Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[SeaKingTacco]

Navies started off the missile age with Surface to Air missiles that were positioned on traversing turrets and launched in pairs. The missiles were reloaded by mechanical systems below decks that had many moving parts, took up space and weight. The missile system emulated the gun systems they knew. Projectiles launched from projectors drawn from magazines.

Virtually every Navy has abandoned that construct for Vertically Launched Systems where every projectile is available at any time and mechanics, space and mass are minimized. Arleigh Burke Flight IVs have 96 cells. Each cell can hold 4 ESSMs. There are 384 ready to launch missiles. They could be launched en masse. Or rippled. Or, more probably, launched one or two at a time in accordance with the need.

View attachment 97445
View attachment 97446
View attachment 97449View attachment 97450
View attachment 97451

And of course there are always these

View attachment 97452


Why muck around bringing containers into the field, transferring those rounds to a mechanized marvel of a limber, moving that to the gun, filling the gun's magazine, selecting the round, loading the gun, firing and reloading? Why do all that when you can just bring a container from the factory, into the field, with or without drivers, select your round and launch direct from the container?

Let’s start with ballistics.

Rockets have a relatively fixed trajectory that can leave dead zones or minimum range issues. Guns can hit just about anything within range, once you play with elevation and charge bags.

Rockets tend to be quite a bit more expensive than a 155mm round.

Rockets tend to have a long reload time.

Rockets give you an immense initial weight of fire, however.

Neither is better- they have different roles.

 

[Kirkhill]

AI tells me that Russia produced 3 million artillery shells last year while the West has ramped up to 1.2 million.

Most missiles are produced in the hundreds and thousands and cost 100s of thousands to millions of dollars.
Current pressures are knocking a zero or two off the costs and adding a zero or two to the production volumes.


70mm rockets are produced in the hundreds of thousands. The US apparently burns through 100,000 rounds annually in training with an ability to produce 330,000. Thales produces about 30,000 but can scale up to 60,000.
The APKWS guidance kits are produced at the rate of 5000 per year.

Ukraine, on its own produced 4 million drones last year. And those drones are looking more and more like missiles all the time.

Edit: the manufacture of barrels and guns is given as being in the low hubdreds per year. Watervliet apparently aims for 360 barrels a year and Rheinmetall claims 200 barrels of all calibres.

As for ballistic trajectories the M1156 Precision Guidance Kit for 155s has analogs for mortars and rockets. The M1156 costs about 10 to 20,000 USD.

My bet is that no matter how good the gun may be comparatively the guided rocket will be produced faster and cheaper and supply most of the weught of fire.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Why muck around bringing containers into the field, transferring those rounds to a mechanized marvel of a limber, moving that to the gun, filling the gun's magazine, selecting the round, loading the gun, firing and reloading? Why do all that when you can just bring a container from the factory, into the field, with or without drivers, select your round and launch direct from the container?

"All we have left in the launcher is illum. No HE."

"Meh, fire 'em. Maybe it'll scare someone."

I doubt I can enumerate all the objections just by sitting here and thinking about it for a few minutes, but I also doubt there are no objections.

Analyze and describe all the use cases. Then a meaningful conversation can be had about what can replace crew-served guns if anything.

 

[Brad Sallows]

My bet is that no matter how good the gun may be comparatively the guided rocket will be produced faster and cheaper and supply most of the weught of fire.

If that were likely I would have expected to see a lot more movement in that direction.

 

[Kirkhill]

"All we have left in the launcher is illum. No HE."

"Meh, fire 'em. Maybe it'll scare someone."

I doubt I can enumerate all the objections just by sitting here and thinking about it for a few minutes, but I also doubt there are no objections.

Analyze and describe all the use cases. Then a meaningful conversation can be had about what can replace crew-served guns if anything.

Is that any different than running out of HE on the gun, or not having the right fuse?

I needed Excalibur and all I have is smoke.

 

[GR66]

Is that any different than running out of HE on the gun, or not having the right fuse?

I needed Excalibur and all I have is smoke.

Horses for courses. Why the obsession with wanting to replace one system that works with another?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Is that any different than running out of HE on the gun, or not having the right fuse?

I needed Excalibur and all I have is smoke.

Yes, if there is more ammo to hand but the launcher has to exchange a pack.