Australian Army Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

You might read @ADMk2 a few posts back. Time has already told. And tolled for that matter. We no longer have the 105mm guns.

oldsig

Did see that just wondering for the future. Oh well is what it is, since lacking in 105s do we have or have anything planned in way of 120mm morters?

 

[Redlands18]

Bloody brilliant read, cheers. Thanks for that. Does put it all into perspective. Off hand would there be any commonality in munitions if we acquired a 127mm gun with the RAN. (No I am not advocating that just simple curiosity).

127mm Gun? There is no such Gun available other than Ship board systems, in the western alliance we have either 105 or 155mm Artillery for use on land. The Russians have been using 122 and 152mm for decades.

 

[Redlands18]

Did see that just wondering for the future. Oh well is what it is, since lacking in 105s do we have or have anything planned in way of 120mm morters?

Land 400 phase 3 plans include a number of Vehicles with a 120mm Mortar Turret fitted.

 

[ngatimozart]

Bloody brilliant read, cheers. Thanks for that. Does put it all into perspective. Off hand would there be any commonality in munitions if we acquired a 127mm gun with the RAN. (No I am not advocating that just simple curiosity).

No probs.

I have sometimes thought that it would be nice to have a land based version of the 127 mm gun, but I believe that it is a high velocity weapon so may create some problems. Am not sure on that though. Just something I read many years ago about the difference between WW2 land and naval guns of the same calibre.

However it's always been that the army has to be different to the navy, probably because it's jealous that the navy is the senior service

 

[Takao]

Just a point to remember that both towed and SPG arty have pros and cons as does 155 mm and 105 mm. This Think Defence article is well worth reading because it covers both aspects.

105mm, 155mm or Something In-between?

A guest post from Obsvr The defining characteristic of field artillery for the last century has been ‘firepower mobility’ of indirect fire. Any target within range can be engaged, providing the eff…

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

I'll put up some more, especially ADF focused, comments on that article and towed v SPH or 105 mm v 155 mm

Australian Army Discussions and Updates

My reaction to this would be don't do it. Surely an SPG would be a better option in the wet season in East Timor. Certainly better than a bogged M777. Regards, Massive Read again, think mountain terrain "like East Timor", could mean PNG, could mean anywhere, Vietnam ,Indonesia etc etc, It...

www.defencetalk.com

 

[ngatimozart]

I'll put up some more, especially ADF focused, comments on that article and towed v SPH or 105 mm v 155 mm

Australian Army Discussions and Updates

My reaction to this would be don't do it. Surely an SPG would be a better option in the wet season in East Timor. Certainly better than a bogged M777. Regards, Massive Read again, think mountain terrain "like East Timor", could mean PNG, could mean anywhere, Vietnam ,Indonesia etc etc, It...

www.defencetalk.com

There were 2 things that I took away from that article when I read it 4 years ago and more so recently was that to survive on the modern battlefield you had to shoot and scoot and SPGs were best for that as well as crew survivability. Secondly that the only time towed arty was better than SPG was for long period bombardment.

However as you point out SPGs aren't mountain goats, so parts of South East Asia and Melanesia are not suitable for the deployment of SPGs. But not all parts. A question is the M777 the lightest version of the towed 155 mm gun? If it isn't wouldn't it be worthwhile acquiring the lightest version possible and using those for heliborne quick fire missions?

 

[Aussie optimist]

There were 2 things that I took away from that article when I read it 4 years ago and more so recently was that to survive on the modern battlefield you had to shoot and scoot and SPGs were best for that as well as crew survivability. Secondly that the only time towed arty was better than SPG was for long period bombardment.

However as you point out SPGs aren't mountain goats, so parts of South East Asia and Melanesia are not suitable for the deployment of SPGs. But not all parts. A question is the M777 the lightest version of the towed 155 mm gun? If it isn't wouldn't it be worthwhile acquiring the lightest version possible and using those for heliborne quick fire missions?

I tend to agree, we currently have the M777 in service with the required logistics train. I would be happy to have both the K9/K10 as well in a SGP, that way we have flexibility. I think there is a place for both in modern warfare. Cheers for the earlier attached article, very informative.

 

[Takao]

However as you point out SPGs aren't mountain goats, so parts of South East Asia and Melanesia are not suitable for the deployment of SPGs. But not all parts. A question is the M777 the lightest version of the towed 155 mm gun? If it isn't wouldn't it be worthwhile acquiring the lightest version possible and using those for heliborne quick fire missions?

