today’s news comes after the Prime Minister announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the Cold War.

A joint team led by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) together with the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and supported by industry partners including UK SME Gas Dynamics Ltd, carried out 233 successful static test runs at the NASA Langley Research Centre in Virginia, USA.

This extensive testing was part of the UK’s Hypersonic Weapons Programme, and took place over six weeks involving real-time data analysis to refine design aspects and boost propulsive performance.

The trial explored several design variations, ensuring the propulsion system’s readiness for future system design updates. The engine is poised to power a cutting-edge hypersonic cruise missile concept and successfully demonstrated the performance of the high-speed air-breathing engine – enabling greater ranges than a conventional rocket - advancing the UK’s hypersonic weapon capabilities.

The tests spanned the full flight Mach number range from supersonic to hypersonic speeds, validating the robustness of the engine design and paving the way for future upgrades.

Defence Secretary, John Healey MP said:​

We are living in a more dangerous world and it has never been more important for us to innovate and stay ahead of our adversaries, equipping our forces with the technologies of the future.

This milestone moment on hypersonics research, supported by British scientists and British small businesses, demonstrates another crucial area where we are working in lockstep with the United States to bolster our Armed Forces and strengthen our deterrence.

Dstl’s Chief Executive, Paul Hollinshead said:​

This milestone represents a critical advancement in the UK’s defence capabilities and reinforces our standing in the AUKUS hypersonic weapon development collaboration. The success of these tests highlights the UK’s commitment to technological leadership and innovation in this crucial area.

UK and US hit major milestone in development of hypersonic weapons

UK hypersonic research, which could see weapons travelling at several thousand miles per hour, has reached a landmark moment after successful completion of a major testing programme.

www.gov.uk

...

I remain convinced that there is little difference between guided projectiles regardless of the motive power (gravity, propeller, fan, jet (turbo, hyper or otherwise) and rocket).


The real magic is in getting the cost of the sensors down.

As with most military inventions, the VT fuze was fiendishly clever. That 1940s technology was able to come up with a circuit that was small enough to fit on an artillery shell, durable enough to survive the brief trip to the target, and cheap enough to be manufactured in bulk — the cost per unit had dropped as low as $18 by 1945 — is a testament to the ingenuity of the engineers involved.

Retrotechtacular: A Closer Look At The VT Proximity Fuze

Here at Hackaday, our aim is to bring you only the freshest of hacks, which carries the burden of being Johnny-on-the-spot with our source material. So if something of obvious interest to our reade…

hackaday.com

At least in 1945 a single fuze cost $18, which in today's money is $314, an insignificant fraction of the price of a 155mm artillery shell. And today, due to integrated circuits and transistors, I think the cost could be even reduced from $314.

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/75940/what-has-happened-to-proximity-fuzes-after-world-war-2

....

INS sensors - $5,050

Inertial Navigation System -OB.OMG.INS

....

MMW Radar sensors - $10 - 32

Automotive mmWave radar sensors are designed for safety and precision. They often use higher frequencies like 77GHz to ensure accurate detection of objects on the road. These sensors can cost anywhere from $10.49 to $31.95 per unit in bulk, depending on their features and integration level.

mmWave Radar Sensor Pricing Simplified for Everyone

Understand mmWave radar sensor pricing, from $10 to $500+, influenced by frequency, accuracy, and application. Learn how to choose the right sensor for your needs.

www.lintechtt.com

....

Software is reproducible - an ongoing problem with Intellectual Property. Once the problem is solved everybody knows the answer.

 

[Maxman1]

Redback or K21 for a Tracked IFV

Only if we can't get CV90 (the CV9035 was selected in 2008, before the government went with the LAV UP program instead).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Along these lines - what are the chances of say, Roshel teaming up with a Hanwha Land Systems to make the K9 here? Volumes too small? Too much of a 'mismatch'?

Roshel building armoured launching vehicles for a medium MRLS system would be doable.