C3 Howitzer Replacement

[suffolkowner]

Too bad we couldn't just buy a NASAMS platoon and swap out the missile pods.



I am assuming that the $23 million does not include the 18 missiles which would be $21.6 million on their own.
And would a Firing Platoon necessarily require a Radar? In the AD role yes? In the Counter Battery and Coastal Defence roles yes? In the Fire Support role?

$2.9 billion for weapons: 6 NASAMS air defense systems, UAVs, ammunition, but still no ATACMS • Mezha.Media

First, six air defense systems NASAMS in addition to those two that were transferred in July. Most likely, we are again talking about NASAMS platoon kits,

mezha.media

didnt they already say/do the swap in Ukraine?

 

[Kirkhill]

didnt they already say/do the swap in Ukraine?

I believe the Ukrainians, using the same six box launchers with common rails inside, are firing any SAMs they can get their hands on that will fit inside the box and hook up to the fire control system.

I'm wondering if that pod of 6 boxes could be removed from the launcher and swapped for pods of 70/122/GMRLSs/PrSMs/ATACMs/NSMs/Tomahawks as well as the SAMs.

The NASAMs system has already been re-tasked to handle Polands Anti-Shipping Coastal Defence needs.

 

[KevinB]

I believe the Ukrainians, using the same six box launchers with common rails inside, are firing any SAMs they can get their hands on that will fit inside the box and hook up to the fire control system.

I'm wondering if that pod of 6 boxes could be removed from the launcher and swapped for pods of 70/122/GMRLSs/PrSMs/ATACMs/NSMs/Tomahawks as well as the SAMs.

The NASAMs system has already been re-tasked to handle Polands Anti-Shipping Coastal Defence needs.

You aren't going to fit Tomahawks onto a NASAMS base.
Furthermore why on earth would you want to.

I get you are trying to create a common fires launch platform, but realistically it is not practical.
You are much better off having a AD specific launcher, and it's encompassing network of FDC, Sensors and Radars, and having separate ground attack platforms. Or you risk the issue of not having the correct system loaded for the needs you have.
The launcher costs are negligible in the big picture.
FDC's, Radars, Missiles are the big costs.

 

[Kirkhill]

You aren't going to fit Tomahawks onto a NASAMS base.
Furthermore why on earth would you want to.

I get you are trying to create a common fires launch platform, but realistically it is not practical.
You are much better off having a AD specific launcher, and it's encompassing network of FDC, Sensors and Radars, and having separate ground attack platforms. Or you risk the issue of not having the correct system loaded for the needs you have.
The launcher costs are negligible in the big picture.
FDC's, Radars, Missiles are the big costs.

Kev - 80%

One system to solve 80% of the problems. If Tomahawk is the outlier, fine. If ATACMs is an outlier, fine.

Bu to the specifics of the case - Tomahawk can be launched from the same rig that launches 2 NSMs on the back of a JLTV. The ground rig that launches NASAMs is transported on the same trucks that transport the NSM rigs for Coastal Defence. Those rigs can launch from the ground or while on their transport vehicles.

I am looking for one rifle with magazines that can carry an assortment of rounds. No more than that.

 

[Furniture]

Kev - 80%

One system to solve 80% of the problems. If Tomahawk is the outlier, fine. If ATACMs is an outlier, fine.

Bu to the specifics of the case - Tomahawk can be launched from the same rig that launches 2 NSMs on the back of a JLTV. The ground rig that launches NASAMs is transported on the same trucks that transport the NSM rigs for Coastal Defence. Those rigs can launch from the ground or while on their transport vehicles.

I am looking for one rifle with magazines that can carry an assortment of rounds. No more than that.

To stick with your rifle analogy, lets look at the Robinson Armaments XCR-L. It can fire 7.62x38, 5.56x45, and 6.8 SPC. To do that they require that they require different barrels, bolts, and magazines as well either adjust or swap sights. You can't realistically swap rounds on the fly because of all the parts you need to change/adjust, so you just set it up for what you want to shoot on a given day.