Depends. The SPG has greater range, so may be able to affect an area without having to get as close, meaning it may not have to access terrain that the M777 would have to. DSTO have done studies that show the extra range a SPG brings over a towed gun means it can hit any feasible target a towed gun can without having to go into unacceptable terrian. As for lightness, the M777 would be the lightest towed 155 mm - it's only 4.2 tonnes, which honestly isn't that heavy (it's 2/3 the GVM for a 6x6 G-Wagon...). Certainly the AH4 (at 4.5 tonnes) is sold as lightweight as it's 25% a normal 155 mm system.

And that has two problems. One is there are compromises within the M777 design that means a M198 is tougher and more forgiving if you want to use it in an off-road towed role. As with anything, you can't throw something around in our outback unless it's pretty tough, and that toughness comes at the expense of weight.

The second problem is that a CH-47 only lifts one gun + crew. The ammo comes in a second helicopter. So each 4 gun Bty needs 8x CH-47 lifts. That's 75% of our fleet. It's going to be unlikely that such numbers are available - it's an enormous commitment. When we start adding in times - about 10 min from gun unhooking to first round downrange, an anemic rate of fire that puts 2 - 3 rounds down range per minute (closer to 1 - 2 in mountainous terrain) and you've fired 40 rounds in 15 min. But Russian counter battery fire has an open source time of 80 s in the Ukraine. Assume 50% worse, and your helicopter inserted Bty has fired 16ish rounds before getting hit.

I was taught helo-bourne artillery raids many years ago, and as I've moved through my career that's fallen off as no longer realistic. We cannot guarantee air superiority, the guns fire too slow and we need to commit too many of our most valuable tactical transport. While I get annoyed at people who say Tiger replaces artillery (and that was a common view in the 2000s), the reality is what you threw an arty raid at 25 years ago you would now through a Tiger Tp at. You'd be faster, more flexible, more survivable and less resource intensive (even from a $$ point of view!)

I tend to agree, we currently have the M777 in service with the required logistics train. I would be happy to have both the K9/K10 as well in a SGP, that way we have flexibility. I think there is a place for both in modern warfare. Cheers for the earlier attached article, very informative.

Do we? When you say logistics train I assume you mean spares for the gun system - and you'd be correct. If you mean for 155 mm rounds, no, we don't. Very few people have an idea on how much 155 mm is chewed up by an artillery Bty or Regt when firing for real. We have a dedicated Transport Sqn for this reason - but poor exercising of artillery over the past decades has seen that Sqn progressively directed elsewhere.

There is no room for towed guns in modern warfare. Unless you have a huge helicopter fleet, huge budget (so your M777 or AH4 only do helo stuff) and you don't really care about other capabilities. A SPH is better than a M777 in almost every respect at every level (tactical, operational, strategic). Those it isn't, it's equal. The one niche capability of airlift demands more online CH-47 than we have - and hence is not cost effective. The M777 capability (because it's more than just the gun) is slower, clumsier, longer, less agile, more manpower intensive, less safer and less capable. For every $ spent on an obsolete system like the M777 you lose a $ that could go to the SPG. There is 0 reasons for the ADF to keep towed guns, especially with the opportunity to purchase increased numbers of SPH.

 

[ADMk2]

Depends. The SPG has greater range, so may be able to affect an area without having to get as close, meaning it may not have to access terrain that the M777 would have to. DSTO have done studies that show the extra range a SPG brings over a towed gun means it can hit any feasible target a towed gun can without having to go into unacceptable terrian. As for lightness, the M777 would be the lightest towed 155 mm - it's only 4.2 tonnes, which honestly isn't that heavy (it's 2/3 the GVM for a 6x6 G-Wagon...). Certainly the AH4 (at 4.5 tonnes) is sold as lightweight as it's 25% a normal 155 mm system.

And that has two problems. One is there are compromises within the M777 design that means a M198 is tougher and more forgiving if you want to use it in an off-road towed role. As with anything, you can't throw something around in our outback unless it's pretty tough, and that toughness comes at the expense of weight.

