Multi-Mission Launcher, yay or nay?

[CBH99]

The C3’s aren’t going to do jack s**t in any modern conflict. Period.

We just have to look at Armenia vs Abracadabrastan, and look at how the latter fought that war & absolutely wiped the floor with them by using small commercial drones & loitering munitions.

Same goes with the current conflict in Ukraine.


It would literally be like the Battle of 73 Easting, except the gun crews wouldn’t even have the decency of some armour protection or mobility.

May as well re-role the artillery guys to infantry or have them doing the myriad of tasks behind the fighting units that need to get done.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The C3’s aren’t going to do jack s**t in any modern conflict. Period.

Except there are 105s doing stuff in a modern conflict now. The only country that might pose a bigger challenge than Russia is China and the difference would be marginal.
About the only ground conflict where China is the aggressor that we would get involved in is Taiwan and that would be well underway before we could provide any sort of useful ground troops.
The technological difference between Western (American for the most part) weapons and others is enourmous. If a conflict ends up stalled like Ukraine, a 105 is not much different from a 122 which is what we will face.

 

[suffolkowner]

I still think you would rather have a 155 over a 105 and self propelled over towed but one takes what one gets

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The C3’s aren’t going to do jack s**t in any modern conflict. Period.

We just have to look at Armenia vs Abracadabrastan, and look at how the latter fought that war & absolutely wiped the floor with them by using small commercial drones & loitering munitions.

Same goes with the current conflict in Ukraine.


It would literally be like the Battle of 73 Easting, except the gun crews wouldn’t even have the decency of some armour protection or mobility.

May as well re-role the artillery guys to infantry or have them doing the myriad of tasks behind the fighting units that need to get done.

Canada's current artillery park would be eaten up in a few months of the Ukrainian conflict and you be happy with any gun supporting you. Having a bunch of more modern 105's at the drill halls gives us resupply depth. You can add M119's to the Reserves without having to rebuild all the support elements. You could add some more M777's as well to some Reserve units if they are close to a base they can shoot them and have a Reserve training battery in Shilo where Reservists go to training on missiles, M777 and whatever SPG we get. Plus that battery can offer Sig, FOO, BC, BSM courses. That training battery is staffed by regs and teaches a short familiarization course in the summer, spring break. In the down time the battery personal can do their own training, leave, maintenance. Travel to Reserve units to assist on short exercises and assess basic courses being done on the armoury floor.

 

[childs56]

The C3’s aren’t going to do jack s**t in any modern conflict. Period.

Why? It is actually a simpler gun then the more modern 105s. With replacement barrels is a pretty simplistic gun to operate. Can be fitted with a GPS system is wanted.
Small commercial drones can be defeated pretty easily. I am not sure why they would and do pose such a threat right now. Some jobs I did in the Oilfield you couldnt get within 1.5-2km of site with a drone or your phone/ radios stopped working.

 

[CBH99]

In the Battle of 73 Easting, one of the huge advantages the Americans had over the Iraqis was mobility & hydraulic turrets.

As the Americans drove to either flank of the Iraqi formations, their turrets could quickly turn & acquire targets…while the Iraqi T-72’s didn’t have hydraulic turrets, and had to be hand cranked in order to turn.

The Americans had fire control computers, while the Iraqi’s were eyeballing it.

The results were predictable… a big chunk of Saddam’s armoured force was left in ruins. All the Americans had to do was step on the gas, and the Iraqi tank crews couldn’t keep up & were decimated.



I picture the C3 as being like the Iraqi T-72’s. From afar, the way artillery is supposed to be, they could be helpful in lobbing 105mm shells down range.

The post I was replying to mentioned using them in the direct fire role with HEAT rounds. If any remotely modern enemy is that close for the C3’s to be doing direct fire, I feel it’s the same as slapping a mag into a C9…the day didn’t go as planned.

 

[ArmyRick]

In the Battle of 73 Easting, one of the huge advantages the Americans had over the Iraqis was mobility & hydraulic turrets.

As the Americans drove to either flank of the Iraqi formations, their turrets could quickly turn & acquire targets…while the Iraqi T-72’s didn’t have hydraulic turrets, and had to be hand cranked in order to turn.

The Americans had fire control computers, while the Iraqi’s were eyeballing it.

The results were predictable… a big chunk of Saddam’s armoured force was left in ruins. All the Americans had to do was step on the gas, and the Iraqi tank crews couldn’t keep up & were decimated.



I picture the C3 as being like the Iraqi T-72’s. From afar, the way artillery is supposed to be, they could be helpful in lobbing 105mm shells down range.

The post I was replying to mentioned using them in the direct fire role with HEAT rounds. If any remotely modern enemy is that close for the C3’s to be doing direct fire, I feel it’s the same as slapping a mag into a C9…the day didn’t go as planned.

Don't forget the flukes of war. In the Battle of 73 Easting, a bradley or a an Abrams had pulled up literally right beside a hull down Iraqi AFV, blinded by sand.

 

[CBH99]

I believe it was a Bradley, and I think he ended up driving right into the same little crater the Iraqi tank was using. And you’re right, the sandstorm was so dense that nobody could really see what was around them!

