C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Colin Parkinson]

For you gun nerds that want to know the effect of recoil systems on accuracy.

https://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_9_September_2012/17.pdf

 

[FJAG]

But your brick launcher costs $5 to 6,000,000 dollars, perhaps more and requires a couple more $500,000 trucks with seacans loaded with 20 to 30 tonnes of bricks and explosives. And every few seacans it needs to be pulled out of the line and serviced.

M777A2 FA Battalion Use of the Pallet Loading System - United States Field Artillery Association

www.fieldartillery.org

You've utterly lost me.

What's your point?

 

[Furniture]

But your brick launcher costs $5 to 6,000,000 dollars, perhaps more and requires a couple more $500,000 trucks with seacans loaded with 20 to 30 tonnes of bricks and explosives. And every few seacans it needs to be pulled out of the line and serviced.

Yeah, but that $6,000,000 gun can shoot a lot more than six or 60 rounds, and your missiles and UAVs will require the same trucks and crews to move them around.

 

[Kirkhill]

You've utterly lost me.

What's your point?

One of your points seemed to be that I was leaning heavily on $100,000 and $1,000,000 rounds as a solution.

On the contrary, if that was indeed your point, I fully accept the need for weight of fire. Just a couple of points. I don't see people buying cheap and simple cannons by the thousands. I see expensive systems being deployed by the dozens. And shooting cheap bricks by the million.

The US is sending more than 500 Excalibur shells to Ukraine in its latest military package – the Pentagon has previously not acknowledged the sending of the artillery rounds.

It is thought that the US has, however, sent around 3,000 Excalibur rounds since the conflict started in February last year.

Excalibur: US Army's most accurate artillery shell supporting Ukraine's fight

Its accuracy has made it an essential part of Ukraine's recent counter-offensives, hugely increasing the country's firepower.

www.forces.net

U.S. defense officials said last year Ukrainians expended roughly 3,000 rounds a day, while a Pentagon fact sheet issued this week said the U.S. government has already sent over 1 million 155mm rounds to the country.

Prior to the war in Ukraine, the U.S. could build about 14,400 155mm artillery shells a month. But as Ukrainian forces burn through the ammunition for howitzers sent to the country, the U.S. is hoping to ramp up production to roughly 90,000 shells a month, according to a New York Times report this week.

With demand high in Ukraine, US Army ramps up artillery production

As Ukraine rapidly burns through 155mm artillery rounds to fight back the Russian invasion, the U.S. Army is scrambling to increase production capacity.

www.defensenews.com

The capacity for the production of 155mm artillery rounds can be ramped up to 450,000 to 500,000 per year, he added, which would make Rheinmetall the biggest producer for both kinds of ammunition.

In 2022, Rheinmetall made some 60,000 to 70,000 rounds each of tank and artillery shells, according to Papperger, who said production could be boosted immediately.

Rheinmetall eyes boost in munitions output, HIMARS production in Germany

The arms-maker, known for the 120mm gun on the Leopard 2 tank, is looking to satisfy strong demand in Ukraine and the West, and may start producing HIMARS multiple rocket launchers in Germany, its CEO said.

www.reuters.com

Rheinmetall Denel Munition wins big new 155 mm ammunition orders - defenceWeb

Rheinmetall Denel Munition (RDM) has secured two new contracts for its 155 mm Assegai artillery ammunition, worth nearly €60 million or R1.1 billion. Rheinmetall said in a press release that an international customer has ordered propellant charges worth around €40 million from RDM while another...

www.defenceweb.co.za

 

[FJAG]

One of your points seemed to be that I was leaning heavily on $100,000 and $1,000,000 rounds as a solution.

Nope that wasn't my point at all.

What I was saying was that I didn't understand what you meant by this:

You have no knowledge of these things but what I read but I am sensing that as is the case with a lot of other stuff there are a lot of changes in the wind currently.

