- Reaction score
- 37,894
- Points
- 1,210
Cost per volley is a consideration.
Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement
- Thread starter MattGotts
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,503
- Points
- 1,210
Not in for the 127mm The round is semi fixed where all the components are assembled mechanically on a tray just before loading.
- Reaction score
- 16,467
- Points
- 1,160
There is a kit offered by South Korea for the C2 version of the gun
- Reaction score
- 16,467
- Points
- 1,160
In the case of long range fires, seems there is a less shooting and initial cost of the gun and the shorter barrel life are also factors. If you want to get guided munitions to achieve the effect with less rounds, then the cost differential seems to narrow quite a bit?
- Reaction score
- 12,025
- Points
- 1,160
Doesn't it depend on the required muzzle velocity?
A traditional ballistic round requires higher pressures to achieve higher muzzle velocities to achieve longer ranges. 827 m/sec with charge 8 super.
A hyper-velocity ballistic round is going to exacerbate that problem I would think.
A ramjet round seems to require a muzzle velocity of 680 m/sec then the ramjet itself kicks in.
Suppose something like the Hero-120 could be fitted into a 155mm breech and launched with a low charge.
But
It may just be easier to do this
Shipping Container Launcher Packing 126 Kamikaze Drones Hits The Market
Packing scores of loitering munitions and one-way attack drones into a container that can go pretty much anywhere will soon be all the rage.
www.twz.com
- Reaction score
- 12,025
- Points
- 1,160
Meanwhile the Brits are putting some money down on the Boxer/RCH-155
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
They are apparently buying the first two of the prospective 116.
Britain buys new mobile artillery in £52m deal
The deal with Germany covers one RCH 155 for UK trials, with two more going to Germany for joint testing.
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
They are apparently buying the first two of the prospective 116.
- Reaction score
- 37,894
- Points
- 1,210
Artillery delivers an area effect.
- Reaction score
- 18,766
- Points
- 1,160
There are several. The S Korea model is the best. A recommendation for that type of project was very much part of the considerations of DLR2 (the artillery folks) and made its way to the desk of the VCDS in the early 2000s. It was rejected because of issues within the army unrelated to the artillery itself. Internal politics.
- Reaction score
- 18,766
- Points
- 1,160
That's my point exactly. A cannon launched Hero is a waste of launcher. They can be launched from a 120mm tube or container of any type. In my model army every CS regiment has an LM launcher battery - I'm actually toying with the idea of an STA battery that has a troop consisting of all of the regiment's FOOs and JTACs (basically downsizing the current OP Bty to a troop - not in numbers just in status), a troop of sensors including radars and MUAVs and their controllers, and a troop of medium-range LM launchers.
The divisional LRPR regiment has a similar STA battery with a smaller troop of FOOs and JTACs for the divisional cavalry regiment, a troop of MRRs and SUAS and their controllers, and a troop of long-range LM launchers.
In my mind I see smaller multiple LM launch vehicles than that depicted as I tend to try to avoid putting too many eggs in one basket. The size of that container may depend on what number of LMs need to be put int0 the air simultaneously to make an effective swarm.
Yes, but these days they are also the most practical element on the battlefield to offer over the horizon precision effects. IMHO any artillery unit needs to be structured to be able to provide both (not to mention some specific EW-based non-kinetics effects.)
- Reaction score
- 37,894
- Points
- 1,210
I believe we are in violent agreement. The proper tool for the engagement. Too many have forgotten about artillery as an area weapon and confuse it with a tool to only deliver precision effect.Yes, but these days they are also the most practical element on the battlefield to offer over the horizon precision effects. IMHO any artillery unit needs to be structured to be able to provide both (not to mention some specific EW-based non-kinetics effects.)
- Reaction score
- 18,766
- Points
- 1,160
It's kind of funny. In large part Advancing with Purpose and Afghanistan are to blame for that. Very many of the fire missions used single or two gun troops which delivered dumb HE rounds with sufficient accuracy to neutralize a position for sufficient time for manoeuvre to take place. The preferred weapon for real close precision strikes were Predator delivered Hellfires. There were other, more complex, operations too.
