C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

That still leaves the issue of the light divisions like airborne etc. Better mortars and light weight rocket launchers?

I doubt the 777 or 119 will go anywhere for quite some time in the Light Div’s.

While you can basically get the same range from new 120mm Mortar rounds as the 105mm M119, the 155mm still won’t be replaced by a Mortar. Rocket Launchers are an interesting option, but given the desire for more pods than HIMARS offers, I’m unsure if the Artillery will be pushing for a LW MLR or a larger HIMARS, that could then see more HIMARS cascaded to XVIII ABN.

 

[FJAG]

I doubt the 777 or 119 will go anywhere for quite some time in the Light Div’s.

I agree if for nothing more than capital investments already in place. The only change might be in the mix of these two systems as more M777s become available by replacing them in the SBCT arty battalions with either M109s (in the armored divisions) or with a new wheeled SP (in the independent SBCTs) - and quite frankly the wheeled SP program may die with the number of SBCTs moving to armored divisions.

While you can basically get the same range from new 120mm Mortar rounds as the 105mm M119, the 155mm still won’t be replaced by a Mortar.

I'd like to believe that based on the experience and difficulties that happened in the early days in Afghanistan where everyone thought that mortars would be sufficient considering all the air support. - Hint - they weren't enough and M119s soon made an appearance. Unfortunately that was two decades ago and people have short memories. Range isn't the only issue; maximum ordinates (increasing susceptibility to atmospheric non standard conditions and airspace management) and inherent accuracy are more significant.

Rocket Launchers are an interesting option, but given the desire for more pods than HIMARS offers, I’m unsure if the Artillery will be pushing for a LW MLR or a larger HIMARS, that could then see more HIMARS cascaded to XVIII ABN.

I think that the HIMARS/MLRS type system fills a significant niche in the general support field and will be needed for a long time. I'm thinking that what is needed is an even lighter system, or set systems, for direct/close support, that produce both massed "dumb" neutralizing effects and guided precision systems.

 

[childs56]

I doubt the 777 or 119 will go anywhere for quite some time in the Light Div’s.

While you can basically get the same range from new 120mm Mortar rounds as the 105mm M119, the 155mm still won’t be replaced by a Mortar.

I know 120mm can get a RAP round, but not sure their range still comes close to 105mm on charge 7 or if they use a RAP round.

Rocket Launchers are an interesting option, but given the desire for more pods than HIMARS offers, I’m unsure if the Artillery will be pushing for a LW MLR or a larger HIMARS, that could then see more HIMARS cascaded to XVIII ABN.

We need a low cost solution like the BM 21/ mini or BM30 launcher. We can fix precision heads on them if required.
Canada will never invest in something kind of useful.

I agree if for nothing more than capital investments already in place. The only change might be in the mix of these two systems as more M777s become available by replacing them in the SBCT arty battalions with either M109s (in the armored divisions) or with a new wheeled SP (in the independent SBCTs) - and quite frankly the wheeled SP program may die with the number of SBCTs moving to armored divisions.

I'd like to believe that based on the experience and difficulties that happened in the early days in Afghanistan where everyone thought that mortars would be sufficient considering all the air support. - Hint - they weren't enough and M119s soon made an appearance. Unfortunately that was two decades ago and people have short memories. Range isn't the only issue; maximum ordinates (increasing susceptibility to atmospheric non standard conditions and airspace management) and inherent accuracy are more significant.

There is a pretty decent report from one of the US Commanders stating a similar thing about mortar fire and wishing he had his M119s. He said he did not think the M777 would of been appropriate for a number of reasons. One was logistics, manpower and foot print.

I think that the HIMARS/MLRS type system fills a significant niche in the general support field and will be needed for a long time. I'm thinking that what is needed is an even lighter system, or set systems, for direct/close support, that produce both massed "dumb" neutralizing effects and guided precision systems.

the BM21 comes to mind. We could build a similar system here in Canada and use the Panoramic sights off the C3's for aiming them. heaven forbid we install a GPS FCS on them.

 

[Kirkhill]

A variety of 70 mm options - and compatible with both ballistic and guided missiles, employed for saturation and precision, surface to surface and surface to air.

Stinger is looking for a replacement. Stinger is a 70 mm missile.

 

[FJAG]

I know 120mm can get a RAP round, but not sure their range still comes close to 105mm on charge 7 or if they use a RAP round.

We need a low cost solution like the BM 21/ mini or BM30 launcher. We can fix precision heads on them if required.
Canada will never invest in something kind of useful.

My mind wanders to something like this and what @Kirkhill showed in his top four images (the bottom two, not so much) with a capability to launch single OWUAVs or ripple some less intelligent rocket systems.

There is a pretty decent report from one of the US Commanders stating a similar thing about mortar fire and wishing he had his M119s. He said he did not think the M777 would of been appropriate for a number of reasons. One was logistics, manpower and foot print.

The initial phase in Afghanistan where mortars predominated was 2002 into 2003. Then M119s started being brought in at a low rate. The M777 did not come into service until late 2005 and then only with Canadians and the Marines. Canada brought them to Afghanistan in 2006 and the US Army still had the M119 (and the Brits the equivalent L118) there as the predominant gun with a few HIMARS as the long-range strategic resource.

