Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[FJAG]

I'm poking you on purpose.

I kinda figured you were. And I'll admit, I'm all too easy to poke. Probably all that lawyer DNA in my blood.

I'm going to be wheeled guy from now on. Just to irritate all you irrational tracked folks! (because all falling in line with one way of thinking is boring).

And Ukraine is showing that the long range 155/52's on wheels are very survivable and have higher availability rates than the tracked versions. I'll take an available "can't go through brush" vehicle to fight in Europe any day. To many roads to not be able to move quickly from place to place.

I think availability rates have to do with the Soviet-legacy maintenance structure which did not give high priority to recovering and fixing stuff in the field. They used an echelon system which passed fresh units through. That doesn't work well when you are very light on second echelon units.

A Russian (and thereby probably Ukrainian) SP battalion of 18 x 152mm SPs has a maintenance squad of 11 men in two trucks. My 1980s era six-gun M109 battery had more people than that and three times the vehicles (including a tracked M578 recovery vehicle) with a further maintenance section of almost thirty folks at the regimental level.

Ukrainians are quite maintenance savvy but the lack of sufficient maint pers well forward will have a detrimental effect on complex system availability.

If these things are so bad why is Germany moving to all wheeled SPG's over their amazing tracked one. Is it an expense thing? A maintenace thing? A production thing?

My guess is that the KNDS/Rheinmetall conglomerate has a lot to say about that. Personally I was never a big fan of the PzH 2000. It was an early generation automated loader system mounted on a modified Leopard chassis. As a result it had good cross country ability and it had good armour protection but this came at the price of weight which is twice that of the M109 and almost 20% heavier than the K9. In Afghanistan it proved highly susceptible to both heat and dust which frequently threw off the electronics needed for both laying and loading the gun. There are even worse reports as to maintenance issues from Ukraine. It's also very expensive.

Germany let its artillery arm deteriorate badly. 134 x PzH 2000 and 33 x MARS. Its two divisions have 7 artillery battalions in total, one (maybe two) of which is in the process of forming. There are two additional bdes with two Dutch arty bns.

There are several modernization programs underway. It would seem the PzH 2000 will be refurbished and another 30 MARS purchased. In addition there seems to be a program to buy 168 RCH 155 on Boxer. The aim is to provide wheeled Boxer brigades with wheeled howitzers. But there are more howitzers on order than needed for that so they may be thinning the PzH 2000 herd a bit.

Interestingly while I looked at the RCH 155 Wiki site I noted that Switzerland has recently decided to replace its M09s with 36 RCH 155 on Piranha IV (10 x 10). As are other NATO countries. The same site also touts Canada's RFI and suggests the RCH is the only howitzer capable of fulfilling the RFI and that Pirhana IV would be the logical chassis. I'm of the view Piranha IV is a better choice than Boxer (both for commonality with LAV and 10 wheels). I doubt that it will be C130 transportable.

I doubt that its much less expensive than a K9. Maintenance? I saw one photo that makes me think both the front two pairs and back two pairs of wheels are steerable. That's pretty technically complex. Production - ? It depends - we can probably do the full chassis here but will be in line with a bunch of Europeans as to turret components.

Despite my preferences, I can live with RCH and only hope that a decent ammo limber will be built for it (30 fuzed rounds isn't much but better than Archer by 9 rounds). That should be feasible with an SEV version of either the ACSV or Piranha IV but I'm unaware of where that stands with the project. We don't have a great track record for artillery support vehicles over the last 50 years and our cold war kit has been ash canned.

 

[Underway]

I kinda figured you were. And I'll admit, I'm all too easy to poke. Probably all that lawyer DNA in my blood.



I think availability rates have to do with the Soviet-legacy maintenance structure which did not give high priority to recovering and fixing stuff in the field. They used an echelon system which passed fresh units through. That doesn't work well when you are very light on second echelon units.

A Russian (and thereby probably Ukrainian) SP battalion of 18 x 152mm SPs has a maintenance squad of 11 men in two trucks. My 1980s era six-gun M109 battery had more people than that and three times the vehicles (including a tracked M578 recovery vehicle) with a further maintenance section of almost thirty folks at the regimental level.