And that on the issue "changes in the wind" that I agreed that there were changes in the wind but that one still needs to keep a balance and that the older systems, like dumb projectiles and the guns that launch them, still had their role which is economy of cost for immediate, all-weather mass effect. The "you" was the "all inclusive, all of us 'you'" and not the "you" as the individual.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yeah, but that $6,000,000 gun can shoot a lot more than six or 60 rounds, and your missiles and UAVs will require the same trucks and crews to move them around.

Yebbut

1 20 tonne seacan holds 120 rounds. For the Archer that is six reloads of 20 rounds or 4 reloads of 30 rounds for the RCH155. At 8 Rounds per Minute Rapid, and 1 minute or so of fire before Counter Battery kicks in then it looks to me like

1 Archer will be able to complete two fire missions of 1 minute each before it has to be reloaded. A seacan with 120 rounds will supply an additional 6 reloads for a total of 14 fire missions of 1 minute each.

By comparison the M109 has 36 rounds on board the gun and, if the M992 is available then an additional 95 rounds are available.

Archer plus seacan = 141 rounds on hand - at 8 rounds per minute rapid = 17 minutes rapid
M109 + M992 = 131 rounds on hand - 12 rounds per 3 minutes rapid = 11 x 3 minutes rapid = 33 minutes rapid.

(I'm just showing my work so that I can understand the conversation and be instructed).



8 seacans looks to be about 1000 rounds. So how many seacans can be shot before the barrel has to be replaced.



And for background (and my own edification)

Intermediate between the $300 brick and the $120,000 Excalibur is the M1156 PGK fuse that can be added to any brick to increase accuracy but drives the price up to $14,000. Roughly 9 PGKs per Excalibur.

Designer	Alliant Techsystems
Designed	2007–2013
Manufacturer	Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems
Unit cost	US $13,541[note 1]
Produced	Since 2013
No. built	Over 100,000[note 2]

 

[Kirkhill]

@FJAG

Kirkhill said:
You have no knowledge of these things but what I read but I am sensing that as is the case with a lot of other stuff there are a lot of changes in the wind currently.

Correct form

You KNOW I have no knowledge of these things but what I read but I am sensing that as is the case with a lot of other stuff there are a lot of changes in the wind currently.

Dammitall. Typing faster than thinking. Sorry.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Archer plus seacan = 141 rounds on hand - at 8 rounds per minute rapid = 17 minutes rapid
M109 + M992 = 131 rounds on hand - 12 rounds per 3 minutes rapid = 11 x 3 minutes rapid = 33 minutes rapid.

Different gun, firing same rounds. Why would one system fire more than another to get the same effect? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you can or should.

 

[FJAG]

Archer plus seacan = 141 rounds on hand - at 8 rounds per minute rapid = 17 minutes rapid
M109 + M992 = 131 rounds on hand - 12 rounds per 3 minutes rapid = 11 x 3 minutes rapid = 33 minutes rapid.

Different gun, firing same rounds. Why would one system fire more than another to get the same effect? Just because you can do something doesn't mean you can or should.

Actually it doesn't quite work like advertised

The Archer has an autoloader and modular charges where every charge is the same. It has a magazine that holds 21 rounds. If it fires at the specified 8 rds per minute, it's out of ammunition in just over 2.5 minutes. The reloading of the magazine has to be done manually. The older ammo truck has a small platform that allows the ammo handlers to open the magazine hatches, put in more rounds and mod charges and send it back into action. I haven't seen any actual figures about how long that reload takes but a partial video I once saw of it gave me the idea it could take 15 to 20 minutes from once the gun actually arrives at the reload truck. So I'd say from coming out of action to getting back into action for the next 21 rounds is probably a 1/2 hour + turnaround.

The M109 on the other hand carries 28 to 36 rounds plus charges depending on model while the M992 carries 93 rounds plus charges which can be modular or variable. Generally the M992 is paired with a gun and deploys right behind it. There is a mechanical feeder that can transfer the rounds from the M992 to the M109 but most crews just back the two vehicles to each other and do the transfer by hand. The one thing is that it's a continuous process. There is no autoloader in the M109 (yet) so loading rounds in the turret and transfer of rounds to the turret can happen concurrently. So technically at 3 rounds per minute, the M109 with its associated M992 could keep firing continuously for roughly 40 minutes.