Also, the conversion kits cost about the same as buying a dedicated rifle for each ammo type, so in the end you have a complex rifle system that is less efficient than just buying a single rifle dedicated to each cartridge.

You're correct that having a common truck to carry things makes sense, but even then the different sizes and weights of the missiles likely means that different trucks would need to be used.

As for the FDC, again, a common box/SEV shell to put the systems into makes sense, but trying to make a bespoke Canadian FDC for all purposes makes zero sense. It would increase costs, be an orphan system, and encourage the CAF to not buy enough, or enough of the needed types.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention that you end up with people loading the wrong round into a rifle that might accept it, fire it and not be able to travel safely down the barrel.

 

[NavyShooter]

The only 'worthwhile' conversion kit for a rifle platform is a .22 insert in my opinion and experience.

Reduced template. Reduced recoil. Reduced cost. Reduced noise.

Similar accuracy at reduced range when targets are scaled. Similar weapons handling drills so few if any training scars.

No ability to accept a full-bore round accidentally.

I fired tens of thousands of .22 rounds from my dedicated .22 uppers for my AR over the years.

The ability to build positional muscle memory is great, especially at the reduced cost.

Scaling that up to launch platforms for missiles...I agree that there is an apples vs oranges thing going on.

 

[Kirkhill]

To stick with your rifle analogy, lets look at the Robinson Armaments XCR-L. It can fire 7.62x38, 5.56x45, and 6.8 SPC. To do that they require that they require different barrels, bolts, and magazines as well either adjust or swap sights. You can't realistically swap rounds on the fly because of all the parts you need to change/adjust, so you just set it up for what you want to shoot on a given day.

Also, the conversion kits cost about the same as buying a dedicated rifle for each ammo type, so in the end you have a complex rifle system that is less efficient than just buying a single rifle dedicated to each cartridge.

You're correct that having a common truck to carry things makes sense, but even then the different sizes and weights of the missiles likely means that different trucks would need to be used.

As for the FDC, again, a common box/SEV shell to put the systems into makes sense, but trying to make a bespoke Canadian FDC for all purposes makes zero sense. It would increase costs, be an orphan system, and encourage the CAF to not buy enough, or enough of the needed types.

You are correct about the rifle requiring different barrels and breaches to handle different calibres. And those have to handle high pressures and be finely machined. That is the advantage of the rocket over the bullet.

The tolerances are much wider and the pressures much lower. The reason that NASAMs can launch Sidewinders, Sparrows, Sea Sparrows, AMRAAMs of all sorts as well as European missiles like Aspides and Iris's is that the box is not the launcher. The box is merely a shroud to protect the launch rail and the missile from the environment.

The launch rail is one of the common launch rails employed by NATO Air Forces to attach their ordnance of choice to their aircraft of choice.

LAU-127 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The MRLS system attacks the problem slightly differently. It mounts the magazine directly on the T&E rig on the back of a truck. The "bullet" launches directly from the "magazine" and doesn't require either a barrel or a breech.

NASAMS is like an old Lee-Enfield where the magazine was loaded from stripper clips via the charger on the rifle.
The MRLS system is more akin to a preloaded magazine that doesn't need a rifle at all. It just needs sights and a trigger and a bench rest.

The Mk 41 VLS uses one cell size (at least in cross section) but can pack various missiles in various numbers into each cell.



If a JLTV can mount a VLS cell to launch a Tomahawk then that same cell on that same truck could carry and launch 4 ESSMs for the SAM mission.

That was the original thinking behind the Netfires box.



WRT the FDC I absolutely would not support a "bespoke Canadian solution". I would just buy what Norway is offering. It serves both SAM batteries and NSM coastal defence batteries.

Fire Distribution Center (FDC) – NASAMS/ NSM™ CDS - KONGSBERG

The FDC is the C2 node of the NASAMS air defence system. The various AMRAAM models, AIM-9X and AMRAAM ER have all been fired from NASAMS. More than 10 different sensors have been integrated with the FDC. Standard tactical data links as well as several national proprietary data links are fully...

www.kongsberg.com

 

[Furniture]

You are correct about the rifle requiring different barrels and breaches to handle different calibres. And those have to handle high pressures and be finely machined. That is the advantage of the rocket over the bullet.