Ukrainians are quite maintenance savvy but the lack of sufficient maint pers well forward will have a detrimental effect on complex system availability.

My guess is that the KNDS/Rheinmetall conglomerate has a lot to say about that. Personally I was never a big fan of the PzH 2000. It was an early generation automated loader system mounted on a modified Leopard chassis. As a result it had good cross country ability and it had good armour protection but this came at the price of weight which is twice that of the M109 and almost 20% heavier than the K9. In Afghanistan it proved highly susceptible to both heat and dust which frequently threw off the electronics needed for both laying and loading the gun. There are even worse reports as to maintenance issues from Ukraine. It's also very expensive.

Germany let its artillery arm deteriorate badly. 134 x PzH 2000 and 33 x MARS. Its two divisions have 7 artillery battalions in total, one (maybe two) of which is in the process of forming. There are two additional bdes with two Dutch arty bns.

There are several modernization programs underway. It would seem the PzH 2000 will be refurbished and another 30 MARS purchased. In addition there seems to be a program to buy 168 RCH 155 on Boxer. The aim is to provide wheeled Boxer brigades with wheeled howitzers. But there are more howitzers on order than needed for that so they may be thinning the PzH 2000 herd a bit.

Interestingly while I looked at the RCH 155 Wiki site I noted that Switzerland has recently decided to replace its M09s with 36 RCH 155 on Piranha IV (10 x 10). As are other NATO countries. The same site also touts Canada's RFI and suggests the RCH is the only howitzer capable of fulfilling the RFI and that Pirhana IV would be the logical chassis. I'm of the view Piranha IV is a better choice than Boxer (both for commonality with LAV and 10 wheels). I doubt that it will be C130 transportable.

I doubt that its much less expensive than a K9. Maintenance? I saw one photo that makes me think both the front two pairs and back two pairs of wheels are steerable. That's pretty technically complex. Production - ? It depends - we can probably do the full chassis here but will be in line with a bunch of Europeans as to turret components.

Despite my preferences, I can live with RCH and only hope that a decent ammo limber will be built for it (30 fuzed rounds isn't much but better than Archer by 9 rounds). That should be feasible with an SEV version of either the ACSV or Piranha IV but I'm unaware of where that stands with the project. We don't have a great track record for artillery support vehicles over the last 50 years and our cold war kit has been

It's not just Germany going wheeled. Finland, Sweden, UK and the US (as well as other allies) are turning to wheeled artillery. US of course is just adding to their toolbox, and France are addicted to wheels, but the UK will have two wheeled artillery variants.

So what factors are we not considering on wheeled artillery. Some whiteboard thoughts

-production ease, speed of production. It may be easier to build and manufacture wheeled variants as you just need a bespoke turret/gun system and some other already built truck to stick it onto.

-cost... seems obvious but tracked are generally more expensive (RCH probably not so much)

-strategic mobility. At 80km+ speeds on roads a battery has a much wider area to be able to move to quickly, tracked vehicles cannot self deploy from Brest to Poland. They need trains. Wheeled vehicles don't. They can drive on roads.

-effects/tactics/doctrine. What effects are the CA artillery looking at achieving. Are they going dispersed to concentrated to dispersed again rapidly? Run into range of enemy guns and loitering munitions shoot and move further back our of range to a hide?

-advantages of tracks not as pronounced on artillery platforms. IFVs and Tanks need to bring their relatively short range direct fire to a lot more places. It's obvious that a tank would be grinding through an urban area or complex terrain to support the infantry. Artillery for the most part doesn't need to do that. They have a lot more options to get to firing positions by the nature of their ranges. As such they don't need the tactical mobility of tanks as much.

 

[NavyShooter]

The tracks vs wheels question is also a point of where the pieces will be used.

In Canada, relatively speaking, roads are rare.

In Europe, there are roads almost everywhere.

If we're looking at defending Canada, having a tracked system would make more sense.

If we're looking at an expeditionary force, then wheeled should do for most of the scenarios.