Logistics, manpower and foot print should not have been issues. The primary reason the M777 proved highly useful in Afghanistan was that its range doubled that of the M119 meaning there was much less need to move them and expose them to risk. The additional three men on the crew is a minor drop in the bucket when the number of guns deployed never exceeded the low double digits. Footprint, if he meant the physical footprint on the gun platform, is highly compact for an M777. Add to that that the M777 was an extremely accurate gun and, despite the effective burst of the 155 round, was very useful in danger close missions. Yup. 155 rounds are a logistics pig compared to 105 rounds but that's the trade off for the benefits that a 155 gives.

 

[suffolkowner]

Does a 70mm rocket sacrifice too much vs a 122mm?
Where do loitering munitions fit in this?

 

[FJAG]

Does a 70mm rocket sacrifice too much vs a 122mm?

It all depends on the purpose of the terminal effects you wish to achieve. The 122 will fly further and carry a heavier payload than the 70. Take note as well that these two rounds have been around for many decades and within their own class have many variations.

Where do loitering munitions fit in this?

Everywhere. Loitering munitions have the benefit of precision strike with a relatively low cost for delivery systems but OTOH are liable to interception, jamming and adverse weather. Guns and rockets are less prone to interception/interference and provide a mostly all-weather capability.

IMHO, one needs a mix of systems. The difficulty is in finding the right mix, determining whether they are replacing traditional indirect or direct fire resources, and that they should be capable of adjusting rapidly to new projectile developments and technologies. It's not so much a question of which cap badge gets to do the manning, but how the fire control and coordination systems are structured and which industries get the nod for development and manufacturing work.

 

[Kirkhill]

IMHO, one needs a mix of systems. The difficulty is in finding the right mix, determining whether they are replacing traditional indirect or direct fire resources, and that they should be capable of adjusting rapidly to new projectile developments and technologies. It's not so much a question of which cap badge gets to do the manning, but how the fire control and coordination systems are structured and which industries get the nod for development and manufacturing work.

Situationally dependent, right? No different than deciding which rounds are going to hauled out of the limber for the particular mission.



Over to the Fire Support Experts.

 

[Kirkhill]

My mind wanders to something like this and what @Kirkhill showed in his top four images (the bottom two, not so much) with a capability to launch single OWUAVs or ripple some less intelligent rocket systems.

But...

IMHO, a new turret based on a Moog RIwP system that allows fleetwide tailored and retailorable solutions would be highly desirable. Not only would it provide a standardized turret system to solve a variety of needs, but it would also provide more internal space for additional ammunition or personnel in the vehicle. An added bonus would be that the system is vehicle agnostic and could be used on more vehicles than the LAV - Maybe finally a use for TLAVs.

Agreed ...


There are a lot of 70mm scale options compatible with that turret, together with other SAMs and ATGMs. Mission planning again.

I like common ammunition that can be used in industrial masses as well as being available to deal with pop-ups of all sorts at FEBA.

The other thing about that MOOG type of solution you, @FJAG , alluded to. It is platform Agnostic. And the platform doesn't have to self-propelled, or even mobile. It can be static. Just the way 50s and 20mms have been.

 

[Kirkhill]

Artillery has been the greatest killer in the war in Ukraine, accounting for more than 70% of casualties

In Ukraine, ‘shoot-and-scoot’ tactics helping Caesars survive

Nexter has increased monthly Caesar production to six from two before the war, and the target “in the time to come” is 12 cannons per month.

www.defensenews.com

Ukraine has lost less than 10% of the truck-mounted Caesar howitzers it received from France and Denmark, with greater mobility resulting in a higher survival rate than for some other self-propelled or towed systems, according French manufacturer KNDS Nexter.

Losses for some other self-propelled or towed systems in Ukraine’s war with Russia amount to nearly 30%, the company said in a statement to Defense News, without providing specifics.

“Use of drones and loitering munitions has become a real threat 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the front, where the Caesar operates,” Nexter said in the statement. “Its light weight and ability to leave its position in less than a minute to avoid counter-battery fire are therefore major assets.”

Nexter has increased monthly Caesar production to six from two before the war, and the target “in the time to come” is 12 cannons per month, Lecornu said in a press conference following the visit. The target is to reach the new capacity within a year,

“For the time being, all Caesar production is earmarked for Ukraine and for replenishing stocks of the French Army, which may decide to make further divestments to Ukraine,”

Caesar II - Next Gen

France in December ordered 109 new-generation howitzers from Nexter for about €350 million, with first delivery expected in 2026. The updated cannon will have an armored cabin to protect against mines and small-caliber arms, based on the feedback from French deployments in Afghanistan and Africa’s Sahel region.

The Caesar MkII will get a new 460 HP engine more than double as powerful as the previous 215 HP one, a new six-wheel chassis from military-vehicle maker Arquus, and updated fire control software. The howitzer will keep its 155mm cannon, with a range of more than 40 kilometers, and will remain air-transportable, according to France’s armaments directorate.