• 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

Is Archer on the potential list? Just wondering …
Apparently there are issues with the 8 wheeled Caesar system as well...


It seems that taking a weapons system that works on one vehicle chassis and just plopping it on a different chassis isn't as easy as you'd think.
 
Apparently there are issues with the 8 wheeled Caesar system as well...


It seems that taking a weapons system that works on one vehicle chassis and just plopping it on a different chassis isn't as easy as you'd think.
Does read promising.
 
Apparently there are issues with the 8 wheeled Caesar system as well...


It seems that taking a weapons system that works on one vehicle chassis and just plopping it on a different chassis isn't as easy as you'd think.

Tangentially, I'm enjoying seeing the French being called to account by the Czechs.

They and the British now have them surrounded ... ;)
 
Apparently there are issues with the 8 wheeled Caesar system as well...


It seems that taking a weapons system that works on one vehicle chassis and just plopping it on a different chassis isn't as easy as you'd think.
They way I read it, the Fire Control System is not compatible with the customers Specs. Without having the integration from the French System they can not make the boomy things go boom properly.
Chassis vs. chassis should not be a problem, if that is a problem then one should not be buying anything from the maker.
 
They way I read it, the Fire Control System is not compatible with the customers Specs. Without having the integration from the French System they can not make the boomy things go boom properly.
Chassis vs. chassis should not be a problem, if that is a problem then one should not be buying anything from the maker.
That's the way that I read it. It seems like for these two orders there has been a change in the fire control system and in ammunition integration. The chassis itself doesn't seem to eb an issue as far as this article is concerned.

That said, changing the chassis can be a big issue. I look particulalry at the RCH 155 and still have some disbelief that it functions well over time on the Boxer chassis. The Piranha 10 x 10 visually appears more suitable albeit that's not a given either. The RCH is a heavy box to put on the back of something that tactically has to handle both rough terrain travel and the shock of full-charge, long-range rounds. Those are very heavy stresses that the original system wasn't designed for.

🍻
 
Plus the new chassis and mount might work for 50 or so rounds and then unexplained errors creep in do to unexpected/undetected fatigue.
 
Plus the new chassis and mount might work for 50 or so rounds and then unexplained errors creep in do to unexpected/undetected fatigue.
There's too little consideration given to that in the glossy brochures.

The trend is for longer barrels with tougher chambers and charges and projectiles that achieve more range.

In short, the higher the charge the more barrel wear and chassis stress is produced. That's why gunners usually select the lowest charge to reach a given target. The more the doctrine depends on long range fires, the higher the CSS/maintenance burden is in keeping the guns mechanically capable. That means replacing barrels and metal fatigued components on the turret and the gun's chassis.

There's a reason that I keep whining about tracked v wheeled SP guns. The advantage you might get once or twice by barrelling down a good road at 90kph in a wheeled SP doesn't hold a candle to the off-road capability, the stability or the robustness that a proper tracked SP provides 100% of the time.

🍻
 
Back
Top