 

[Kirkhill]

We absolutely need to pay close attention to how different types of artillery are performing in Ukraine, but also take into account the factors behind some of that performance. Do their wheeled SPGs have comparable survivability rates to their tracked platforms? Are they being used in the same areas with the same sorts of threats, to fulfill the same tasks? Is the availability rate purely a function of the ease of keeping a truck in service, or is it because those particular platforms have better support systems in place (either locally available parts like their Bohdanas, or just better support from countries that donated wheeled systems?). Are crew casualties similar? Have they been in limited in how effectively they can employ their wheeled systems due to terrain limitations, or are they able to use both tracked and wheeled platforms in the same environments without limitation?

Re: Germany going to all wheeled over tracked - not sure, there does seem to be a surge in popularity in wheeled guns. You'd have to have an in depth examination of each country's requirements and testing info, though there are plenty of orders for K9s and the US still seems committed to the M109. It is curious as to why you wouldn't just try popping something like the RCH-155 module onto a tracked platform. Commonality with existing or future wheeled systems could be the factor, and cost is probably a big one.

I'm generally inclined towards a tracked system as that seems the logical choice for combining the best all terrain performance and crew protection. The future development plans for the K9A2 offer some interesting capabilities with 58 calibre barrels and potential unmanned vehicles. Though a wheeled platform, either based off a common truck to what we already have in service, or a Canadian version of the 10x10 LAV for commonality in tech training and some parts seem like good options, assuming they aren't limited in performance as a result. The speed requirement seems purpose written for a wheeled platform.

Ultimately any modern SPH will be a huge step up for us, so I'll still be happy no matter what.

I kinda figured you were. And I'll admit, I'm all too easy to poke. Probably all that lawyer DNA in my blood.



I think availability rates have to do with the Soviet-legacy maintenance structure which did not give high priority to recovering and fixing stuff in the field. They used an echelon system which passed fresh units through. That doesn't work well when you are very light on second echelon units.

A Russian (and thereby probably Ukrainian) SP battalion of 18 x 152mm SPs has a maintenance squad of 11 men in two trucks. My 1980s era six-gun M109 battery had more people than that and three times the vehicles (including a tracked M578 recovery vehicle) with a further maintenance section of almost thirty folks at the regimental level.

Ukrainians are quite maintenance savvy but the lack of sufficient maint pers well forward will have a detrimental effect on complex system availability.

My guess is that the KNDS/Rheinmetall conglomerate has a lot to say about that. Personally I was never a big fan of the PzH 2000. It was an early generation automated loader system mounted on a modified Leopard chassis. As a result it had good cross country ability and it had good armour protection but this came at the price of weight which is twice that of the M109 and almost 20% heavier than the K9. In Afghanistan it proved highly susceptible to both heat and dust which frequently threw off the electronics needed for both laying and loading the gun. There are even worse reports as to maintenance issues from Ukraine. It's also very expensive.

Germany let its artillery arm deteriorate badly. 134 x PzH 2000 and 33 x MARS. Its two divisions have 7 artillery battalions in total, one (maybe two) of which is in the process of forming. There are two additional bdes with two Dutch arty bns.

There are several modernization programs underway. It would seem the PzH 2000 will be refurbished and another 30 MARS purchased. In addition there seems to be a program to buy 168 RCH 155 on Boxer. The aim is to provide wheeled Boxer brigades with wheeled howitzers. But there are more howitzers on order than needed for that so they may be thinning the PzH 2000 herd a bit.

Interestingly while I looked at the RCH 155 Wiki site I noted that Switzerland has recently decided to replace its M09s with 36 RCH 155 on Piranha IV (10 x 10). As are other NATO countries. The same site also touts Canada's RFI and suggests the RCH is the only howitzer capable of fulfilling the RFI and that Pirhana IV would be the logical chassis. I'm of the view Piranha IV is a better choice than Boxer (both for commonality with LAV and 10 wheels). I doubt that it will be C130 transportable.

I doubt that its much less expensive than a K9. Maintenance? I saw one photo that makes me think both the front two pairs and back two pairs of wheels are steerable. That's pretty technically complex. Production - ? It depends - we can probably do the full chassis here but will be in line with a bunch of Europeans as to turret components.

Despite my preferences, I can live with RCH and only hope that a decent ammo limber will be built for it (30 fuzed rounds isn't much but better than Archer by 9 rounds). That should be feasible with an SEV version of either the ACSV or Piranha IV but I'm unaware of where that stands with the project. We don't have a great track record for artillery support vehicles over the last 50 years and our cold war kit has been ash canned.