The second problem is that a CH-47 only lifts one gun + crew. The ammo comes in a second helicopter. So each 4 gun Bty needs 8x CH-47 lifts. That's 75% of our fleet. It's going to be unlikely that such numbers are available - it's an enormous commitment. When we start adding in times - about 10 min from gun unhooking to first round downrange, an anemic rate of fire that puts 2 - 3 rounds down range per minute (closer to 1 - 2 in mountainous terrain) and you've fired 40 rounds in 15 min. But Russian counter battery fire has an open source time of 80 s in the Ukraine. Assume 50% worse, and your helicopter inserted Bty has fired 16ish rounds before getting hit.

I was taught helo-bourne artillery raids many years ago, and as I've moved through my career that's fallen off as no longer realistic. We cannot guarantee air superiority, the guns fire too slow and we need to commit too many of our most valuable tactical transport. While I get annoyed at people who say Tiger replaces artillery (and that was a common view in the 2000s), the reality is what you threw an arty raid at 25 years ago you would now through a Tiger Tp at. You'd be faster, more flexible, more survivable and less resource intensive (even from a $$ point of view!)



Do we? When you say logistics train I assume you mean spares for the gun system - and you'd be correct. If you mean for 155 mm rounds, no, we don't. Very few people have an idea on how much 155 mm is chewed up by an artillery Bty or Regt when firing for real. We have a dedicated Transport Sqn for this reason - but poor exercising of artillery over the past decades has seen that Sqn progressively directed elsewhere.

There is no room for towed guns in modern warfare. Unless you have a huge helicopter fleet, huge budget (so your M777 or AH4 only do helo stuff) and you don't really care about other capabilities. A SPH is better than a M777 in almost every respect at every level (tactical, operational, strategic). Those it isn't, it's equal. The one niche capability of airlift demands more online CH-47 than we have - and hence is not cost effective. The M777 capability (because it's more than just the gun) is slower, clumsier, longer, less agile, more manpower intensive, less safer and less capable. For every $ spent on an obsolete system like the M777 you lose a $ that could go to the SPG. There is 0 reasons for the ADF to keep towed guns, especially with the opportunity to purchase increased numbers of SPH.

This. Especially when for that very niche capability our ‘enemy’ are going to be confronted with the same issues, and the reality that a far more portable and supportable mortar system ‘could’ pick up much of the slack that missing towed gun capability provides, but at much reduced cost...

If we need a ground based indirect fire support capability for that niche role, than perhaps a 120mm mortar system is a more efficient option that should be considered...

 

[Aussie optimist]

Depends. The SPG has greater range, so may be able to affect an area without having to get as close, meaning it may not have to access terrain that the M777 would have to. DSTO have done studies that show the extra range a SPG brings over a towed gun means it can hit any feasible target a towed gun can without having to go into unacceptable terrian. As for lightness, the M777 would be the lightest towed 155 mm - it's only 4.2 tonnes, which honestly isn't that heavy (it's 2/3 the GVM for a 6x6 G-Wagon...). Certainly the AH4 (at 4.5 tonnes) is sold as lightweight as it's 25% a normal 155 mm system.

And that has two problems. One is there are compromises within the M777 design that means a M198 is tougher and more forgiving if you want to use it in an off-road towed role. As with anything, you can't throw something around in our outback unless it's pretty tough, and that toughness comes at the expense of weight.

The second problem is that a CH-47 only lifts one gun + crew. The ammo comes in a second helicopter. So each 4 gun Bty needs 8x CH-47 lifts. That's 75% of our fleet. It's going to be unlikely that such numbers are available - it's an enormous commitment. When we start adding in times - about 10 min from gun unhooking to first round downrange, an anemic rate of fire that puts 2 - 3 rounds down range per minute (closer to 1 - 2 in mountainous terrain) and you've fired 40 rounds in 15 min. But Russian counter battery fire has an open source time of 80 s in the Ukraine. Assume 50% worse, and your helicopter inserted Bty has fired 16ish rounds before getting hit.

I was taught helo-bourne artillery raids many years ago, and as I've moved through my career that's fallen off as no longer realistic. We cannot guarantee air superiority, the guns fire too slow and we need to commit too many of our most valuable tactical transport. While I get annoyed at people who say Tiger replaces artillery (and that was a common view in the 2000s), the reality is what you threw an arty raid at 25 years ago you would now through a Tiger Tp at. You'd be faster, more flexible, more survivable and less resource intensive (even from a $$ point of view!)