The tolerances are much wider and the pressures much lower. The reason that NASAMs can launch Sidewinders, Sparrows, Sea Sparrows, AMRAAMs of all sorts as well as European missiles like Aspides and Iris's is that the box is not the launcher. The box is merely a shroud to protect the launch rail and the missile from the environment.

The launch rail is one of the common launch rails employed by NATO Air Forces to attach their ordnance of choice to their aircraft of choice.

LAU-127 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The MRLS system attacks the problem slightly differently. It mounts the magazine directly on the T&E rig on the back of a truck. The "bullet" launches directly from the "magazine" and doesn't require either a barrel or a breech.

NASAMS is like an old Lee-Enfield where the magazine was loaded from stripper clips via the charger on the rifle.
The MRLS system is more akin to a preloaded magazine that doesn't need a rifle at all. It just needs sights and a trigger and a bench rest.

The Mk 41 VLS uses one cell size (at least in cross section) but can pack various missiles in various numbers into each cell.

View attachment 79934

If a JLTV can mount a VLS cell to launch a Tomahawk then that same cell on that same truck could carry and launch 4 ESSMs for the SAM mission.

That was the original thinking behind the Netfires box.

View attachment 79935

WRT the FDC I absolutely would not support a "bespoke Canadian solution". I would just buy what Norway is offering. It serves both SAM batteries and NSM coastal defence batteries.

Fire Distribution Center (FDC) – NASAMS/ NSM™ CDS - KONGSBERG

The FDC is the C2 node of the NASAMS air defence system. The various AMRAAM models, AIM-9X and AMRAAM ER have all been fired from NASAMS. More than 10 different sensors have been integrated with the FDC. Standard tactical data links as well as several national proprietary data links are fully...

www.kongsberg.com

The people who do AD are not the people who do long range strikes, and they can't do both at the same time...

Why would you use a massive MK41 to launch smaller missiles from a truck? You're adding unneeded weight and size to a vehicle, to "simplify" the logistics.

It makes sense on a ship because you have the size and weight capacity to do it, but when you can use a smaller truck to get the same job done, why would you tow around a semi trailer sized launcher?

To go back to rifles, the NASMS is essentially a 5.56 NATO firing different weight and construction bullets. The MK41 is a 30-06 firing different weight and construction bullets. Both cartridges are great, but there is a reason they both exist and often times one is better suited to a task than the other.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am looking at this strictly from a logistical standpoint. What has to be done to get a package of destruction from the production line to the target. Ideally the target would be identified and the destruction factory called and it would crank out the appropriate package and deliver it to the designated address to the target. Everything between the point of manufacture and the point of use is inventory management.

More SKUs, more types of packages, makes for an inefficient delivery system.
More delivery mechanisms maker for an inefficient delivery system
Complex delivery machinery makes for an inefficient delivery system.

Directed Energy systems are approaching my ideal solution. Energy is manufactured on site and directed to indicated targets. The "factory" is complex, the laser, radar or sound projector, but the logistics necessary for a kill is the provision of packaged energy (uranium, hydrocarbons, hydrogen...)


My intention is to reduce the number of SKUs and reduce the number of delivery mechanisms.

To that end I am suggesting that using HIMARS type pods or VLS type cells on a NASAMS type T&E or even a NetFires type box would make it easier to supply Air Gunners, Coast Defence Gunners, Counter Battery Gunners, General Support Gunners, Close Support Gunners with the necessary package of destruction to serve their chosen targets.

Artillery guns have "limbers" / magazines / resupply vehicles with multiple warhead and fusing choices. The 70 mm rockets, 84 mm CG84, hand grenades, 40 mm grenades all seek to accomplish the same thing. They seek to allow one common system to be applied in many circumstances to deal with many problems. The more targets that one system can serve, the more masters it can please, then the simpler the logistics become.

And the simpler the logistics then the more the targets can be served for longer for less money.