It's not just Germany going wheeled. Finland, Sweden, UK and the US (as well as other allies) are turning to wheeled artillery. US of course is just adding to their toolbox, and France are addicted to wheels, but the UK will have two wheeled artillery variants.

So what factors are we not considering on wheeled artillery. Some whiteboard thoughts

-production ease, speed of production. It may be easier to build and manufacture wheeled variants as you just need a bespoke turret/gun system and some other already built truck to stick it onto.

-cost... seems obvious but tracked are generally more expensive (RCH probably not so much)

-strategic mobility. At 80km+ speeds on roads a battery has a much wider area to be able to move to quickly, tracked vehicles cannot self deploy from Brest to Poland. They need trains. Wheeled vehicles don't. They can drive on roads.

-effects/tactics/doctrine. What effects are the CA artillery looking at achieving. Are they going dispersed to concentrated to dispersed again rapidly? Run into range of enemy guns and loitering munitions shoot and move further back our of range to a hide?

-advantages of tracks not as pronounced on artillery platforms. IFVs and Tanks need to bring their relatively short range direct fire to a lot more places. It's obvious that a tank would be grinding through an urban area or complex terrain to support the infantry. Artillery for the most part doesn't need to do that. They have a lot more options to get to firing positions by the nature of their ranges. As such they don't need the tactical mobility of tanks as much.

The tracks vs wheels question is also a point of where the pieces will be used.

In Canada, relatively speaking, roads are rare.

In Europe, there are roads almost everywhere.

If we're looking at defending Canada, having a tracked system would make more sense.

If we're looking at an expeditionary force, then wheeled should do for most of the scenarios.

Can I offer my favourite aphorism? "Horses for courses"

Does this make any kind of sense?

Towed guns, along with mortars with baseplates make sense in static positions when coupled with lots of engineering assets to dig in and lots of mines, machine guns and guided missiles, along with the seemingly ubiquitous UAV/LAM/FPV complex and the associated C-UAS and EW assets.

Tracked guns, together with tracked formations, excel as divisional manoeuvre forces supplying depth, reaction and assault to cover the rear of the static positions.

Wheeled guns, together with wheeled rocket launchers, make for a good theatre or Corps reserve in that they can stand well off from the FEBA and still be able to rapidly move into position, and withdraw if necessary. They can react quickly over a wide area to cover unexpected enemy incursions, or even own force movements.

The tracked guns need a large on board magazine to be able to effectively manage a large variety of rounds (HE, HEAT, Smk, Ill, PGMs etc) because they are working in tight to the enemy and reloading is going to be a challenge.

The "reserve" guns will have the advantage of time and space to tailor their magazines for short missions.

And, apparently, they can also be used to thicken Air Defences

US Army Initiates Development of 155mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery System

US Army Initiates Development of 155mm Anti-Aircraft Artillery System

armyrecognition.com

 

[daftandbarmy]

Ukrainian self-help....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1907871061171122665

 

[quadrapiper]

Tracked guns, together with tracked formations, excel as divisional manoeuvre forces supplying depth, reaction and assault to cover the rear of the static positions.

The tracked guns need a large on board magazine to be able to effectively manage a large variety of rounds (HE, HEAT, Smk, Ill, PGMs etc) because they are working in tight to the enemy and reloading is going to be a challenge.

Isn't being able to operate in the same area as tanks also a major argument for tracked vehicles? Or is that less crucial with artillery than IFVs?

 

[GR66]

Interestingly while I looked at the RCH 155 Wiki site I noted that Switzerland has recently decided to replace its M09s with 36 RCH 155 on Piranha IV (10 x 10). As are other NATO countries. The same site also touts Canada's RFI and suggests the RCH is the only howitzer capable of fulfilling the RFI and that Pirhana IV would be the logical chassis. I'm of the view Piranha IV is a better choice than Boxer (both for commonality with LAV and 10 wheels). I doubt that it will be C130 transportable.

Just focusing on one, single point in a detailed and wide ranging discussion...

