C3 Howitzer Replacement

[markppcli]

I think I tried to answer this above.



I agree entirely. But if its ballistic range is 10 km is that artillery? Personally I think artillery these days is out beyond the 30 km mark. Everything else is Direct Fire/Close Support, especially when aided by UAS observation.


Probably, as noted above, along with other options.


I think that that is one role for them, again, as noted above, I believe them to be a flexible munition that can be employed by all services in a variety of roles. Something that should be as generally, and jointly, applicable as Ball ammunition, Sidewinders, AMRAAMs, ESSMs, CAMMs, Harpoons, NSMs, Hellfires, Brimstones, Tomahawks and SM6s. Something that can be stored for as long as, and as quickly fielded as M72s, AT4s, NLAWs, Javelins and Stingers.


In the current environment can you sustain fire from a mortar or any other platform? Or are you better with a box of Ready to Launch missiles, remotely sited and wired with fibre optics to a central FDC? Then you can launch all at once or separately, at a high rate or a low rate of fire.


The APKWS is a laser-guided ATGM.

No it’s not; it’s a guidance kit on a rocket with limited course correction ability. It is essentially a “beam rider” sure; but modern ATGMs have leaped past that.

The Switchblade 300 is a 76mm loitering munition - a little bit of engineering and you could pack a 70mm version into the same pod.

What’s your point here?

Javelin costs $240,000 a shot with a 4 km range. I can buy 12 APKWS shots for the same amount. Which would you rather chance? Being hit by one Javelin or 12 APKWS (call it 12 105mm HEDP shells)?

The Javelin every time. See Kevin Bs comments about actual pay load. Also HE vs Shaped Charge top attack.

Spike ER is an 8 to 10 km missile (Cavalry?)
Spike NLOS, which is similarly priced to the Javelin at $210,000 a shot is a 25 to 50 km missile. (Artillery?)
Spike NLOS costs about twice as much as the $113,000 Excalibur which has a 30 to 70 km range and 4 m CEP without laser guidance.



How do you feel about manning a PLGR to paint targets for the Excalibur S?
The point being that the launcher does not have to be in the same place as the controller/observer.

You don’t “paint” with PLGR. PLGR is a legacy GPS receiver. You drop GPS guidance weapons on hi fidelity (cat 1/2) co ordinates. Which usually means your either worked it in software or via a vector sterna. Very different.

Laser guidance, especially from a remote source, requires a lot of checks and balances to make sure it’s effective. It’s the stuff you’ve previously described as “worrying about admin,” but that doesn’t work super well for direct fire options and requires some exposer of the observer.

Assuming the target needs a big payload and not just accuracy.

Right payload in the right place

The Small Diameter Bomb started life as concrete filled 500 lb JDAMs in Iraq. It carries warheads in the 30 to 200 lb range.

So?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Saw that and its an interesting solution.

But

We were hauling mortars around in the back of 3/4 ton trucks back in the Fifties and Sixties and they could be into and out of action in less than a minute.

And. You could take them dismounted on airmobile assaults.

So the Elbit system isn't a big deal with the exception of that bit of work it saves the crew in emplacing and tearing down the mortar which is really not a big deal at all.

I'm a firm believer in such things as a 120 mortar under armour in say a Stryker M1129 in the SBCT or an M1064/XM1287 for the ABCT with an extra 81mm as part of their kit to take on dismounted ops. Even better if its an enclosed turret like the AMOS.

US ICBT Infantry battalions still do it the old way. They have four 120mm (plus an 81mm each) mortars each with an HMMWV and trailer (The rifle companies only have 60mm mortars (no vehicles)). It gives you options that the Elbit system doesn't seem to. 120mm Mortar trailer with quick stow kit here.

Mortars are counter fire magnets. A light vehicle but with an armoured cab strikes me as essential. Preferably the mortar should be able to fire from under armour even if the crew is partially exposed while firing. Put the hydraulics into stabilizers that transfer the shock to the ground rather than the wheels. And each detachment should have an arms locker 81mm for dismounted ops.