The VLS cell can be mounted vertically or at an angle. It can be carried on ships and subs (manned and unmanned), in sea cans, on 53 foot trailers, and apparently, JLTVs. It can also also be launched from a fixed surface mount on land. That cell can be loaded with a variety of missiles. If the JLTV can carry a single VLS cell with a Tomahawk, presumably that cell is delivered to the JLTV preloaded. If that then why not deliver packages of 4 ESSMs in pre-packaged VLSs cells to the AD batteries while you use the same logistics to deliver Tomahawks and NSMs to the Coastal Defence, Counter-Battery and General Support batteries?

Same thing applies to the MRLS pods which were developed to launch ballistic rockets from one type of tracked carrier but is now used on a simple T&E device that can be mounted in pairs on the original carriers and Korean trucks as well as in singles from American trucks and Norwegian sea cans.

The NASAMs "Multi Mission Launcher" requires individual rounds to be reloaded on site. That has its advantages on occasion. But in a match up between the reloadable Grads and the Chunmoo/HIMARs preloaded pods then the pods win.

The key to all of this is keeping the pods and the T&E cheap and simple and light so that they can be mounted on 80% of the platforms available 80% of the time in 80% of the places.



As to the missiles themselves - the same technology that can be deployed to take out a strategic bomber or a tank of diesel with a cardboard plane for a couple of thousand dollars suggests that missiles are only going to get cheaper and more effective to make.

Carbon fibre, polyfoam and cardboard together with a bit of alumininum for the rocket nozzle and an M1156 style Precision Guidance Kit or an MMW seeker of the types found on Merlins, Strix and Brimstone missiles or a proximity fuse and you can start serving at least 80% of your targets anywhere with packages of high explosives and shrapnel.

You don't need iron and steel and blast furnaces and precision lathes and machinists. 3D printers and Carbon will get you more than 80% of the way there.



A HIMARS pod loaded with Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs mounted in a seacan and launched from there.

Google Brimstone to see the varieties of platforms and launchers proposed for that.

 

[Furniture]

I am looking at this strictly from a logistical standpoint. What has to be done to get a package of destruction from the production line to the target. Ideally the target would be identified and the destruction factory called and it would crank out the appropriate package and deliver it to the designated address to the target. Everything between the point of manufacture and the point of use is inventory management.

More SKUs, more types of packages, makes for an inefficient delivery system.
More delivery mechanisms maker for an inefficient delivery system
Complex delivery machinery makes for an inefficient delivery system.

Directed Energy systems are approaching my ideal solution. Energy is manufactured on site and directed to indicated targets. The "factory" is complex, the laser, radar or sound projector, but the logistics necessary for a kill is the provision of packaged energy (uranium, hydrocarbons, hydrogen...)


My intention is to reduce the number of SKUs and reduce the number of delivery mechanisms.

To that end I am suggesting that using HIMARS type pods or VLS type cells on a NASAMS type T&E or even a NetFires type box would make it easier to supply Air Gunners, Coast Defence Gunners, Counter Battery Gunners, General Support Gunners, Close Support Gunners with the necessary package of destruction to serve their chosen targets.

Artillery guns have "limbers" / magazines / resupply vehicles with multiple warhead and fusing choices. The 70 mm rockets, 84 mm CG84, hand grenades, 40 mm grenades all seek to accomplish the same thing. They seek to allow one common system to be applied in many circumstances to deal with many problems. The more targets that one system can serve, the more masters it can please, then the simpler the logistics become.

And the simpler the logistics then the more the targets can be served for longer for less money.



The VLS cell can be mounted vertically or at an angle. It can be carried on ships and subs (manned and unmanned), in sea cans, on 53 foot trailers, and apparently, JLTVs. It can also also be launched from a fixed surface mount on land. That cell can be loaded with a variety of missiles. If the JLTV can carry a single VLS cell with a Tomahawk, presumably that cell is delivered to the JLTV preloaded. If that then why not deliver packages of 4 ESSMs in pre-packaged VLSs cells to the AD batteries while you use the same logistics to deliver Tomahawks and NSMs to the Coastal Defence, Counter-Battery and General Support batteries?

