C3 Howitzer Replacement

[suffolkowner]

I guess if we only use those trucks in Europe it won't be so bad. Should be ample ready supply of engine parts, electronics and other OEM parts.
I am not convinced we will have proper supply of parts here.
For example a fuel injectors for the MSVS engine is not readily available here. More them likely neither are the emissions equipment.
Time will tell.

Parts supply is on us. They are trucks. The amount of engine work Ive had to do over 50 yrs is miniscule on trucks or offroad equipment and most of that was done in the first 10 yrs of the 50. Over those 50 yrs you couldnt have paid me to have a Kenworth either, maybe thats changed in the last 20 yrs. I dont really care and apparently it was an option as they didnt bid. I get that youre a fan

 

[KevinB]

Parts supply is on us. They are trucks. The amount of engine work Ive had to do over 50 yrs is miniscule on trucks or offroad equipment and most of that was done in the first 10 yrs of the 50.

I’ll point out I doubt those have been run by the CA with some rather questionable (at times) fuel qualities. Some of the stuff coming out of Jerry Cans is most definitely not diesel (or at least any sort of Diesel fit for an engine).

 

[childs56]

Parts supply is on us.

It should be dealer support

They are trucks.

With engines and drive trains that are not well supported here in NA

The amount of engine work Ive had to do over 50 yrs is miniscule on trucks or offroad equipment and most of that was done in the first 10 yrs of the 50. Over those 50 yrs you couldnt have paid me to have a Kenworth either, maybe thats changed in the last 20 yrs. I dont really care and apparently it was an option as they didnt bid. I get that youre a fan

I have the feeling once the trucks are out of Warranty the healing fence will be getting lots of use.

My choice for off road trucks would be KW C5, then a WS then roll the dice and what ever I got on a better value.

I have ran Kenworths, Peterbilts, Macks, Freightliner, Internationals, Western Stars, I am not proud but did drive a Volvo once.
The Mack was a decent day use truck. Cabs were more cramped then others. Parts were a pain to get and expensive. Especially for their engine.
The KW, Petes, FL, Int and WS besides some fit and finish on a few Petes (petes were fancy) they all had positives and negatives. More to do with cab spacing and options then anything else. The majority of trucks had the same engines, Transmissions and suspension components .

Lots of reasons why you do not see Macks and Volvos in most off road heavy trucking industries here in Canada. Poor support and hard to access and expensive parts is number one. Then cab set up spacing is another.

To each their own, everyone has different experience with various industries and uses. I just do not like our Military buying a fleet of trucks that are not widely used nor supported.
Now I need to open up a Mack/ Unimog parts support dealership

 

[dapaterson]

If this is like most recent equipment acquisitions, there's an in service support contract to go along with it, so the odds of local dealers getting the call is minimal.

 

[KevinB]

If this is like most recent equipment acquisitions, there's an in service support contract to go along with it, so the odds of local dealers getting the call is minimal.

And the odds that the parts exist in NA still nil

 

[suffolkowner]

It should be dealer support

With engines and drive trains that are not well supported here in NA

I have the feeling once the trucks are out of Warranty the healing fence will be getting lots of use.

My choice for off road trucks would be KW C5, then a WS then roll the dice and what ever I got on a better value.

I have ran Kenworths, Peterbilts, Macks, Freightliner, Internationals, Western Stars, I am not proud but did drive a Volvo once.
The Mack was a decent day use truck. Cabs were more cramped then others. Parts were a pain to get and expensive. Especially for their engine.
The KW, Petes, FL, Int and WS besides some fit and finish on a few Petes (petes were fancy) they all had positives and negatives. More to do with cab spacing and options then anything else. The majority of trucks had the same engines, Transmissions and suspension components .

Lots of reasons why you do not see Macks and Volvos in most off road heavy trucking industries here in Canada. Poor support and hard to access and expensive parts is number one. Then cab set up spacing is another.

To each their own, everyone has different experience with various industries and uses. I just do not like our Military buying a fleet of trucks that are not widely used nor supported.
Now I need to open up a Mack/ Unimog parts support dealership

We ran 20 Macks on average ever since International went bankrupt and never had any parts problems. Were they expensive? I dont know, if you never have to fix them is it an issue? They were our trucks we bought them and maintained them and even drove them. Our trucks were vocational though not offroad. But like I said it doesnt matter really because we have already bought all our heavy trucks until the MSVS-Milcots get replaced and we still our dependent on the vendor bidding.

 

[childs56]

We ran 20 Macks on average ever since International went bankrupt and never had any parts problems. Were they expensive? I dont know, if you never have to fix them is it an issue? They were our trucks we bought them and maintained them and even drove them. Our trucks were vocational though not offroad. But like I said it doesnt matter really because we have already bought all our heavy trucks until the MSVS-Milcots get replaced and we still our dependent on the vendor bidding.

The MACK Dump truck I drove I liked. Had great fuel milage, the old style camel back suspension was really good off road. Maintenance was a pain. Filters cost more, parts cost more and often on back order.
They were great until they broke down. That's where parts supply, knowledge and tooling makes a difference. Operator comfort is important also. I neve found MACK had that as a priority.

 

[suffolkowner]

The MACK Dump truck I drove I liked. Had great fuel milage, the old style camel back suspension was really good off road. Maintenance was a pain. Filters cost more, parts cost more and often on back order.
They were great until they broke down. That's where parts supply, knowledge and tooling makes a difference. Operator comfort is important also. I neve found MACK had that as a priority.