Unless I'm mistaken the Caesar 6x6 is the only 155mm SP howitzer system that is C-130 transportable. While I'm in broad agreement with @FJAG's Christmas list of capabilities above I'm wondering if the Caesar 6x6 might not find a role as replacement/augmentation for the M777 in support of our Light Infantry Brigades? Our C-17 fleet is very limited and there may be times we need rapid deployment of forces to theater.

One CS Regiment to support a Light Infantry Brigade with two batteries of Caesar 6x6 and maybe one battery of M777 to allow helicopter deployment to areas where there is no road access. The other two CS Regiments would have one of the heavier systems being discussed to support our Mechanized Brigades (none of which I believe are C-130 transportable). Now, if we were to get a fleet of A-400M's to augment our C-17/C-130 fleets then I believe both Archer and the RCH-155 could be transported using those.

Caesar might also be an option for those Reserve Artillery Regiments that are not located close to Reg Force Artillery Regiments (ideally Reserve Regiments located relatively close to Reg Force Regiments would be integrated with the Reg Force units and use the same SPGs). A wheeled chassis would be easier to train on and service for Reserve Regiments and while I'd still envision the bulk of Reserve artillery systems to be held at centralized training locations, at least a single unit could be held at the local armouries for more regular on-hands driving, drills and dry fire training.

Using a commercially available chassis it could also be produced in Canada which would give us the capability to ramp up production if required for force expansion or replacement of combat losses.

 

[Kirkhill]

Isn't being able to operate in the same area as tanks also a major argument for tracked vehicles? Or is that less crucial with artillery than IFVs?

I think you are right about the tanks. But I also see tanks operating in the manoeuvre space immediately adjacent to the static lines of the FEBA.

I see the wheels operating in JEB Stuart mode.

J. E. B. Stuart - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Raid of the 95th Brigade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apparently, based on the recent New York Times article, there is a connection there. The Ukrainian General that organized the 95th Brigade Raid trained in the US and took inspiration from Stuart's effort in the Civil War.

 

[KevinB]

It's not just Germany going wheeled. Finland, Sweden, UK and the US (as well as other allies) are turning to wheeled artillery. US of course is just adding to their toolbox, and France are addicted to wheels, but the UK will have two wheeled artillery variants.

I doubt you will see any wheeled SPA adopted here. The Army is going to cut a lot of folks shortly, and Stryker Bde’s are on the block.
Without any significant numbers of those, I don’t anticipate any forward movement of wheeled SPA programs.

So what factors are we not considering on wheeled artillery. Some whiteboard thoughts

-production ease, speed of production. It may be easier to build and manufacture wheeled variants as you just need a bespoke turret/gun system and some other already built truck to stick it onto.

-cost... seems obvious but tracked are generally more expensive (RCH probably not so much)

-strategic mobility. At 80km+ speeds on roads a battery has a much wider area to be able to move to quickly, tracked vehicles cannot self deploy from Brest to Poland. They need trains. Wheeled vehicles don't. They can drive on roads.

-effects/tactics/doctrine. What effects are the CA artillery looking at achieving. Are they going dispersed to concentrated to dispersed again rapidly? Run into range of enemy guns and loitering munitions shoot and move further back our of range to a hide?

-advantages of tracks not as pronounced on artillery platforms. IFVs and Tanks need to bring their relatively short range direct fire to a lot more places. It's obvious that a tank would be grinding through an urban area or complex terrain to support the infantry. Artillery for the most part doesn't need to do that. They have a lot more options to get to firing positions by the nature of their ranges. As such they don't need the tactical mobility of tanks as much.

It’s very hard to dig in wheeled SPA’s and they typically have a larger length than tracked SPA’s.
Shoot and scoot briefs well, but it all depends on the red teams sensor/shooter link.

You don’t future proof yourself much relying on older in and out of action requirements.

Rockets are different as they have a significant range advantage over tube artillery. But your tube artillery is most likely going to be within the range of enemy CB.

Options are:

1) Protection: Digging in, Armor, C-RAM systems etc.

2) Rapid Movement: OTW before the red sensor net has reported your positions.

3) Range: being outside Red CB Range, which is highly unlikely for a LSCO, or at least out of Red Direct Sensor coverage.

4) Camouflage:


Ideally a combination of more than 1 of the above.