The Wiesel did that in under 5 tons which isn't much more than what your average HMMWV would be with the Elbit kit attached

$.02

27rds onboard and likely no room for crew and kit.

The AMOS turret even with a single barrel can carry around 48 rounds, plus crew and kit and could be based on the LAV 3 or even LAV II chassis. I like the 120mm with the quick go trailer for the Reserves. Gives them tubes and a flexible towing system and you could use the Canadian made Senator armoured car (or similar) for the gun tractor.

 

[GR66]

My take on the 70mm rockets is that it can't replace either mortars (the flat trajectory of rockets means it can't drop rounds behind intervening terrain features as effectively as mortars) or ATGMs (which have heavier warheads that can defeat any target and don't require laser designation) so you're adding a system that provides effects that can already be provided by other systems.

If you're going to add a new system to the mix I think that loitering munitions are by far a better option than guided 70mm rockets. They don't require designation, can change targets if opportunities change, they can be used as an ISR asset as well as a weapon and in several cases can be retrieved/reused if the decision is made not to expend them as a munition.

 

[IKnowNothing]

My take on the 70mm rockets is that it can't replace either mortars (the flat trajectory of rockets means it can't drop rounds behind intervening terrain features as effectively as mortars) or ATGMs (which have heavier warheads that can defeat any target and don't require laser designation) so you're adding a system that provides effects that can already be provided by other systems.

Likely living up to my user name here, but it seems like they could fill a gap as a fairly ubiquitous Direct Fire weapon and would have been a reasonable addition to every ISC LAV 6.0 Turret. You could fit 5-6 (I think) into the same space as two TOW's under armour, they'd be considerably faster to target, and a gunner selectable mix of FAT and HE would give a nice capability mix and remove any need for an MGS type fire support vehicle. All rounds carried ready, no space stolen from dismounts for reloads. ATGM's kept for ATGM work.

The situation being what it is, while it would be nice to have that capability there are many other more pressing concerns.

 

[KevinB]

Remember bottle rockets as a kid?
Now remember how they flew through the air…

They work as VERY close range systems from Helicopters.

To be close enough for a hit with them on the ground, you will need to be within cannon range for IFV. Unless you are just interesting in decorating the landscape with them.

Legitimately this 70mm Rocket fetish is the answer to the question that wasn’t asked.

 

[IKnowNothing]

To be close enough for a hit with them on the ground, you will need to be within cannon range for IFV. Unless you are just interesting in decorating the landscape with them.

Or be guiding them from said IFV 4km from the target.

But that was an idea and discussion for ~2010, not 2022.

 

[Kirkhill]

No it’s not; it’s a guidance kit on a rocket with limited course correction ability. It is essentially a “beam rider” sure; but modern ATGMs have leaped past that.

Beam riders currently in use include the Stugna, the Starstreak SAM, the Martlet LMM and Hellfires (with which the APKWS is usually paired as a lower cost kill option for less hardened targets). Beam riders seem to still have a useful place in the arsenal as they are apparently harder to spoof. Just like ballistic and predictive solutions are hard to spoof.

What’s your point here?

My point is that there are a number of missiles in the 70mm calibre range that marry a useful weight of explosive with a variety of sensors and control systems.

The Javelin every time. See Kevin Bs comments about actual pay load. Also HE vs Shaped Charge top attack.

You are given a million dollars and a convoy as a target. You can buy 5 Javelins or 50 APKWS or a mix of the two. What's your preference?

And yes I know that, unlike this list,

60mm HE - 0.29 kg TNT
81mm HE - 0.7 kg TNT
120mm HE - 2 kg TNT
105 mm HE - 2.1 kg TNT
155 mm HE - 6.6 kg Comp B

70mm M151 - 1 kg Comp B-4 - more than the 81mm mortar
70mm M229 - 2.2 kg Comp B-4 - equivalent or better than the 120mm mortar or the 105mm howitzer.

this list is a mix an match assortment of payloads and fillers and top attack, and tandem