Same thing applies to the MRLS pods which were developed to launch ballistic rockets from one type of tracked carrier but is now used on a simple T&E device that can be mounted in pairs on the original carriers and Korean trucks as well as in singles from American trucks and Norwegian sea cans.

The NASAMs "Multi Mission Launcher" requires individual rounds to be reloaded on site. That has its advantages on occasion. But in a match up between the reloadable Grads and the Chunmoo/HIMARs preloaded pods then the pods win.

The key to all of this is keeping the pods and the T&E cheap and simple and light so that they can be mounted on 80% of the platforms available 80% of the time in 80% of the places.



As to the missiles themselves - the same technology that can be deployed to take out a strategic bomber or a tank of diesel with a cardboard plane for a couple of thousand dollars suggests that missiles are only going to get cheaper and more effective to make.

Carbon fibre, polyfoam and cardboard together with a bit of alumininum for the rocket nozzle and an M1156 style Precision Guidance Kit or an MMW seeker of the types found on Merlins, Strix and Brimstone missiles or a proximity fuse and you can start serving at least 80% of your targets anywhere with packages of high explosives and shrapnel.

You don't need iron and steel and blast furnaces and precision lathes and machinists. 3D printers and Carbon will get you more than 80% of the way there.



A HIMARS pod loaded with Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs mounted in a seacan and launched from there.

Google Brimstone to see the varieties of platforms and launchers proposed for that.

I completely "get" what you're going for, I just think you're trying to do too much with one platform.

It would be like "simplifying" the CA's non-combat vehicle fleet to just the MSVS to keep a common platform. So, whether you're moving a loaded sea can, or three troops down the road 20 km, you use a MSVS to do it. Need to move one injured soldier? MSVS. A couple bags of mail? MSVS... It adds initial cost, maintenance, and fuel expenses, but you have one platform to do all things.

In reality, buying the right system for the job, with modularity to work within it's specified role, will result in better outcomes. NASAMS makes sense because it's a platform designed to work with AAW and ASuW missiles. Trying to turn it into a strike platform as well, with massive launchers that increase cost and have no real world benefits for 90% of the things you need it to do, is wasteful.

If we are being realistic, the CAF is likely looking at 1-3 batteries of AD, and maybe(but not likely) 1 battery of LR strike missiles. Spending the money for 5-6 batteries worth of strike sized launchers(semi trailer), and their maintenance makes no sense, if at most we will use one battery's worth at a time.

As for the "destruction factory", that already exists... You call higher for support, they assign assets suited to the task.

Lastly, discussing individual missiles on rails, or pods. If you have a crew you can reload the rails handraulically, if you have pods, you need a crane.

 

[ueo]

I've always thought that we should make use of the eighty thousand CRV 2.75 inch rockets we have in storage by mounting a multiple launcher on a truck combined with about 36 or so panoramic telescope systems from broken C3 howitzers to create our own little mini MLRS batteries so that we can at least learn some of the basic concepts (and get rid of a whole lot of rockets on the cheap).

Sure the range sucks but that means you could fire it in Meaford and Valcartier as a training system where short range is a feature and not a problem.

Fire it in Meaford- the locals and touristas would go wild. Suspect that the template would have to be extended into the lake again, with all the admin probs. Reinvent the Meafiod Navy perhaps?

 

[Kirkhill]

Saab unveils new naval operator workspace concept and camouflage system - Breaking Defense

“I would consider any partner that will step up and say that ‘we're really interested in this’ because that would probably accelerate our process," said Saab's Johan Hagg of the workstation.

breakingdefense.com

Spot the difference ...

The upper image is the SAAB naval work station. The lower image is the Kongsberg NASAMS FDC.

 

[KevinB]

Saab unveils new naval operator workspace concept and camouflage system - Breaking Defense

“I would consider any partner that will step up and say that ‘we're really interested in this’ because that would probably accelerate our process," said Saab's Johan Hagg of the workstation.

breakingdefense.com

Spot the difference ...

The upper image is the SAAB naval work station. The lower image is the Kongsberg NASAMS FDC.

View attachment 79972

View attachment 79973

The Navy is working from home?

 

[Kirkhill]

The Navy is working from home?

The Ukrainian Navy is.

