Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[FJAG]

Raw: Archer Firing For Media In Estonia (Doesn’t Quite Go As Planned)​

This video raised two interesting points. The first was the mention of a safety officer on the position. In peacetime, the safety officer is a junior officer or senior NCO whose job it is to ensure that any round fired lands (and/or ricochets) into a safe impact area. I wartime the same function is provided by one of the "section commanders" i.e. one of the troop officers or senior NCOs and the detachment commander himself. Ensuring safety requires an observation that the barrel's bearing and elevation points at a safe area and that the proper charge is utilized. This is done in an unobtrusive manner. While a safety officer can easily see the bearing and elevation on an Archer, I expect they have zero ability to see the charge being loaded.

I don't give much importance to the "fault finding" issues. That's part and parcel to a new gun, but, with the PzH 2000 our folks were noting that the Dutch were having frequent problems with heat and dust and computer resets etc etc. That shouldn't be routinely happening with a gun that's been in-service for years.

Once again, I'm aghast at the difficulty of reloading the gun's magazine (especially with its small size) A system that uses an unarmoured ammo carrier, needs an admin area to do in and uses little hoists and rails just seems impractical to me and takes the gun out of action too long.

Here Are The Main Reasons Why The UK Chose The RCH 155, Over K9, Caesar, Archer Howitzer​

Actually I failed to hear those reasons other than we made a deal with Germany and got jobs in both locations and a nod to commonality with the Germans and the rest of the Brit's Boxer fleet. It ignores the many K9s in Europe and in particular that Estonia has them. - Okay - the delivery time for the guns also came up - interestingly especially pointed at Caesar's slow rate. Tracks was glossed over with the usual glib 'they're not as fast on highways' bulls***.

Interesting videos just the same. The Boxer one in particular since it's a recent video and mentions that the Boxer RCH seems to not be quite ready for full-rate production - something that bugged the US a few years ago.

 

[Rifleman62]

Actually I failed to hear those reasons other than we made a deal with Germany and got jobs in both locations and a nod to commonality with the Germans and the rest of the Brit's Boxer fleet.

I noticed that also. Same procurement in Canada - economics and location (PQ).

 

[BdaDug]

Not sure if everyone would have seen this yet ...

Official Thread 'Army.ca Costs and Funding'

25 Jul 2025

Folks, I wanted to provide an update as a few things have changed recently.

Bottom line up front: We have incurred some big server costs while our key source of funding has dried up. Army.ca is no longer financially self-sustaining.

The Funding
Very few folks know that Army.ca has been primarily funded by part-time work that I carry out on my evenings and weekends (the ones where I'm not wearing green) as I operate my Cybersecurity consulting company, Crypto Logic Canada. This week, my "lynchpin" contract that has provided most of the business income, has...

• Mike Bobbitt
• Replies: 40
• Forum: Army.ca Admin

• 

 

[Kirkhill]

Rare Croatian M93A3 Haron MLRS Joins Ukrainian Arsenal: Key Features and Advantages | Defense Express

Rare 70mm Croatian M93A3 Haron multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) have appeared in Ukrainian service. Despite their small caliber and range, they offer some interesting advantages

en.defence-ua.com

40 rounds of 70 mm (unguided)

the MLRS fires unguided high-explosive fragmentation rockets NE70 TF M95, equipped with a 1.95 kg explosive warhead and a contact fuze.

The Haron can fire single rockets or salvoes ranging from two to all forty rockets. It covers an area of 200 by 300 meters at a maximum range of up to 8,000 meters. In the era of UAV dominance, this presents a danger to the crew, but fortunately, the system is equipped with a remote control unit with a range of up to 25 meters.

a towed launcher weighing 900 kg empty and 1,250 kg when fully loaded. Its overall length is 3.15 meters, with a height of 1.4 meters.
Its small size provides advantages in transport and concealment on positions — especially important given the positional nature of the russian-Ukrainian war in recent years.

Upgrade the launcher to manage the APKWS.

 

[KevinB]

View attachment 95133

Rare Croatian M93A3 Haron MLRS Joins Ukrainian Arsenal: Key Features and Advantages | Defense Express

Rare 70mm Croatian M93A3 Haron multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) have appeared in Ukrainian service. Despite their small caliber and range, they offer some interesting advantages

en.defence-ua.com

40 rounds of 70 mm (unguided)





Upgrade the launcher to manage the APKWS.