Javelin warhead - 8.4 kg Tandem HEAT - two warheads, precursor for ERA and main charge - angled downwards for top attack - originally introduced on SAAB Bill 2 and its precursor the BILL (which pioneered the Over the Top Attack)

NLAW warhead - 1.8 kg HEAT
AT4 warhead - 0.4 kg HEAT
M72 warhead - 0.3 kg HEAT


Excalibur - 22 kg HE

If you prefer we can do this

M67 grenade - 0.18 kg HE
40mm grenade - 0.032 kg HE
60mm HE - 0.29 kg TNT
81mm HE - 0.7 kg TNT
120mm HE - 2 kg TNT
105 mm HE - 2.1 kg TNT
155 mm HE - 6.6 kg Comp B

70mm M151 - 1 kg Comp B-4 - more than the 81mm mortar
70mm M229 - 2.2 kg Comp B-4 - equivalent or better than the 120mm mortar or the 105mm howitzer.

And I'm sure we can get into casings, and burst effects, and angles of approach and shrapnel if we like but the primary purpose of all these "shellls" is to carry, and deliver, a mass of potential energy to a target.

You don’t “paint” with PLGR. PLGR is a legacy GPS receiver. You drop GPS guidance weapons on hi fidelity (cat 1/2) co ordinates. Which usually means your either worked it in software or via a vector sterna. Very different.

Sorry for the error and thank you for the correction. I got my terminology mixed up. I was thinking along the lines of the GLTD or the MLD for L3 Harris.





L3 Harris also makes the Vampire C-UAS system based on an EO/IR device and the beam rider 70mm APKWS.

Laser guidance, especially from a remote source, requires a lot of checks and balances to make sure it’s effective. It’s the stuff you’ve previously described as “worrying about admin,” but that doesn’t work super well for direct fire options and requires some exposer of the observer.

There is worrying about admin and trying to find the screw driver to open the ammunition box while filling out the Commissary's paperwork.

When the runners came for ammunition resupply, they found frantic Quartermaster’s assistants desperately trying to break open these boxes. The situation was made worse by the bureaucratic fussiness of the Battalion Quartermaster, who demanded that the runners return to their companies on the line and obtain written authorization from their commanding officers for any ammunition distribution from his stores! - Battle of Isandlhwana.

Right payload in the right place

Absolutely. But there is only one dollar available.

So?

So there is place for small payloads in the right place - especially when the battlefield is replete with targets (like trucks) that don't require large payloads.

 

[Kirkhill]

27rds onboard and likely no room for crew and kit.

The AMOS turret even with a single barrel can carry around 48 rounds, plus crew and kit and could be based on the LAV 3 or even LAV II chassis. I like the 120mm with the quick go trailer for the Reserves. Gives them tubes and a flexible towing system and you could use the Canadian made Senator armoured car (or similar) for the gun tractor.

I like the AMOS but you shouldn't discount the Autonomous, Optionally Manned Wiesel

 

[Kirkhill]

My take on the 70mm rockets is that it can't replace either mortars (the flat trajectory of rockets means it can't drop rounds behind intervening terrain features as effectively as mortars) or ATGMs (which have heavier warheads that can defeat any target and don't require laser designation) so you're adding a system that provides effects that can already be provided by other systems.

If you're going to add a new system to the mix I think that loitering munitions are by far a better option than guided 70mm rockets. They don't require designation, can change targets if opportunities change, they can be used as an ISR asset as well as a weapon and in several cases can be retrieved/reused if the decision is made not to expend them as a munition.

HIMARS is a rocket - It flies ballistically and hits targets precisely.

The 70 mm is an option, especially for a mounted force.

And as to its being a fetish Kevin - I don't have an Uncle Sam to pay for my fetish. I have to pay for the stuff Mark needs to stay alive. And I can't afford your fetish for Javelins for everyone.

Alternatives need to be found.

 

[Kirkhill]

ATGMs in Ukraine -

 

[markppcli]

No it’s not; it’s a guidance kit on a rocket with limited course correction ability. It is essentially a “beam rider” sure; but modern ATGMs have leaped past that.