Assuming the Archer fired at the same rate of 3 rounds a minute it could fire for only up to 7 minutes continuously before needing to recharge it's magazine. If the Archer had a better protected limber vehicle than a soft skinned seacan then its magazine recharge time could be dropped down to just the 15 to 20 minutes.

Just a point, I've seen M109s fire faster than 3 rounds per minute. 5 is quite possible but the rammer and need to load a primer with each round limits it beyond that. The M777 is rated a 2 rounds per minute normal, 4 rounds per minute rapid. Here's a video of a Canadian crew in Afghanistan putting 9 rounds downrange in 1 minute and 25 seconds or 6 rounds per minute. (as an aside there is some improper gun drill here that speeds up the mission but could lead to damaging some components on the gun) When you do not have autoloaders the rate of fire and how long you can sustain it is very much governed by the crews ability to prepare the ammo for firing and their exhaustion.

There is an ongoing project for an autoloader for the M1299 which may also end up in the M109 which will change everything.

One more complicating factor: not all rounds are the same. There will be some illuminating, some smoke, some RAP, and the bulk HE with a multifunction fuze. That limits on-board rounds availability for a given mission9s) as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

To @FJAG's point about autoloaders vs manual loading?

Ukrainian loader in leopard 2, for comparison the autoloader of a T72 does 8RPM max.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1632026886095138820

 

[MilEME09]

To @FJAG's point about autoloaders vs manual loading?

This is an auto loader will stay consistent, people get tired

 

[Prairie canuck]

Trying to hem it into the LAV chassis creates all sorts of issues, even if you manage it, then it's at the expense of stowed rounds.

I may have judged the LAV/Archer as a no go too hastily. The Boxer RCH 155 has the same 52 caliber barrel so in theory if it fits on a boxer an Archer should fit on a LAV? Plus I believe the Archer sits further back and relies on outriggers as opposed to the RCH/boxer suspension when firing

 

[Prairie canuck]

Actually it doesn't quite work like advertised

The Archer has an autoloader and modular charges where every charge is the same. It has a magazine that holds 21 rounds. If it fires at the specified 8 rds per minute, it's out of ammunition in just over 2.5 minutes. The reloading of the magazine has to be done manually. The older ammo truck has a small platform that allows the ammo handlers to open the magazine hatches, put in more rounds and mod charges and send it back into action. I haven't seen any actual figures about how long that reload takes but a partial video I once saw of it gave me the idea it could take 15 to 20 minutes from once the gun actually arrives at the reload truck. So I'd say from coming out of action to getting back into action for the next 21 rounds is probably a 1/2 hour + turnaround.

The M109 on the other hand carries 28 to 36 rounds plus charges depending on model while the M992 carries 93 rounds plus charges which can be modular or variable. Generally the M992 is paired with a gun and deploys right behind it. There is a mechanical feeder that can transfer the rounds from the M992 to the M109 but most crews just back the two vehicles to each other and do the transfer by hand. The one thing is that it's a continuous process. There is no autoloader in the M109 (yet) so loading rounds in the turret and transfer of rounds to the turret can happen concurrently. So technically at 3 rounds per minute, the M109 with its associated M992 could keep firing continuously for roughly 40 minutes.

Assuming the Archer fired at the same rate of 3 rounds a minute it could fire for only up to 7 minutes continuously before needing to recharge it's magazine. If the Archer had a better protected limber vehicle than a soft skinned seacan then its magazine recharge time could be dropped down to just the 15 to 20 minutes.

Just a point, I've seen M109s fire faster than 3 rounds per minute. 5 is quite possible but the rammer and need to load a primer with each round limits it beyond that. The M777 is rated a 2 rounds per minute normal, 4 rounds per minute rapid. Here's a video of a Canadian crew in Afghanistan putting 9 rounds downrange in 1 minute and 25 seconds or 6 rounds per minute. (as an aside there is some improper gun drill here that speeds up the mission but could lead to damaging some components on the gun) When you do not have autoloaders the rate of fire and how long you can sustain it is very much governed by the crews ability to prepare the ammo for firing and their exhaustion.