Dump the trailer - mount the launcher onto a Hummer cargo variant - pair it with an Avenger Hummer - that can guide the APKWS rockets.

 

[FJAG]

Dump the trailer - mount the launcher onto a Hummer cargo variant - pair it with an Avenger Hummer - that can guide the APKWS rockets.

There are three advantages to trailer mounted systems. One - if the vehicle goes down, another vehicle can be used to move the launcher and thus keep the system in action. (same goes for wheeled howitzers vs truck mounted ones a la Caesar). Two - the tow vehicle can carry a lot more extra ammo than if the launcher is mounted on it. It reduces the need for limber vehicles. Three - towed launchers are simpler and faster to manufacture than a vehicle mounted system.

As always the issue is whether a faster in and out of action speed is achieved with a truck-mounted system and if that speed difference is relevant. This trailer looks pretty simple with it's screw operated stabilizers. I expect its pretty fast both into and out of action.

 

[KevinB]

There are three advantages to trailer mounted systems. One - if the vehicle goes down, another vehicle can be used to move the launcher and thus keep the system in action. (same goes for wheeled howitzers vs truck mounted ones a la Caesar). Two - the tow vehicle can carry a lot more extra ammo than if the launcher is mounted on it. It reduces the need for limber vehicles. Three - towed launchers are simpler and faster to manufacture than a vehicle mounted system.

As always the issue is whether a faster in and out of action speed is achieved with a truck-mounted system and if that speed difference is relevant. This trailer looks pretty simple with it's screw operated stabilizers. I expect its pretty fast both into and out of action.

With the APKWS it could fire on the move - so would always be in action -- going with @Kirkhill 's theme of using this as a C-UAS system.
Ukraine has a lot of Armored Hummers - and has the Avengers - so twinning them wouldn't be unreasonable - then use another Hummer (or 2-3-...) as an ammo limber.

 

[FJAG]

I try hard not to be Mr. Negative, but . . .

With the APKWS it could fire on the move - so would always be in action

Until the vehicle breaks down . . . which old things do a lot.

-- going with @Kirkhill 's theme of using this as a C-UAS system.

As far as I can tell the C-UAS APWKS is still experimental and not even brochure ready . . . albeit that a limited number of EAGLS have been ordered under a Navy UOR. That's a far more complex system than simply taking an M93A3 and bolting to a Hummer.

Laser Rocket Anti-Drone Systems Being Rushed To U.S. Forces In The Middle East

The Navy put in an order for new Electronic Advanced Ground Launcher System just ahead of Iran's missile and drone strikes on Israel.

www.twz.com

System costs for each missile are creeping upward dramatically.

Ukraine has a lot of Armored Hummers - and has the Avengers - so twinning them wouldn't be unreasonable - then use another Hummer (or 2-3-...) as an ammo limber.

I'm not sure where this adds much to what a Stinger already has. Honestly, for C-UAS I'd put every nickel I had into things that fire 30 or 35mm AHEAD and mount it on a properly armoured vehicle that can deploy well forward.

Interested in hearing from any old air defenders on todays realistic options.

 

[KevinB]

I try hard not to be Mr. Negative, but . . .

Until the vehicle breaks down . . . which old things do a lot.

Fair comment - but we have an ass ton of Hummer parts to keep them going.
For Cdn type aspects, a JLTV or Senator type system, and on a LAV perhaps.

As far as I can tell the C-UAS APWKS is still experimental and not even brochure ready . . . albeit that a limited number of EAGLS have been ordered under a Navy UOR. That's a far more complex system than simply taking an M93A3 and bolting to a Hummer.

It has been fielded by some other entities.

System costs for each missile are creeping upward dramatically.

True - hopefully they will lower when in larger scale production.

I'm not sure where this adds much to what a Stinger already has.

A lot cheaper than a Stinger - I like Stinger for point defense against ground attack air - but a little spendy to launch on a small UAS.

Honestly, for C-UAS I'd put every nickel I had into things that fire 30 or 35mm AHEAD and mount it on a properly armoured vehicle that can deploy well forward.

I think you need a mix of systems - something to run up with tanks and IFV's. But also things that aren't working with AFV's.
I don't see it as an either/or, I see it as a both sort of item.

Interested in hearing from any old air defenders on todays realistic options.

 

[Kirkhill]

One other advantage of the trailer. It can be dropped off and left in position while being fired remotely.

