Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[NavyShooter]

Having recently observed how a 105mm shoot is done, a take-away from my perspective was how completely handraulic it was.

There was not a heck of a lot of digital solutions in the fire control solutions that were implemented.

My first suggestion would be to find a means to push out hardened, connected, digital fire control plotting and firing systems. The C1A1 panoramic telescope is a very neat piece of gear - I've been arms deep in the guts of a bunch of them over the past 4 months. However. There's got to be a way to make it easier to point and shoot.

Having a consistent fire control system across the entire spectrum of indirect fires capabilities would be a good step forward I think.

Infantry with their C-6's, Arty with 105/155/81, whomever runs the C-16 AGL, and so forth.

Whatever gun system is used, there should be some form of common indirect fire control system that can be slapped onto the mount, given a GPS position, an accurate bearing, and can then spit out a fire control order.

Standardized fire control should be a part of this.

I won't say 'who cares' about the gun/weapons/missiles used, but that should honestly be a secondary consideration to upgrading an integrated fire control solution.

 

[Kirkhill]

But back to the Boxer/RCH155 combination

Boxer tested to see how far RCH 155 howitzer variant can tip before it topples

A testbed weighted to represent the Remote Controlled Howitzer manages to tilt a staggering amount before its wheels lift off.

www.forcesnews.com

45 degree side slope with the turret in static load tests.
Nothing yet on firing stability.

 

[Kirkhill]

Having recently observed how a 105mm shoot is done, a take-away from my perspective was how completely handraulic it was.

There was not a heck of a lot of digital solutions in the fire control solutions that were implemented.

My first suggestion would be to find a means to push out hardened, connected, digital fire control plotting and firing systems. The C1A1 panoramic telescope is a very neat piece of gear - I've been arms deep in the guts of a bunch of them over the past 4 months. However. There's got to be a way to make it easier to point and shoot.

Having a consistent fire control system across the entire spectrum of indirect fires capabilities would be a good step forward I think.

Infantry with their C-6's, Arty with 105/155/81, whomever runs the C-16 AGL, and so forth.

Whatever gun system is used, there should be some form of common indirect fire control system that can be slapped onto the mount, given a GPS position, an accurate bearing, and can then spit out a fire control order.

Standardized fire control should be a part of this.

I won't say 'who cares' about the gun/weapons/missiles used, but that should honestly be a secondary consideration to upgrading an integrated fire control solution.

Something like this?

Fire Control Systems for the Canadian Army

The Canadian Army has awarded Aimpoint a contract to deliver an unspecified quantity of Aimpoint FCS13-RE Fire Control Systems (FCSs) and the TH-60 thermal sight systems.

euro-sd.com

Aimpoint FCS13, suitable for any ballistic trajectory weapon -

The FCS13-RE provides a high first hit probability on both stationary and moving targets at extended ranges and utilises an intuitive user control interface.

We are pushing the limits and squeezing technology from larger vehicle-based fire control systems into a smaller sight housing and introducing them on support weapons, like the 84 mm Carl Gustaf, 40 mm high velocity (HV) grenade launchers, and 12.7 mm heavy machine guns (HMGs).

Interview with Magnus Andersson, Director FCS Sales at Aimpoint

ESD’s Mark Cazalet conducted a brief interview with Magnus Andersson, Director FCS Sales at Aimpoint, on the future of the small arms optics market, and developmental challenges of miniaturised fire control systems.

euro-sd.com

 

[FJAG]

Having recently observed how a 105mm shoot is done, a take-away from my perspective was how completely handraulic it was.

There was not a heck of a lot of digital solutions in the fire control solutions that were implemented.

You didn't see the digital solution because we haven't bought enough to equip the reserve guns that you saw. With the exception of the IFCCS computer they have, the reserve's systems are not much advanced from what I did as a young gunner back in 1965.

The system for the M777, however, is a highly sophisticated digital system (with a handraulic fall back) It's based on the UK/IT LINAPs system which is installed on the Brit 105mm light guns which are comparable to the Canadian G1. It could easily be installed on the G1 and the C3 for that matter if Canada chose to spend the money to do so. They won't for the LG1 and C3 but I can pretty much guarantee that whatever we get next will have a digital system as part of it.

Effectively we do have the capability of delivering digital fires data from the observer to the gun without any voice communication. It's there. They used it recently for multinational fires in Latvia. But its not perfect yet. There are currently two other projects moving through the system to accompany the indirect fires modernization project called the "Joint Fires Modernization (JFM)" project and the "Land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) Modernization" project. I'm a sceptic as to the latter. I've seen army ISR integration and digitization as a priority for almost two decades now and I keep seeing the goal posts moving ever further out. We keep hitting the target on some elements but missing the 'total integration' that is the Holy Grail. The artillery's sensor to shooter link (i.e JFM), however, should be starting implementation this year and should be FOC by 2029/30 - knock on wood. That will give you what you are suggesting.

Something like this?

No. We're talking apples and oranges here.

 

[FJAG]

Just as a quick follow on, the artillery's UAV and radar programs pretty much grew out of the earlier ISR programs. DLR 8 back just after the turn of the century had a program going respecting the integration of ISR components and in that respect there were fledgling testbeds for radars and UAVs being looked at in order to work out how dat linkages could and should work.

When the decision was made to go into Kabul back in 2003, that material was used to fast track both Sperwer and ARTHUR into the first Op ATHENA rotations by way of UORs. Everything that followed with respect to UAVs and radars (including the current BlackJack and MRRs) grew out of those first steps and the fact that we still had a few folks around in the RCAS and elsewhere who were able to coble things together.

 

[KevinB]

Just as a quick follow on, the artillery's UAV and radar programs pretty much grew out of the earlier ISR programs. DLR 8 back just after the turn of the century had a program going respecting the integration of ISR components and in that respect there were fledgling testbeds for radars and UAVs being looked at in order to work out how dat linkages could and should work.

When the decision was made to go into Kabul back in 2003, that material was used to fast track both Sperwer and ARTHUR into the first Op ATHENA rotations by way of UORs. Everything that followed with respect to UAVs and radars (including the current BlackJack and MRRs) grew out of those first steps and the fact that we still had a few folks around in the RCAS and elsewhere who were able to coble things together.

I really want to know who was asleep at the switch considering the US Military called in Naval Gunfire as well as land based artillery using Predators back in 1991 in GW1.

I’m not sure 12 years should be considered fast tracking

 

[GR66]

I really want to know who was asleep at the switch considering the US Military called in Naval Gunfire as well as land based artillery using Predators back in 1991 in GW1.

I’m not sure 12 years should be considered fast tracking