There is an ongoing project for an autoloader for the M1299 which may also end up in the M109 which will change everything.

One more complicating factor: not all rounds are the same. There will be some illuminating, some smoke, some RAP, and the bulk HE with a multifunction fuze. That limits on-board rounds availability for a given mission9s) as well.

Just one added note: if there's any longer distance to cover the Archer is self deployable while the M1299/M109 requires a tank transport.

 

[ArmyRick]

One reason this simple critter right loves mortars, they are simple. Prepare round, drop it, keep your hand out of the way, clean barrel every few rounds, ensured your lay is good. Repeat. Having fired 60mm and 81mm myself (would love to have fired 120mm).

All this other stuff is for arty guys, very technical and stuff.

@Kirkhill I want to throw things at you to think about. 1. Human factors (training, skills, motivation, fatigue, fitness, etc) and 2. Instead of looking at systems capabilities, start looking at their LIMITATIONS. Those brochures and other prop ups aren't as quick to lay out the weaknesses and downsides to all these systems

 

[KevinB]

Just one added note: if there's any longer distance to cover the Archer is self deployable while the M1299/M109 requires a tank transport.

Not entirely true. Nothing stops those from using roads - with track pads on, they don’t really do any damage, and really just cosmetic markings if they pivot turn.

Sure it’s not as efficient, but they can road move self deploy - just at lower than typical highway speeds.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

My argument is it is a war crime. There is no way you can convince me dropping two atomic bombs on two civilian population centers is anything but that. If Russia dropped a nuke on Kiev today to end the war and save thousands of their troops lives, would we be sitting here going, 'good job Russia, you ended the war quicker'? Or would we say they are a bunch of murderers?

If your options are commit war crimes or don't, you should always not. The fact the US and other countries covered up the effects of the bombs being dropped for decades afterwards speaks to the fact they knew how atrocious a act it was. If we want to argue we were the good guys in history, we should stop pretending the crimes we committed were justified.

There can always be a argument for atrocities to be committed and justified, as at the end of the day there can be a net benefit to it. Doesn't make it right.

It is so easy to judge and react to things that we personally have no control over.

History and currents events are suppose to teach the right way and the wrong way of handling things.

Is dropping a nuke the best option? I personally think not but telling your troops that 1 million of you are going to die in this mission and we will not do anything to stop it is just as bad I think.

What was the right answer, invade? Drop the bomb? Keep bombing with fire bombs ?

The Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 was the single deadliest air raid of World War II, greater than Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki as single events. Approximately 15.8 square miles (4,090 ha) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no right answer at the time. People got tired of killing, people got tired of getting telegrams, or letters saying their loved ones were dead or missing.

Was this the right answer? For the time period maybe. But who I am to judge. I might not be here today had my grandfather been sent to the Pacific to fly for the RCAF if the invasion was to continue as planned? He was sent to Comox to prepare to operate in the Pacific area of operations. He had flown, in Burma, North Africa, Europe, and East Coast of Canada already. He did 5 years of war time service. How many more years did he need to do to come home for good?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I may have judged the LAV/Archer as a no go too hastily. The Boxer RCH 155 has the same 52 caliber barrel so in theory if it fits on a boxer an Archer should fit on a LAV? Plus I believe the Archer sits further back and relies on outriggers as opposed to the RCH/boxer suspension when firing

It looks like an abortion and I suspect it operates like one as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not entirely true. Nothing stops those from using roads - with track pads on, they don’t really do any damage, and really just cosmetic markings if they pivot turn.

Sure it’s not as efficient, but they can road move self deploy - just at lower than typical highway speeds.

Conversely the original articulated Volvo Archer hardly qualifies as a speed demon. It is best suited for dragging loads around quarries, mines and pits.