Do we? When you say logistics train I assume you mean spares for the gun system - and you'd be correct. If you mean for 155 mm rounds, no, we don't. Very few people have an idea on how much 155 mm is chewed up by an artillery Bty or Regt when firing for real. We have a dedicated Transport Sqn for this reason - but poor exercising of artillery over the past decades has seen that Sqn progressively directed elsewhere.

There is no room for towed guns in modern warfare. Unless you have a huge helicopter fleet, huge budget (so your M777 or AH4 only do helo stuff) and you don't really care about other capabilities. A SPH is better than a M777 in almost every respect at every level (tactical, operational, strategic). Those it isn't, it's equal. The one niche capability of airlift demands more online CH-47 than we have - and hence is not cost effective. The M777 capability (because it's more than just the gun) is slower, clumsier, longer, less agile, more manpower intensive, less safer and less capable. For every $ spent on an obsolete system like the M777 you lose a $ that could go to the SPG. There is 0 reasons for the ADF to keep towed guns, especially with the opportunity to purchase increased numbers of SPH.

I agree that a SPG is better in every way, as far as I’m concerned I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise. I just feel that we have a capability which is actually quite new, we also have the equipment and manpower to support it. I’m not for a second thinking it is the tip of the spear any longer in any contest, but to outright can it is a complete waste of money.

I may be dead wrong and happy to stand corrected but I don’t think any of our potential adversaries, have the ability to effectively counter battery fire all the time and in every situation. Whether the M777 find a home in the reserves or still stay in regular service, I feel it is capability worth keeping.

 

[Takao]

I may be dead wrong and happy to stand corrected but I don’t think any of our potential adversaries, have the ability to effectively counter battery fire all the time and in every situation. Whether the M777 find a home in the reserves or still stay in regular service, I feel it is capability worth keeping.

So what are you giving up? Every dollar for sustainment and acquisition has been accounted for. To keep those M777 going you need to take money away. Which system or project will you give up?

 

[Aussie optimist]

So what are you giving up? Every dollar for sustainment and acquisition has been accounted for. To keep those M777 going you need to take money away. Which system or project will you give up?

To be honest in the current environment I don’t think money on defence will be short in supply. It is a capability we have now, we own the guns/spares. To can the system is a waste considering it is not even 10 years old, whether it’s place becomes part of a reserve unit I don’t have that answer. Although I can’t see the army getting any smaller, as long as a certain northern neighbour continues to behave like a school yard bully trying to swing a big dick.

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree that a SPG is better in every way, as far as I’m concerned I don’t think anyone could argue otherwise. I just feel that we have a capability which is actually quite new, we also have the equipment and manpower to support it. I’m not for a second thinking it is the tip of the spear any longer in any contest, but to outright can it is a complete waste of money.

I may be dead wrong and happy to stand corrected but I don’t think any of our potential adversaries, have the ability to effectively counter battery fire all the time and in every situation. Whether the M777 find a home in the reserves or still stay in regular service, I feel it is capability worth keeping.

Yep but if that capability is for all intents and purposes obsolete and costing you money isn't it better to sell it and spend that money on more relevant capabilities?

To be honest in the current environment I don’t think money on defence will be short in supply. It is a capability we have now, we own the guns/spares. To can the system is a waste considering it is not even 10 years old, whether it’s place becomes part of a reserve unit I don’t have that answer. Although I can’t see the army getting any smaller, as long as a certain northern neighbour continues to behave like a school yard bully trying to swing a big dick.

The government doesn't have unlimited funds, especially given the current situation and an economic depression that is going to be the worse in 80 - 90 years. Even with the PRC playing silly buggers up north, the government still won't be able to afford, short of total war, to throw money willy nilly at the ADF.

 

[south]

To be honest in the current environment I don’t think money on defence will be short in supply. It is a capability we have now, we own the guns/spares. To can the system is a waste considering it is not even 10 years old, whether it’s place becomes part of a reserve unit I don’t have that answer. Although I can’t see the army getting any smaller, as long as a certain northern neighbour continues to behave like a school yard bully trying to swing a big dick.

Classic Sunk Cost Fallacy...

There’s always something else that could be funded. Use the waste to drive learning and better inform future decisions.

 

[south]

I was taught helo-bourne artillery raids many years ago, and as I've moved through my career that's fallen off as no longer realistic. We cannot guarantee air superiority, the guns fire too slow and we need to commit too many of our most valuable tactical transport. While I get annoyed at people who say Tiger replaces artillery (and that was a common view in the 2000s), the reality is what you threw an arty raid at 25 years ago you would now through a Tiger Tp at. You'd be faster, more flexible, more survivable and less resource intensive (even from a $$ point of view!)