Beam riders currently in use include the Stugna, the Starstreak SAM, the Martlet LMM and Hellfires (with which the APKWS is usually paired as a lower cost kill option for less hardened targets). Beam riders seem to still have a useful place in the arsenal as they are apparently harder to spoof. Just like ballistic and predictive solutions are hard to spoof.

It’s actually very easy to spoof a mean rider, your fire in the direction indicated by your LWRS.

My point is that there are a number of missiles in the 70mm calibre range that marry a useful weight of explosive with a variety of sensors and control systems.



You are given a million dollars and a convoy as a target. You can buy 5 Javelins or 50 APKWS or a mix of the two. What's your preference?

Depends completely on the make up of that convoy. If it’s armour still the javelins; if it’s light I’d employ AGLS.

And yes I know that, unlike this list,



this list is a mix an match assortment of payloads and fillers and top attack, and tandem



If you prefer we can do this



And I'm sure we can get into casings, and burst effects, and angles of approach and shrapnel if we like but the primary purpose of all these "shellls" is to carry, and deliver,


Sorry for the error and thank you for the correction. I got my terminology mixed up. I was thinking along the lines of the GLTD or the MLD for L3 Harris.

View attachment 75519

View attachment 75518

L3 Harris also makes the Vampire C-UAS system based on an EO/IR device and the beam rider 70mm APKWS.

Interesting I’d be curious about it’s mounting and optics, since I only see one “tube.”

There is worrying about admin and trying to find the screw driver to open the ammunition box while filling out the Commissary's paperwork.






Absolutely. But there is only one dollar available.

A miss is a wasted dollar

So there is place for small payloads in the right place - especially when the battlefield is replete with targets (like trucks) that don't require large payloads.

Great a combination of AGLS, MGs, and light mortars in the trucks. ATGMs for the tanks, and 70mm rockets in pods for attack aircraft striking area targets.

 

[markppcli]

HIMARS is a rocket - It flies ballistically and hits targets precisely.

The 70 mm is an option, especially for a mounted force.

And as to its being a fetish Kevin - I don't have an Uncle Sam to pay for my fetish. I have to pay for the stuff Mark needs to stay alive. And I can't afford your fetish for Javelins for everyone.

Alternatives need to be found.

Please don’t hoist this stuff on me. Your plans give me nightmares of poorly planned laser designations hitting the observers.

 

[Kirkhill]

I would just point out that the APKWS resurrected the 70mm rocket, and gave birth to the VAMPIRE system, because even Uncle Sam couldn't afford $210,000 Javelins for everyone.

 

[Kirkhill]

APKWS II: Laser-Guided Hydra Rockets in Production At Last

The versatile Hydra 70mm rocket family is primed for a new lease on life, thanks to widespread programs aimed at converting these ubiquitous rockets into cheap laser-guided precision weapons. Conversion benefits include cost, use on both

www.defenseindustrydaily.com

Arnold Defense™ : Arnold Defense™ announces next generation FLETCHER development program

Arnold Defense™, the St. Louis based manufacturer of 2.75-inch rocket launchers, is announcing the launch of a capability development program for their unique FLETCHER™ Land Based, Laser Guided Rocket Launcher that aims to deliver a future ‘next generation’ suite of systems. The FLETCHER™...

www.arnolddefense.com

 

[Furniture]

I'm way outside my lane here, but I think @Kirkhill raises a valid point about expense. The CAF has champagne tastes with a tap water budget.

If/when Canada buys Javelins/HIMARS/(insert top end system here), we'll buy so few that most troops will never fire one, or see one fired for real. We will hoard them until they expire, then pay a bilingual company with FN connections a lot of money to dispose of them.

The CAF needs lots of "good enough" systems, not a tiny number of boutique "top end" systems.

 

[GR66]

I would just point out that the APKWS resurrected the 70mm rocket, and gave birth to the VAMPIRE system, because even Uncle Sam couldn't afford $210,000 Javelins for everyone.