I remember one interview where I was briefly impressed when one of the FOOs described calling for "20 Rds FFE" on a target until I quickly recalled that this was for two guns and in my day would have been a battery doing only "6 or 7 Rds FFE" or a regiment doing "2 Rds FFE." Folks are slowly getting back to understanding large scale artillery employment but admittedly are being, and will be even more sidetracked, by the minutiae of precision targeting.
- Reaction score
- 10,992
- Points
- 1,040
Not just space (area); also time (duration). Shells are a cost-effective way to achieve and maintain suppression as long as needed.
- Reaction score
- 16,467
- Points
- 1,160
I agree with that for the regular batteries. It seems the call for tube artillery capable of long range fires is to hit more precise and important targets and with less volume of fire. To me it is like the difference we used to have between field artillery, heavy artillery and siege artillery. Each played a different role.
Patches
New Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 80
Is this something that might even be relevant today, in your opinion, given that the guns are 20 years older? The points supporting could be a renewed political appetite in military spending, and that self propelled artillery seems to be increasingly important in a drone filled landscape and reserves/regular force do not have any equipment in service today.There are several. The S Korea model is the best. A recommendation for that type of project was very much part of the considerations of DLR2 (the artillery folks) and made its way to the desk of the VCDS in the early 2000s. It was rejected because of issues within the army unrelated to the artillery itself. Internal politics.
With deliveries for new 155 sp artillery slated to be delivered in 2029 and beyond, I just wonder if there's any value. And if a kit already exists out there... In theory that would be quicker to deploy, right? Or would something like this probably not be ready before 2029 if it was of interest(I often read about procurement delays, lol)
P.S. As an outsider looking in(and trying to join!), I'm really enjoying all the great content and discussion here. I don't understand it all, but I have questions are you folks always have answers! Thanks!
- Reaction score
- 12,025
- Points
- 1,160
Everybody seems to assume that all rockets in a launcher all have to be launched at the same time. Why couldn't a rocket battery maintain the same pace of delivery as a gun battery? Complete with occasional relocations.
- Reaction score
- 18,766
- Points
- 1,160
The problem currently is that the 105mm we have are of no value except training people in the fundamentals of battery deployment and operating. They have zero operational value for the types of operations Canada is doing. Self propelled 155mm for the artillery and self propelled 120mm mortars for the infantry/armour is a sound solution. The number of guns and mortars we are ordering (together with HIMARS) are adequate for equipping one division.
I'll add one additional thing which is the drones - both medium range surveillance and attack models which exist in many varieties. IMHO, every close support regiment should come with an STA battery that includes both radars and both types of medium range drones. The HIMARS regiment should have abattery of long range drones.
The question that I always have is: what is the army's vision beyond equipping the regular force and giving the reserves a role going beyond mere augmentation? I don't see any plan at this point. We don't have enough regular force gunners to equip four full SP regiments, a HIMARS/STA regiment and a GBAD regiment. That needs either many more PYs or a plan to integrate reservists much more which raises the question whether or not 155SPs are capable of being given to reservists to train with at their armies etc etc. In short, if there is no big increase in PYs then there are probably enough "real jobs" and enough "real equipment" for the artillery reserve units and no further need for a different reserve force gun.
I'm not a fan of interim solutions unless there is a clear and immediate operational requirement. We have an "unforecasted operational requirement" (UOR) process for that and use it all too frequently. They're usually money that could be spent on other things. More importantly than what I think, if there isn't already a project underway for an interim solution then it will never be spun up in time to be of value. The 105s may be clapped out but they remain adequate - barely - to fulfill the training role.
Happy to help.
- Reaction score
- 10,992
- Points
- 1,040
That's not assumed, and there's more to it than that. If rocket artillery can have exactly the same characteristics as gun artillery, great - but I'd have to see the proof.