Correct me if I’m wrong but my gut feel is a Tp of Tiger would likely be more lethal as well?

 

[MARKMILES77]

Can't help feeling the "uselessness" of the M777 is being overstated here and people are too willing to just sell/scrap them.

The argument seems to be that the only way to reduce the effectiveness of counter battery fire is "To Shoot and Scoot" and because towed artillery is slower into and out of action it is too vulnerable.
My understanding is that counter battery fire works by using a radar to detect a round as it descends towards its target and then uses a computer to work out the parabolic trajectory all the way back to where it must have originated from. But the point from which the round originated is calculated mathematically it is not observed with the radar.
I can't help wondering whether the greatest benefit of PGKs/Excalibur will not be in precision targetting but in allowing an artillery round to fly a non parabolic trajectory, the point of origin of which, cannot be calculated using a counter battery radar. In fact it may allow you to go further and "spoof" the counter battery radar making it appear that the round originated say 1km to the west or 1km in front of where it actually originated from.
As gun ranges get longer and longer this "spoofing" will be more and more effective. The US hopes to have 155mm rounds with ranges exceeding 100km. At that distance the counter battery radar can probably be fooled by tens of kilometers.
Now I am unaware whether this is a technique that is even being used yet. But I can't be the only one who has thought of using PGKs for this purpose. The PGKs may need minor modifications to make this happen but I have no doubt it is technically quite easy to do and will make towed artillery far less vulnerable than is commonly thought.

PGKs=Precision Guidance Kits.

 

[Takao]

Can't help feeling the "uselessness" of the M777 is being overstated here and people are too willing to just sell/scrap them.

The argument seems to be that the only way to reduce the effectiveness of counter battery fire is "To Shoot and Scoot" and because towed artillery is slower into and out of action it is too vulnerable.
My understanding is that counter battery fire works by using a radar to detect a round as it descends towards its target and then uses a computer to work out the parabolic trajectory all the way back to where it must have originated from. But the point from which the round originated is calculated mathematically it is not observed with the radar.
I can't help wondering whether the greatest benefit of PGKs/Excalibur will not be in precision targetting but in allowing an artillery round to fly a non parabolic trajectory, the point of origin of which, cannot be calculated using a counter battery radar. In fact it may allow you to go further and "spoof" the counter battery radar making it appear that the round originated say 1km to the west or 1km in front of where it actually originated from.
As gun ranges get longer and longer this "spoofing" will be more and more effective. The US hopes to have 155mm rounds with ranges exceeding 100km. At that distance the counter battery radar can probably be fooled by tens of kilometers.
Now I am unaware whether this is a technique that is even being used yet. But I can't be the only one who has thought of using PGKs for this purpose. The PGKs may need minor modifications to make this happen but I have no doubt it is technically quite easy to do and will make towed artillery far less vulnerable than is commonly thought.

PGKs=Precision Guidance Kits.

There are three issues here: cost, effectiveness. and type of fire.

Cost. The addition of a PGK increases the cost of the round by 10 - 50 times, depending on what you are adding. While the PGK is (relatively) cheap, a 155 mm shell is about as cheap and simple as you are going to get. So now you either have less rounds to fire or your artillery supply chain starts rivaling that of a fighter Sqn in terms of $$. As an example, you can get ~3.5 Regt fire missions for the cost of 1x guided 155 mm shell. Think about that for a second - it's more cost effective to dump a Regt fire mission on a target, hit it again if it isn't killed and then hit it again if it isn't killed than to use 1x Excalibur.

Effectiveness. You need a targeting capability that will work. Lasers suffer greatly in complex terrain or bad weather. It requires something to give their position away (and turrets that can automatically fire along a laser designation are old hat) and overall is harder than saying "hit grid 123 456". It also demands that someone is observing and picking out point targets instead of using the fires to suppress an area while the friendly forces do something else.

Type of fire. If you have a Bty or Regt fire mission, it's because you need to suppress, destroy or neutralise a significant area. This demands lots of shells, and after the first land the target will be obscured. What you want is a whole bunch of shells landing n a tight area at the same time, dumb rounds do that but smart rounds will struggle. While Excalibur and the like have a place and will continue to be used, sometimes a good old fashioned bombardment is better.