 

[Kirkhill]

“Even one gun can completely turn the situation around. An attack can be stopped with one such gun,” he said.​

​

'We keep giving them hell' on the Bakhmut front​

The use of heavy weapons supplied by the West in the fierce battle raging on the outskirts of Bakhmut, which was captured by Russia in May, is inflicting a significant toll on enemy lines, Ukrainian commanders have said, speaking to Reuters.
One unit commander, 30-year-old Oleksandr, said Ukraine’s armed forces “very much rely” on heavy artillery.
“Even one gun can completely turn the situation around. An attack can be stopped with one such gun,” he said.
“The main thing is to aim where needed. They (the Russians) hate our hardware. That’s what we gather from our intercepts. We hear that we keep giving them hell and they keep wondering how much ammunition we have left.”

'We have a breakthrough' says Ukrainian general leading counteroffensive

Ukraine has broken through Russia’s lines in the Zaporizhzhia region and expects to make further breakthroughs, the general leading Kyiv’s offensive in the south has said.

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[MilEME09]

The Ukrainian Navy is.

And sunk a submarine

 

[FJAG]

I've been grumbling for a few years, ever since some bright spark decided that artillery and engineers were no longer a combat arm but a combat support arm. This notwithstanding that artillery was the biggest killer on the battlefield during the Second World War.

I presume that Gulf War 1 had a lot to do with that when the air arm became the major striking force in support of manoeuvre. Here in the west there has been a general decline in not only the amount of artillery we kept but the importance that we gave it.

Of the many lessons we ought to be learning from Ukraine is that engineers, with their mines and mine clearing and bridging capabilities have a major combat role and that artillery (whether tube or UCAV) still earns the "King of the Battlefield" title.

For what my voice may be worth - I'm reclaiming combat arms status for both sappers and gunners.

 

[Kirkhill]

I've been grumbling for a few years, ever since some bright spark decided that artillery and engineers were no longer a combat arm but a combat support arm. This notwithstanding that artillery was the biggest killer on the battlefield during the Second World War.

I presume that Gulf War 1 had a lot to do with that when the air arm became the major striking force in support of manoeuvre. Here in the west there has been a general decline in not only the amount of artillery we kept but the importance that we gave it.

Of the many lessons we ought to be learning from Ukraine is that engineers, with their mines and mine clearing and bridging capabilities have a major combat role and that artillery (whether tube or UCAV) still earns the "King of the Battlefield" title.

For what my voice may be worth - I'm reclaiming combat arms status for both sappers and gunners.

Which is more likely?

An engineer led strategy of fortifications.
A gunner led strategy of fire domes.
A cavalry led strategy of manoeuvre.
An infantry led strategy of closing and destroying.

The bloodiest would be the last. IMHO.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I've been grumbling for a few years, ever since some bright spark decided that artillery and engineers were no longer a combat arm but a combat support arm. This notwithstanding that artillery was the biggest killer on the battlefield during the Second World War.

I presume that Gulf War 1 had a lot to do with that when the air arm became the major striking force in support of manoeuvre. Here in the west there has been a general decline in not only the amount of artillery we kept but the importance that we gave it.

Of the many lessons we ought to be learning from Ukraine is that engineers, with their mines and mine clearing and bridging capabilities have a major combat role and that artillery (whether tube or UCAV) still earns the "King of the Battlefield" title.

For what my voice may be worth - I'm reclaiming combat arms status for both sappers and gunners.

Not sure what you are worrying about here for terminology?

"Doctrine" wise we have the following from Land Operations:

Combat Elements - those that engage the enemy directly (armour, infantry, direct fire units). Considered ground manoeuvre units.

Combat Support Elements - fire support, operational assistance, and enablers to combat elements through designated command and control and fire support relationships. Cbt sp elements include fire support, air defence, reconnaissance, combat engineer, some electronic warfare elements, and some aviation assets.

Combat Arms - The term “combat arms” is a colloquial term that refers to a slightly wider description of “combat elements.” It includes armour, infantry, field engineers, and artillery.

So, for what its worth, artillery and engineers are already combat arms.