Yeah we didnt buy them for the comfort thats for sure although the newer ones were better that way then the DMs or RBs. Filters were just whatever was cheapest at the time FRAM/Donaldson etc. In the end the only thing left was the Bulldog there was no Mack left in the trucks not even the engine as it switched to Volvo

 

[Kirkhill]

Marine Corps Continues Path to Retirement for Artillery System that Has Seen Heavy Use in Ukraine​

Interesting headline.

For more than two decades, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, has served as a key piece for U.S. deterrence, including in Europe. The launchers, built on the back of trucks and designed to send missiles or rockets over 150 miles to hit targets the size of a trash can using GPS, have also recently seen ample action in Ukraine as forces have worked to repel the Russian invasion.

But the Marine Corps plans to retire its HIMARS over the next several years, instead prioritizing other platforms to pick up the capability a mobile rocket or missile launcher would offer, and heading full-tilt toward its coastal mission.

But, buried in the text of the tale is the Paul Harvey version.

...in accordance with the service's modernization plan, which -- in part -- wraps missile capabilities around its littoral units, the Corps is now looking at the Multiple Launch Rocket System, or MLRS. With a similarly advertised range to HIMARS, depending on the munition, the MLRS is tracked instead of wheeled, heavier and has been battle-tested since the 1980s. The Corps has had HIMARS since the early 2000s.

The service will also use the Navy/Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, or NMESIS, which it procured last year. That system is mounted on a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, is designed specifically for killing ships from land and has a shorter range of about 60 less miles than the HIMARS.

Marine Corps Continues Path to Retirement for Artillery System that Has Seen Heavy Use in Ukraine

For more than two decades, the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, has served as a key piece for U.S. deterrence, including in Europe.

www.military.com

So the actual tale is that the USMC, working from boats, sandy beaches and islands, is trading in their 6 pack trucks for 12 pack tracks.

The Brits have also opted to keep their tracks, at least for the time being.

Wheels work best on roads. If you don't have roads then you are probably better off with tracks?

And HIMARS may be retained in the Reserves

the HIMARS in the active component must be divested," Maj. Eric Flanagan, a spokesperson for the Corps modernization efforts, told Military.com on Monday.

 

[KevinB]

Well ERCA is off the table.

Army artillery needs more range, mobility and autonomy, study finds

The Army's conventional fires study is leading the service to focus on munitions range and capacity as well as more mobile and autonomous systems.

www.defensenews.com

 

[GK .Dundas]

My

 

[FJAG]

Well ERCA is off the table.

Army artillery needs more range, mobility and autonomy, study finds

The Army's conventional fires study is leading the service to focus on munitions range and capacity as well as more mobile and autonomous systems.

www.defensenews.com

I think many of us who were following the ERCA project were afraid that it might be a bridge too far. The nature of the "effects" end of the equation has been changing considerably over the last two years and the delivery capabilities have as well. Once you decide that it's easier for the propellant to be on the projectile (rocket) rather than the chamber (gun) and yet guidance can be kept consistent and interference free then the trend makes you look more towards cheap and plentiful rocket launchers. HIMARSish type systems can be a long tube killer once costs and capabilities balance out.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think many of us who were following the ERCA project were afraid that it might be a bridge too far. The nature of the "effects" end of the equation has been changing considerably over the last two years and the delivery capabilities have as well. Once you decide that it's easier for the propellant to be on the projectile (rocket) rather than the chamber (gun) and yet guidance can be kept consistent and interference free then the trend makes you look more towards cheap and plentiful rocket launchers. HIMARSish type systems can be a long tube killer once costs and capabilities balance out.

With a balanced tube and rocket artillery force you don't need to push the bleeding edge of gun tube technology. You will literally get more bang for the buck by designating realistic range bands for each type and sticking to that.

 

[KevinB]

There is a realistic max chamber pressure one can achieve, unless the Wankandans pop up and offer us Vibranium. So far I’m not holding my breath.

I still think tube arty has a use, but I’d be putting more and more weight on what multiple launch rocket systems offer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The nice thing about rocket artillery is it is pretty easy to scale up production for dumb rockets and launchers using existing production capabilities in the west.

 

[FJAG]

It's like you said above, its a balance of systems. gun projectiles are still cheaper per round, more versatile, and less likely to be intercepted or jammed. On top of that there's the difference between precision rockets and the mass dumb rocket systems. Finally there's all the OWUAV stuff.

Seems like we need a suite of things to replace the C3.

 

[OldSolduer]

unless the Wankandans pop up and offer us Vibranium. So far I’m not holding my breath.

Let me ring them up

 

[Kirkhill]

Towed artillery has reached ‘end of the effectiveness,’ Army four-star declares - Breaking Defense

The service has not yet released its new tactical fires study, but officials have begun previewing possible artillery changes.

breakingdefense.com

GLOBAL FORCE 2024 — US Army Futures Command head Gen. James Rainey today teased some details of the Army’s highly anticipated tactical fires study — and made it clear that towed artillery’s future isn’t bright.

“I personally believe that we have witnessed the end of the effectiveness of towed artillery: The future is not bright for towed artillery,” Rainey told an audience today at the Association of the US Army’s Global Force symposium. Looking at large scale operations against threats like China, the US Army instead needs mobile, indirect fires, especially in its lighter Stryker formations, he added.

Two observations:

Towed guns likely to go.
Stryker formations likely to stay.

 

[FJAG]

Two observations:

Towed guns likely to go.
Stryker formations likely to stay.

With one Stryker brigade in each armored division it only makes sense to give them an M109A7 bn the same as the two armored brigades. up them to L52s.

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

 

[ArmyRick]

Let me ring them up

I knew it! You went to work for SHIELD after leaving the CAF. Thats why you still do those crazy runs.