There are also some physics issues with how much you can bend the rounds....

PGMs have their place, but there is a reason they only make up a small % of the gun's loadout. But artillery depends on large numbers of dumb bombs. Literally tonnes of them. Going pure PGM to "bend" your fires would be much more expensive than buying a SPG capability and still wouldn't give you an equivalent effect. And remember - it would only take one round that travels near a parabolic curve to generate a solution - and with towed guns the counter-battery fire only has to be nearby thanks to the lack of protection.

 

[CJR]

It seems clear that in a peer level conflict the M777s are a liability. The thing is, a peer level conflict isn't the only problem the ADF could end up facing. There's plenty of potential trouble spots throughout the the Asia-Pacific (East Timor or the Solomon Islands again? Fiji or PNG falling into anarchy?) where the combination of infrastructure; terrain and threat level renders SPHs difficult, if not impossible, to use.

So, I guess the real question is, do the cost of keeping the M777s in limited service/storage exceed the cost of replacing them with something like a 120mm mortar?

 

[Takao]

It seems clear that in a peer level conflict the M777s are a liability. The thing is, a peer level conflict isn't the only problem the ADF could end up facing. There's plenty of potential trouble spots throughout the the Asia-Pacific (East Timor or the Solomon Islands again? Fiji or PNG falling into anarchy?) where the combination of infrastructure; terrain and threat level renders SPHs difficult, if not impossible, to use.

Be specific - what prevents SPG being used?

Deployability? The SPG is better tactically, operationally and strategically.
Range? The SPG is better
Cost? The SPG is better
Maintainability? The SPG is better
Required workforce? The SPG is better
Terrain? The SPG (especially if tracked) is better
Flexibility in where to fire from? The SPG is better
Supply chain? The SPG is better

It's not just that the M777 is a liability in peer-to-peer, its that the towed gun is a liability everywhere. Unless you can afford a big CH-47 type fleet (and honestly, you'd be looking at 105 mm which means more $$).

 

[MARKMILES77]

There are three issues here: cost, effectiveness. and type of fire.

Cost. The addition of a PGK increases the cost of the round by 10 - 50 times, depending on what you are adding. While the PGK is (relatively) cheap, a 155 mm shell is about as cheap and simple as you are going to get. So now you either have less rounds to fire or your artillery supply chain starts rivaling that of a fighter Sqn in terms of $$. As an example, you can get ~3.5 Regt fire missions for the cost of 1x guided 155 mm shell. Think about that for a second - it's more cost effective to dump a Regt fire mission on a target, hit it again if it isn't killed and then hit it again if it isn't killed than to use 1x Excalibur.

Effectiveness. You need a targeting capability that will work. Lasers suffer greatly in complex terrain or bad weather. It requires something to give their position away (and turrets that can automatically fire along a laser designation are old hat) and overall is harder than saying "hit grid 123 456". It also demands that someone is observing and picking out point targets instead of using the fires to suppress an area while the friendly forces do something else.

Type of fire. If you have a Bty or Regt fire mission, it's because you need to suppress, destroy or neutralise a significant area. This demands lots of shells, and after the first land the target will be obscured. What you want is a whole bunch of shells landing n a tight area at the same time, dumb rounds do that but smart rounds will struggle. While Excalibur and the like have a place and will continue to be used, sometimes a good old fashioned bombardment is better.

There are also some physics issues with how much you can bend the rounds....

PGMs have their place, but there is a reason they only make up a small % of the gun's loadout. But artillery depends on large numbers of dumb bombs. Literally tonnes of them. Going pure PGM to "bend" your fires would be much more expensive than buying a SPG capability and still wouldn't give you an equivalent effect. And remember - it would only take one round that travels near a parabolic curve to generate a solution - and with towed guns the counter-battery fire only has to be nearby thanks to the lack of protection.

Dumb rounds for artillery will go the same way dumb bombs for the airforce have gone.
Precision strike has replaced carpet bombing.
Won't matter whether they are fired from a SPH or a towed gun, a CEP at maximum range (30km) of 240 metres just wont be acceptable anymore.
And if you want artillery rounds out to 100km they ARE going to be precision guided. There is no way you can fire an unguided round out to a 100km unless you accept a CEP of probably 1000 to 2000 metres. It would be useless.

Neither PGK nor Excalibur are currently laser guided so unsure of the reference to lasers and targets being obscured.