• 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

Why are they so far away from the gun ? That lanyard looks pretty long.
I've seen that a lot and don't really know why. Canada typically uses short lanyards that just keeps you clear of recoiling parts. Some forces have a higher level of nervousness with their kit for a variety of reasons (poor ammo that prematures; poor guns that can burst; trying to get further away from the noise)

There's been some recent info on traumatic brain injury from the percussion of firing 155s and there may be some reaction to that, albeit I wouldn't think Ukrainians would be on top of that.

And yes - proofing a new gun is generally done with a long, long lanyard.

🍻
 
BAE reopening M777 carriage manufacturing.


I reiterate: Regardless of the IMF program, do not divest our M777s. Even with the new SPs (and hopefully GBAD and LRPR) we will still have a capacity for more guns. More importantly there are roles for M777s that aren't easily met by SPs. In the words of Gibbs, "Don't waste good."

🍻
 
And yet one more:



Full pdf report here.



🍻
The article identifies a number of key munitions needed by NATO members to defeat a Russian invasion. In my opinion this should be exactly the list of munitions that Canada should seek to produce in Canada - as a location safe from enemy attack - and build up a large war stock that can be used by both Canada and our NATO allies in case of war. Domestic production ensures Canadian supply, creates Canadian jobs and establishing large war stocks contributes to our 2.5-3% GDP defence spending goal.
 
LRPF


WARSAW — Today in Warsaw, representatives of the Polish private company WB Group and the South Korean defense firm Hanwha Aerospace signed an agreement to establish a joint venture to manufacture missiles for the Chunmoo multiple rocket launch system in Poland.

The agreement for CGR-080 missiles was signed by Piotr Wojciechowski, chairman of WB Group, and Billy Boo-hwan Lee, head of Hanwha Aerospace PGM Business Group, in the presence of senior Polish government officials as well as the Korean ambassador to Poland.

Under the agreement, Hanwha Aerospace will hold a 51 percent majority stake in the new entity, with WB Electronics (a WB Group subsidiary) holding the remaining 49 percent. The joint venture will begin operations following approval from Poland’s Antimonopoly Committee, and also plans to market the missiles to other European customers.

“In 2024, we signed a second agreement for 72 Homar-K [Chunmoo] systems
[…]. This is the first stage of transferring the production technology of Chunmoo launchers to Poland,” Secretary of State at Poland’s Ministry of National Defense Paweł Bejda said at the ceremony. “The next stage is the production of ammunition, specifically missiles for these Chunmoo launchers. We have an assurance that within three years the first missiles will come off the production line of the company, which has already been established by WB Electronics and Hanwha Aerospace.”

Poland has ordered a total of 290 Homar-K systems, which consist of a K239 launcher module, a Jelcz P882.57 TS T45 8×8 truck chassis and a national Topaz combat management system, manufactured by WB Group. The launchers were ordered in two batches — 218 in November 2022, and another 72 in April 2024 (12 of the latter batch will be manufactured in Korea, and 60 in Poland). Systems were purchased together with a logistics package, training and ammunition supplies. There are already 90 Homar-Ks in Poland, and deliveries of all systems for the Polish Army are to be completed by 2029.

290 launchers ordered with 90 delivered and mounted on locally manufactured Polish trucks. 60 of the 290 units to be manufactured complete in Poland. Poland will also be manufacturing its own missiles and selling them to other European countries.

Are we European?

1744937265147.png

Poland is also developing a Medium Range CAMM missile with the UK for land and sea applications.

 
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 ;)
Which is really impressive considering the MQ-1 didn’t enter production until 1995.
 
Which is really impressive considering the MQ-1 didn’t enter production until 1995.
More recent production units apparently have a flux capacitor installed.

Sm Flux Capacitor GIF by Sticker Mule
 
Which is really impressive considering the MQ-1 didn’t enter production until 1995.
My bad. @GR66 is correct.
Oddly some DoD AAR’s do refer to it as a ‘Predator’.

The Pioneer interestingly enough does look a lot like some of the Ukrainian long range SUAS.
 
I certainly wouldn't be unhappy with this choice

 
I certainly wouldn't be unhappy with this choice

Especially if we build it here.

🍻
 
I certainly wouldn't be unhappy with this choice

 
1745870188531.png

I came across this picture attached to an article about the Brits standing up a Gurkha arty regiment. (400 bodies initially trained on Archers and Lt Guns with the RCH155 to be added in future).


What caught my eye was the positioning of the turret. It strikes me that this is likely to be a more stable platform than firing over the sides or even over the front. And the driver is already poised to get off the firing position quickly. I wonder if this is as a result of lessons learned.

155mm portee?
 
View attachment 92990
What caught my eye was the positioning of the turret. It strikes me that this is likely to be a more stable platform than firing over the sides or even over the front. And the driver is already poised to get off the firing position quickly. I wonder if this is as a result of lessons learned.
I’m curious if it is a test to see if it can be done.
The rear compartment is blocked so no easy reload or egress - and it appears when you zoom in on the turret that it has impacted the hull under recoil (as there is some what looks like split armor on the turret corner.

Secondly while the driver may be angled for a quick get away, I doubt coming in is easier and going in an out of action will also require the turret to be rotated forward toward the driver anyway.
 
I’m curious if it is a test to see if it can be done.
The rear compartment is blocked so no easy reload or egress - and it appears when you zoom in on the turret that it has impacted the hull under recoil (as there is some what looks like split armor on the turret corner.

Secondly while the driver may be angled for a quick get away, I doubt coming in is easier and going in an out of action will also require the turret to be rotated forward toward the driver anyway.

I don't think there is an intention to reload on the firing point.

From other videos the turret rotated forwards and the barrel embedded in the travel lock while the vehicle was in motion.

I think the magazines eould be reloaded in a secure location woth the gun forwards.
 
You would certainly never travel with the turret pointing to the rear or side. Howitzer trunnions do not work the same way as a stabilized tank gun. A howitzer's barrel needs to be locked into its travel lock or else the elevation mechanism will be severely stressed and possibly damaged while on the move. I've seen the videos of it firing on the move and pulling out of action while moving and swinging the gun into the travel position before locking it in but noted it was done while driving relatively slowly and on particulalry flat ground. That's glossy brochure stuff and I'd want to see detailed factory specs and test results before considering it a safe practice to do so routinely.

As far as reloading on the firing point. I expect that is something to be done depending on the circumstances. I'd want an armoured resupply vehicle which remains close to the gun giving you the option to resupply by moving forward to the gun or, alternatively, bringing the gun back to rearm. I'm dead against the Archer solution and favour the M992 or K10 concept. They provide more tactical options and flexibility.

There's this ammo resupply vehicle that KM is working on (not sure where they are with it) that supposedly allows the reloading of the gun without anyone being exposed outside their respective vehicle. A robotic arm (3) takes the round from the module and feeds it onto the projectile reload tray (501). Not sure how the MACS components are transferred nor primers (for that matter I don't know if it uded primers or some other charge initiator. It looks a tad Rube Goldbergish to me.

Boxer-Munitionspanzer-Missionsmodul-768x657.png


Boxer-Munitionspanzer-mit-RCH-155-1024x385.png


🍻
 
Back
Top