One vehicle can act as a tractor for a number of trailers.

NASAMS box launchers can positioned up to 25 km IIRC from the FDC and one FDC can manage 4 launchers.

 

[Kirkhill]

I appreciate the emphasis on manoeuvre but IMO we can't neglect the need for static defences.

 

[KevinB]

One other advantage of the trailer. It can be dropped off and left in position while being fired remotely.

Fair, but the guidance system is required to be nearby - so it can't be left very far.

One vehicle can act as a tractor for a number of trailers.

That is a very dangerous assumption - as it tends to leave beancounters to not get the amount of prime movers you actually need.

NASAMS box launchers can positioned up to 25 km IIRC from the FDC and one FDC can manage 4 launchers.

In a non contested EW environment yes, but realistically that isn't a practical method.

 

[FJAG]

That is a very dangerous assumption - as it tends to leave beancounters to not get the amount of prime movers you actually need.

And that's not mere speculation. During the Afghanistan and post-Afghanistan era the artillery had all of its Cold War tracked equipment taken away and divested and relied on the acquisition programs for logistics vehicles to backfill all the command and control and logistics vehicle needs of the reorganized M777 regiments. It went very badly across the board.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair, but the guidance system is required to be nearby - so it can't be left very far.

That is a very dangerous assumption - as it tends to leave beancounters to not get the amount of prime movers you actually need.

In a non contested EW environment yes, but realistically that isn't a practical method.

At the risk of going all Agent 86 on you....

Would you believe...

5 km and multiple redundant fibre optic links?

With the APKWS that would give you overlapping fields of fire (5 to 8 km range) from four boxes with a total of 160 ready rounds each costing about $25,000.

Martlet and Starstreak goes for around $100,000
Stinger $150,000
Sidewinder $200,000 to $600,000
AMRAAM $1,000,000 to $2,000,000

Layer the APKWS with something like the EOS 30x113mm Slinger and EW measures and you have a relatively low cost inner layer fo VP C-UAS.

Add in passive acoustic and EO sensors.

 

[KevinB]

I appreciate the emphasis on manoeuvre but IMO we can't neglect the need for static defences.

I think for static, it's hard to beat the Oerlikon Skyshield setup.
You can link in various Missiles to it's radars, and even use it to give assistance to IR F&F MANPAD's for threat orientation.

​

 

[Kirkhill]

Further point about those trailers. The prime movers could be the base defense patrol vehicles.

14 armed Senators or reasonable facsimiles.

8x EOS Slingers on trailers.
4x APKWS box launchers
2x M-ACE sensor masts
2x FDC

 

[KevinB]

Further point about those trailers. The prime movers could be the base defense patrol vehicles.

14 armed Senators or reasonable facsimiles.

8x EOS Slingers on trailers.
4x APKWS box launchers
2x M-ACE sensor masts
2x FDC

The beancounter is winning then -- as the BDF is using the vehicles, the AD/C-UAS isn't.
You can't move the BDF if you are moving the other stuff.

The RCA guys need their own vehicles for equipment full stop.

 

[dapaterson]

And that's not mere speculation. During the Afghanistan and post-Afghanistan era the artillery had all of its Cold War tracked equipment taken away and divested and relied on the acquisition programs for logistics vehicles to backfill all the command and control and logistics vehicle needs of the reorganized M777 regiments. It went very badly across the board.

Army own goals.

The indecent obsession with pointy things over sustaining things is a self inflicted injury.

 

[Kirkhill]

These are all palletized systems that could be mounted on a trailer just as easily as mounted in the back of a truck. They could also be ground mounted.

The 4 round launcher could but uprated to the 40 round trailer



The prime mover could be something like this

or this


Take a company
Add the 14 vehicles
8x EOS Slinger Trailers
4x Vampire Trailers
2x M-ACE Trailers
Add a CQ/SQ/TQ section with four of these Zetros "Light" Vehicles



And, IMO, you have the basis for a Base Defence Force modeled on the RAF Regiment.

Once they have moved onto the base they are not moving off until the base moves or hostilities cease.

The trailer mounted weapons are the responsibility of the Heavy Weapons platoon/troop.

....

A lower cost, lower level option to the Skyshield solution.

Something for the Infantry and Cavalry

....

Next level up would be the SkyShield with the SkyRanger Turrets and NASAMS launchers for AIM-9 and AIM-120 cued by the Elbit MRR in service with the RRCA.