(In my mind that was said in Jerry Lawyer’s voice for some reason)


The Bradley was literally blasting this T-72 from point blank range, as I believe the forward right corner of the vehicle had fallen into the same crater - and the rounds were literally pinging off the T-72’s hull

(I remember watching the crew commander of that vehicle give his version of the events on a show called Tanks, on History Channel, way back when)

 

[Kirkhill]

Poland is making this difficult. They are buying everything and I don't know where to put it.

Thanks for the link to the link @Rainbow1910

NSM/JSMs flying off the shelf for immediate delivery and Kongsberg building a large new missile factory.

Apparently Poland is beefing up its coastal defences as well.

Poland Orders Large Amount Of NSM Missiles​

In what is a record deal for the company, Poland inked a contract with Kongsberg to procure "several hundred" NSM missiles, command vehicles, launchers and other vehicles...​

The contract, concluded between the Armament Agency of Polish MoD and Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace, is for the supply of Naval Strike Missile Coastal Defense System (NSM CDS) components for the formation of two new MJR squadrons for the Polish Navy. The contract was worth approx. PLN 8 billion gross (EUR 1.8 billion). The contract includes the delivery of “several hundred” NSM missiles, command vehicles, launchers and other vehicles. Deliveries will be made between 2026 and 2032. As part of the contract, Kongsberg will provide training and technical support, including simulators, to enable Polish personnel to conduct maintenance services in Poland.

The MJR consists of two squadrons Each squadron includes two batteries of three MLVs – Missile L.aunch Vehicles (a total of 24 NSMs per squadron). To date, Poland has purchased 74 NSM Block 1, which uses a jet propulsion that provides high subsonic speed and a range of “over 150 km”. To the target, the missile goes according to the indications of the inertial navigation system and GPS corrections, while during the target acquisition and attack phase, the guiding system uses an IR camera to identify the object of attack. The NSM can engage surface ships, and land targets with a known location.

2 squadrons expanding to 4 squadrons, each with 2 batteries of 3 launchers with 4 NSMs per launcher.

Poland Orders Large Amount of NSM Missiles - Naval News

Poland signed a record deal with Kongsberg to procure "several hundred" NSM missiles, command vehicles, launchers and other vehicles...

www.navalnews.com

 

[GR66]

Rocket launchers with multiple munition capabilities sure seem to be the flavour of the day...

KNDS, Elbit Systems to jointly build next-gen rocket artillery system

The European leader in land defense KNDS and international defense electronics company Elbit Systems have signed a teaming agreement to develop a new rocket artillery system jointly. According to a press release from Elbit Systems, the agreement, which comes shortly after the signing of an MOU...

defence-blog.com

 

[KevinB]

Rocket launchers with multiple munition capabilities sure seem to be the flavour of the day...

KNDS, Elbit Systems to jointly build next-gen rocket artillery system

The European leader in land defense KNDS and international defense electronics company Elbit Systems have signed a teaming agreement to develop a new rocket artillery system jointly. According to a press release from Elbit Systems, the agreement, which comes shortly after the signing of an MOU...

defence-blog.com

Again part of that is geographical location.
When the enemy is next door, you don’t really have an Expeditionary requirement.

 

[Kirkhill]

Again part of that is geographical location.
When the enemy is next door, you don’t really have an Expeditionary requirement.

Are you suggesting that an M270 with a dedicated missile configuration is more deployable than a truck that can launch any available missile?

How then the HIMARS and the ever increasing family of missiles available for that system?

If anything, I would think the M270 would be more at home in a Merkava/Narmer environment, waddling around the backyard, than in a Stryker/HX environment.

 

[KevinB]

Are you suggesting that an M270 with a dedicated missile configuration is more deployable than a truck that can launch any available missile?

No I’m suggesting a box by itself isn’t very mobile

How then the HIMARS and the ever increasing family of missiles available for that system?

Again the box needs a chassis to move.

If anything, I would think the M270 would be more at home in a Merkava/Narmer environment, waddling around the backyard, than in a Stryker/HX environment.

No disagreement

 

[Kirkhill]

No I’m suggesting a box by itself isn’t very mobile

Again the box needs a chassis to move.

No disagreement

If that's your argument then you may be countering an argument I am not making.

A sea can is a box. Tricons and Quadcons are boxes. They are moved on planes, ships, trucks and trains. They can be lifted by cranes and helicopters. They can be employed on the transport platform or on the ground or in a building.

Is a towed howitzer mobile? With the right transport?
Oerlikon's GBAD turrets?
NSM launchers?

Why couldn't you remove the T&E from an MRLS with an APU and park it in a defended locality exactly the same way that the NASAMS launchers are cemented in place in Washington?

Why couldn't those same NASAMS launchers be put onto the back of a truck for relocation? Or even to be fired from the truck - even if stabilizers for the truck are necessary?

Why not pick those boxes up by helicopters and deliver them to a light force FOB?

One T&E system with ISO lockdowns, capable of mounting a standard size pod which could stow and fire a variety of different missiles? Exactly like the MRLS/HIMARS/Chunmoo pods now?

Sometimes the pod may be static. Sometimes it may be manoeuvered.

 

[KevinB]

I’m not against POD systems.
I’m just concerned about the logistics support of them.