The APKWS isn't really marketed as a replacement for the Javelin. It's primary uses are still Air-to-Ground and increasingly Ground-to-Air. Yes it can also hit designated ground targets but that is still really more of an additional capability rather than a primary role. It's likely because in a high-end conflict there are other weapons that can immediately engage (without designation) a LOS ground target without having to reach back to a supporting rocket unit. If the hypothetical convoy you mentioned above is there it's not likely going to be taken out by 50 x Javelins and you're also not likely to individually laze 50 x targets for your precision rocket attack. You're more likely to take out the entire grid square with a MLRS strike.

APKWS can already be mounted on the same RiWP turret that is used on the M-SHORAD platform and I can definitely see it useful on an AD platform in place of more expensive munitions against UAVs. But just like the Hellfire mounted on the M-SHORAD has the added bonus of being able to engage designated ground targets in addition to aircraft if required, it's not the role that M-SHORAD has. I see the same for the 70mm rockets. They have a primary Counter UAV use but can be used against ground targets in extremis.

The one place I can see them being used as a primarily precision ground strike weapon is with SOF teams particularly in low-intensity/counter-insurgency conflicts where counter-fire against the designator is less likely and precision fire is required in order to avoid collateral damage.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Beam riders currently in use include the Stugna, the Starstreak SAM, the Martlet LMM and Hellfires (with which the APKWS is usually paired as a lower cost kill option for less hardened targets). Beam riders seem to still have a useful place in the arsenal as they are apparently harder to spoof. Just like ballistic and predictive solutions are hard to spoof.

All are old systems, or based on old systems (Stugna). Beam riders means you are actively painting the target. They are easier to spoof as you know you are being shot at.

They are excellent examples of 30 year old tech but do not have a place in new system procurement.

A fire and forget system needs to be spotted on firing from the launch signature or with an EO/IR or radar system during flight. These are much more complex. If you do acquire the missile and launch an lethal countermeasure you only kill the missile. If you launch lethal countermeasures against a LBR you are likely targetting the emitter and therefore the firing post, a much more valuable target.

Early footage or Ukrainian Stugna launches showed them tracking above the target to avoid the LWR cuing on the firing post. They lowered the line of flight at the last minute. A sophisticated method that needs a lot of training and might not always work.

 

[AmmoTech90]

And I'm sure we can get into casings, and burst effects, and angles of approach and shrapnel if we like but the primary purpose of all these "shellls" is to carry, and deliver, a mass of potential energy to a target.

I can stand 10m from to 2 kg of naked "potential energy" with ear pro and stroll away. Hell, even with the Army's safety regs I could detonate 1kg 50m from unprotected troops, 100 from civilians.

All of those things you are dismissing are what makes it a weapon system rather than a neat chemical reaction.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm way outside my lane here, but I think @Kirkhill raises a valid point about expense. The CAF has champagne tastes with a tap water budget.

If/when Canada buys Javelins/HIMARS/(insert top end system here), we'll buy so few that most troops will never fire one, or see one fired for real. We will hoard them until they expire, then pay a bilingual company with FN connections a lot of money to dispose of them.

The CAF needs lots of "good enough" systems, not a tiny number of boutique "top end" systems.

Hmmm....

 

[markppcli]

I would just point out that the APKWS resurrected the 70mm rocket, and gave birth to the VAMPIRE system, because even Uncle Sam couldn't afford $210,000 Javelins for everyone.

In the air to ground role; it’s only been employed direct fire role by the parent company in the sales pitch videos.

I'm way outside my lane here, but I think @Kirkhill raises a valid point about expense. The CAF has champagne tastes with a tap water budget.

If/when Canada buys Javelins/HIMARS/(insert top end system here), we'll buy so few that most troops will never fire one, or see one fired for real. We will hoard them until they expire, then pay a bilingual company with FN connections a lot of money to dispose of them.

The CAF needs lots of "good enough" systems, not a tiny number of boutique "top end" systems.

well APKWS direct fire launchers are neither. They aren’t in use anywhere; the system was built for air to ground. We shoot TOW annually ish; I’d assume we’d do the javeline similarly and frankly the trigger pulling part is much less important than acquiring a lock.