KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,764
- Points
- 1,260
The Styker 2.0 doesn't fit in the Herc - so it doesn't matter.
The idea of the Medium weight force died at the Bison...
Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement
- Thread starter MattGotts
- Start date
The idea of the Medium weight force died at the Bison...
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
Fair.
Kind of why I prefer the new Patria CAVS over the ACSV.
15.5 tonnes empty with a max weight of up to 24 tonnes.
You don't have to max out the payload if you don't want.
At 15.5 tonnes you are only using 80% of the Herc's load factor. A fair planning cushion.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,764
- Points
- 1,260
Reminds me of the GI Joe APC toy from the 80's.
I would prefer 8 wheels - I'm allergic to the 6x6's after the AVGP series.
Frankly I go back to the LAV 2.0 Bison as being the optimal medium wheeled armored vehicle (MWAV for lack of a better term).
It had a rear ramp (key performance parameter) which the AVGP's did not (not sure what sort of idiot puts doors on armored vehicles).
It was amphibious (admittedly with prep).
Yes the single V hull wasn't as durable as the double V on the LAV 6.0 and Stryker 2.0, but I'm of the opinion that the LAV shouldn't be a juggernaut designed to take massive IED's. You want small arms resistance up to and including 7.62x54R APIT (and ideally frontal 14.5mm protection), as well as splinter protection from shells and bombs. It is a Protected Mobility Vehicle not an IFV.
- Up Armor it for theatre dependent threats
- Slat Armor for sharp charge stand off as well (loss of Herc mobility on that while installed).
- Addition of a RWS for 40mm and .50 and that solves most of the firepower requirements for that role.
Then you go in on a Tracked Heavy IFV for your assault force to work with Tanks.
- Reaction score
- 15,736
- Points
- 1,160
There has been a number of very capable 6x6, the AVGP was a civil defense vehicle at first and I think the lack of heavier suspension hurt it.
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
I think the problem with the AVGP was that it was 4+2 arrangement. There was a long gap between the steering wheels at the front and the four at the back.
The CAVS 6x6 evenly distributes the load.
....
Mind, I like the Bison configuration of the LAV II as well. And it is already Canadian made and worked well.
The only difference is that the driver and VC will be a bit cosier in the CAVS.
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile
1 pod on a JLTV
2 pods on a ZETROS
4 pods on an HEMTV
All autonomous.
Autonomous Launchers Make Impact As Army Requirements Grow
Missile-armed autonomous launchers from Oshkosh Defense and Raytheon DeepFires were out in force at the Association of the U.S. Army’s (AUSA) main annual symposium. Missile-armed autonomous launchers from Oshkosh Defense and Raytheon DeepFires were out in force at the Association of the U.S...
www.twz.com
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
General Atomics successfully tests next-gen artillery round
The winged, precision-guided artillery round is maneuverable while in flight and can conduct controlled descents to strike static and moving targets.
www.defensenews.com
Things are moving awfully fast these days. I hope the project managers are keeping up.
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
Zuzana Howitzer Production Could End for Failing to Integrate Ukrainian Experience - Militarnyi
The production of the wheeled Zuzana 155mm self‑propelled howitzers in Slovakia will likely end soon
militarnyi.com
Too big, too slow and the crew sits in the turret on top of the ammunition. Unpopular characteristics in Ukraine.
- Reaction score
- 17,895
- Points
- 1,160
The problem is that these things always come with higher price tags. Unfortunately it always takes time and effort to certify new munitions for Canadian use and there are far too few folks in the system to get the job done for everyone.General Atomics successfully tests next-gen artillery round
The winged, precision-guided artillery round is maneuverable while in flight and can conduct controlled descents to strike static and moving targets.
Things are moving awfully fast these days. I hope the project managers are keeping up.
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
The problem is that these things always come with higher price tags. Unfortunately it always takes time and effort to certify new munitions for Canadian use and there are far too few folks in the system to get the job done for everyone.
Are we sure about the higher price tags? Ukraine seems to be driving the market downwards.
And as compared to what? Dumb rounds, loiterers, UAVs, cruise missiles or ballistics?
A lot of people General Atomics among them are focused on building lots of dolutions cheap and fast.
- Reaction score
- 17,895
- Points
- 1,160
Pretty sure. An arty round that can sprout wings capable of steering the round (like those in the picture) and withstand the shock of firing will not be cheap. Obviously that's a guess but if history is any judge . . .
A dumb round isn't in a steerable class. You can safely ignore that choice., Loitering munitions are a good option but countermeasures are getting better so there will be tactics and system developed to stay ahead of the curve. Cruise missile? It's just a very large steerable round but with the benefit of a soft launch. Balistics?
You have to get back to basics. Cost matters. The round must cost a lot less than the target and capable of raid production in mass or else you will lose on the manufacturing/economics side of the war.
And that's great. When I hear what it costs and the monthly production volume is I'll reconsider my natural borne scepticism.
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
Pretty sure. An arty round that can sprout wings capable of steering the round (like those in the picture) and withstand the shock of firing will not be cheap. Obviously that's a guess but if history is any judge . . .
A dumb round isn't in a steerable class. You can safely ignore that choice., Loitering munitions are a good option but countermeasures are getting better so there will be tactics and system developed to stay ahead of the curve. Cruise missile? It's just a very large steerable round but with the benefit of a soft launch. Balistics?
