Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[Kirkhill]

British Low-Cost Long-Range Kamikaze Drone SkyLance Completes First Tests

British company Rotron Aerospace announced the successful completion of demonstration tests of its new autonomous long-range strike system, SkyLance.The platform was designed as a relatively low-cost kamikaze drone. It is […]

militarnyi.com

Here's British competitor in the Low Cost Market

300 kg, 1200 km, 600 km/h, GPS denied onboard navigation, AI autonomous seeker

Price as yet undisclosed

1200 km could also mean loitering over a target 100 km away for 3 or 4 hours

 

[GR66]

Not quite - ATACAMS have complex warheads with hundreds of bomblets or 500 lbs of explosives. I just want the roughly 50-100 lbs of the Barracuda. A good sized blast to take out smaller installations or complexes that can be taken out by a small ripple of rockets. Something smaller and lighter but guided that can operate within the range a division is concerned about. I'd leave the heavier, deeper, more strategic stuff to corps.

There are a bunch of trade-offs that don't always result in a cheap solution. ATACMS is a ballistic missile which is more difficult to intercept by enemy AD than a cruise missile but the trade-off is that the guidance systems are more complex. A cruise missile can be cheaper but it is easier to intercept.

What isn't in question is that for striking targets at 300km range you need precision. The question is what type of platform is best to launch what type of munition. A ballistic missile needs more motor to warhead ratio vs a cruise missile. Cruise missiles are more effective when launched from the air because they don't have to waste energy getting airborne.

Personally I'd focus the HIMARS on ballistic missiles for long range precision strike and focus on airborne platforms for launching cruise missiles. Both are important and complement each other but use the platforms that make the most sense for each.

 

[Eaglelord17]

So on the C3 howitzers are dead front... heres the proposed reorg of ARes units that will be learning the Reg F equipment. Courtesy True North Strategic Review (Noah).



View attachment 100326

Does it still make sense to have some of the Arty units where they are, or should they reroll units closer to the main bases to ‘arty’ and farther away units to something which is easier to do stand alone training?

 

[Kirkhill]

Does it still make sense to have some of the Arty units where they are, or should they reroll units closer to the main bases to ‘arty’ and farther away units to something which is easier to do stand alone training?

Does the existing ratio of infantry to artillery still make sense or should a greater number, or even all, infantry units have an artillery component within their formal structure?

3:1?

3 infantry platoons and an artillery troop? Or 3 cavalry troops and an artillery troop?

It seems to me that there are an awful lot of gunnerish type jobs opening up due to the blurrinng of lines with rockets, missiles, cruise missiles, one way attack drones and UAVs, as well as in the counter battles from C-RAM/CUAS to IAMD.