Armor	Options include RMMV MAC or IAC, or KMW IAC (details in main text)
Engine	MAN D2066, 10.518-litre, 6-cylinder inline water-cooled EURO 4 compliant diesel developing 440 hp @ 1900 rpm and 2100 Nm torque @ 1000 rpm[1]
Payload capacity	17,000 kg (on chassis cab; approximate 15,000 kg cargo payload)[1]
Transmission	ZF 12 AS 23010D AS-Tronic (automated) with 12 forward and 2 reverse gears; MAN G172 two-speed transfer case with engageable front axle(s) drive[1]
Suspension	Parabolic leaf springs with progressively acting rubber assistors and hydraulic telescopic shock absorbers (front); inverted multi-leaf trapezoidal springs with radius rods (rear); anti-roll bar on second rear axle, rear[1][2]
Fuel capacity	88 US gal (333 L)
Operational range	300 mi (483 km) loaded
Maximum speed	62 mph (100 km/h)
Steering system	power-assisted on front tande

Armor	Steel & appliqué
Main armament	FH 77 derived howitzer
Secondary armament	Protector RWS with 12.7mm M2 HB
Engine	Volvo D98ACE3 I6 diesel 242 kW (325 hp)
Drive	6x6
Ground clearance	.4 m (16 in)
Fuel capacity	400 L (110 US gal)
Operational range	500 km (310 mi)
Maximum speed	70 km/h (43 mph)
References	Janes[1]

The MAN HX3 would get you that self-deployable gun that can handle off road conditions.

Armor	Options include RMMV MAC or IAC, or KMW IAC (details in main text)
Engine	MAN D2066, 10.518-litre, 6-cylinder inline water-cooled EURO 4 compliant diesel developing 440 hp @ 1900 rpm and 2100 Nm torque @ 1000 rpm[1]
Payload capacity	17,000 kg (on chassis cab; approximate 15,000 kg cargo payload)[1]
Transmission	ZF 12 AS 23010D AS-Tronic (automated) with 12 forward and 2 reverse gears; MAN G172 two-speed transfer case with engageable front axle(s) drive[1]
Suspension	Parabolic leaf springs with progressively acting rubber assistors and hydraulic telescopic shock absorbers (front); inverted multi-leaf trapezoidal springs with radius rods (rear); anti-roll bar on second rear axle, rear[1][2]
Fuel capacity	88 US gal (333 L)
Operational range	300 mi (483 km) loaded
Maximum speed	62 mph (100 km/h)
Steering system	power-assisted on front tande

 

[Kirkhill]

One reason this simple critter right loves mortars, they are simple. Prepare round, drop it, keep your hand out of the way, clean barrel every few rounds, ensured your lay is good. Repeat. Having fired 60mm and 81mm myself (would love to have fired 120mm).

All this other stuff is for arty guys, very technical and stuff.

@Kirkhill I want to throw things at you to think about. 1. Human factors (training, skills, motivation, fatigue, fitness, etc) and 2. Instead of looking at systems capabilities, start looking at their LIMITATIONS. Those brochures and other prop ups aren't as quick to lay out the weaknesses and downsides to all these systems

You're dead right Rick. Most systems that I have installed over the years have been improved by their operators. And there is no sarcasm in that statement.

The first level of improvement is usually just becoming really familiar with the systems to an extent that I as a designer and commissioner couldn't achieve. When I went back for a yearly check up it was usually to discover the operators asking questions that I couldn't answer. Their knowledge of the system was that much better.

But, having said that, for every limitation that the operators discovered both they and I were generally happy areas where the capabilities exceeded the glossy expectations.

Unfortunately, when you're putting together new systems you have to get your numbers from some place. And the accepted reference is the glossy manufacturer's spec sheet. For good or ill. That gives you a middle of the road standard expectation.

Mileage may vary.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Not entirely true. Nothing stops those from using roads - with track pads on, they don’t really do any damage, and really just cosmetic markings if they pivot turn.

Sure it’s not as efficient, but they can road move self deploy - just at lower than typical highway speeds.

No doubt for short runs but I believe it's more about distance and what the road and higher speed friction does to the tracks/pads. (unless it's a long slow drive into Baghdad) you might save yourself some maintenance downtime via transport