You have to get back to basics. Cost matters. The round must cost a lot less than the target and capable of raid production in mass or else you will lose on the manufacturing/economics side of the war.
And that's great. When I hear what it costs and the monthly production volume is I'll reconsider my natural borne scepticism.
Maybe this one is more in line wwith your budget, Sir?
BAE Systems tests extended-range Scorpio-XR artillery round
BAE Systems and the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Armaments Center have successfully test-fired the company’s new Scorpio-XR extended-range artillery projectile from a 155mm howitzer.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
BAE, US Army Test Extended-Range Scorpio-XR Artillery Projectile
BAE Systems and the US Army have successfully test-fired the Scorpio-XR extended-range artillery projectile, marking a key milestone.
thedefensepost.com
- Reaction score
- 17,895
- Points
- 1,160
I have no idea what it is expected to cost - do you?Maybe this one is more in line wwith your budget, Sir?
BAE Systems tests extended-range Scorpio-XR artillery round
BAE Systems and the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Armaments Center have successfully test-fired the company’s new Scorpio-XR extended-range artillery projectile from a 155mm howitzer.
BAE, US Army Test Extended-Range Scorpio-XR Artillery Projectile
BAE Systems and the US Army have successfully test-fired the Scorpio-XR extended-range artillery projectile, marking a key milestone.
- Reaction score
- 11,149
- Points
- 1,160
I have no idea what it is expected to cost - do you?
Nope.
The form factor just looked cheaper.
...
On the other hand missiles are getting cheaper.
80 lb payload 500 miles at Mach 0.7 for 150,000 USD
Ragnarok Mini-Cruise Missile With Big Range Targets $150K Price Tag
Kratos has unveiled its low-cost cruise missile that it says can fly a whopping 500 nautical miles while carrying an 80-pound payload.
www.twz.com
- Reaction score
- 17,895
- Points
- 1,160
I know I'm being contrarian here, but why should a missile with an 80 lb payload cost USD 150,000. Explosives are cheap. Solid-propellant rocket motors flying at Mach 0.7 are well known and cheap. Ramjets are even faster. The electronics doing guidance do not have to withstand much shock and should be cheap. And the body is just some stamped sheet metal.Nope.
The form factor just looked cheaper.
...
On the other hand missiles are getting cheaper.
80 lb payload 500 miles at Mach 0.7 for 150,000 USD
Ragnarok Mini-Cruise Missile With Big Range Targets $150K Price Tag
Kratos has unveiled its low-cost cruise missile that it says can fly a whopping 500 nautical miles while carrying an 80-pound payload.
I Know, I know. We're in the world of the $2,000 hammer but while this is rocket science, it's not "rocket science."
- Reaction score
- 8,133
- Points
- 1,210
That's why it only costs $150000.I know I'm being contrarian here, but why should a missile with an 80 lb payload cost USD 150,000. Explosives are cheap. Solid-propellant rocket motors flying at Mach 0.7 are well known and cheap. Ramjets are even faster. The electronics doing guidance do not have to withstand much shock and should be cheap. And the body is just some stamped sheet metal.
I Know, I know. We're in the world of the $2,000 hammer but while this is rocket science, it's not "rocket science."
To put it another way. Cost of all artillery shells has increased 3 fold since the 2022. There is supply chain pressure on the resources that build missiles and explosives and thus manufacturing constraints. I don't things are as cheap as you think they are.
- Reaction score
- 17,895
- Points
- 1,160
Oh, I think that they are as expensive as they are. I just don't think that some of the rocket and missile systems ought to be as expensive as they are considering the components. Cars are much more complex to design and build albeit the development costs are absorbed by scale of manufacture. Rockets are comparatively simple items made from existing components and currently also manufactured at scale in facilities that have been around for a time.
I do think that guided artillery projectiles are expensive due to the need to develop and test and build systems with components that need to withstand the shock of firing.
One can hope that competition brings costs down.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,764
- Points
- 1,260
Cost or price…
Unit costs on a number of components have dropped, while others have risen, and frankly the big determinant of price is in the volume one buys.
Several rounds have gotten cheaper to acquire in US Army volumes of purchasing.
Generally though you are correct as the supply/ demand curve isn’t what it was pre Russian Invasion of Ukraine. While production has grown vastly it still doesn’t keep up with demand.
- Reaction score
- 15,736
- Points
- 1,160
I would have thought things like this winged round would make better sense in a MLRS setup, where your launch sequence is less abrupt. HIMAR's also makes more sense than trying to make all your 155mm an extended range gun, with the wear, manufacturing costs, chamber wear, etc. Have some extended range, but most firing regular charges and ranges to reduce wear.Pretty sure. An arty round that can sprout wings capable of steering the round (like those in the picture) and withstand the shock of firing will not be cheap. Obviously that's a guess but if history is any judge . . .
A dumb round isn't in a steerable class. You can safely ignore that choice., Loitering munitions are a good option but countermeasures are getting better so there will be tactics and system developed to stay ahead of the curve. Cruise missile? It's just a very large steerable round but with the benefit of a soft launch. Balistics?
You have to get back to basics. Cost matters. The round must cost a lot less than the target and capable of raid production in mass or else you will lose on the manufacturing/economics side of the war.
And that's great. When I hear what it costs and the monthly production volume is I'll reconsider my natural borne scepticism.