Artillery

[Big_Zucchini]

This is a general thread for artillery of all sorts.

I'll start with the Boxer RCH:

In this video we see the maturation of the RCH, and we've seen this process occurring in previous videos about the RCH demonstrating new capabilities every time.
The RCH is rather unique. In relatively recent military history, we've seen self propelled and towed artillery as separate tools for different concepts of warfighting, morph into something new, that serves a new concept of operations, and in it relies on the convergence of other technologies and needs.
Wheeled artillery seems to have replaced or supplemented tracked artillery in several key nations that develop and produce their own artillery, like France, Israel, Japan, Russia, and possibly even the US (recent shootoff).
In many developing nations, modern wheeled artillery seems to have found a place as an evolution of the towed artillery, and it seems the developed nations keeping towed artillery either do it because of strict weight limitations (India), or availability issues (Russia).

Tracks always lose to wheels in procurement and operation costs. But they win in protection and tactical mobility. Modern automotive and automation tech has blurred the differences to some extent, but the cost equation remains largely the same. This is a key reason why wheeled howitzers are such a growing trend even among the well funded armies.

KMW has innovated on this trend - it took a Boxer and put a turret on it. Of course, it is not trivial. In-service wheeled howitzers use deployable legs that extend off the vehicle, and dig into the ground to absorb and disperse the pressure from the shot, thus keeping damage to the platform at a minimum. This is especially important now that we're seeing new guns (L/58 and L/60) tested, increasing pressure even more.
The downside is that these legs are deployable and therefore mean the vehicle must remain stationary for some time.
The Boxer does not use such equipment, and must avoid it to maintain its innovative qualities.

In the above video, the RCH can be seen firing while on the move, in high elevation meaning long range (where deviation from gun movement can be huge).

I believe this video shows the maturation of a system that is the first sprout of a new trend - take combat wheeled vehicles and use them as a platform, to achieve tracked SPH level shoot and scoot capabilities, one of the most critical aspects of any howitzer, yesterday, today, and well into the future.

Yes, the Boxer drive module is more expensive than any MAN or Oshkosh truck out there, but it's still inherently far cheaper than any tracked alternative.

 

[Takao]

Yes, the Boxer drive module is more expensive than any MAN or Oshkosh truck out there, but it's still inherently far cheaper than any tracked alternative.

Comparing costs across platforms is always hard (especially when one doesn't yet 'exist'), but that statement isn't true. There are cheaper, tracked 155mm systems than the Boxer - of note are some of Hyundai's variants. The Boxer is eye wateringly expensive, and in my view only, I'm not convinced its worth the price.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

Comparing costs across platforms is always hard (especially when one doesn't yet 'exist'), but that statement isn't true. There are cheaper, tracked 155mm systems than the Boxer - of note are some of Hyundai's variants. The Boxer is eye wateringly expensive, and in my view only, I'm not convinced its worth the price.

I should have been more specific - I was talking about wheeled combat AFVs (6x6, 8x8, etc) such as the Stryker, Eitan, Patria etc, not specifically the Boxer.
Such platforms are more expensive than military trucks, but their operation costs are lower than tracked vehicle.
I don't know any numbers for the Boxer or K9 you mentioned, but provided the same manufacturer, dev team, and business model, any wheeled solution is cheaper than tracks, per weight category.

 

[OPSSG]

… any wheeled solution is cheaper than tracks, per weight category.

1. Any 155mm L/52 is going to be too short ranged in future — given the proliferation of China’s Norinco's 155mm L/52 PCL-181 SPH; which is cheap and plentiful.

(a) Rheinmetall plans to develop and manufacture a new 155 mm gun with a significantly larger chamber and longer, 60-calibre barrel, the company said in a press release this is for the Bundeswehr's Zukünftiges System Indirektes Feuer (Future Indirect Fire System).​

(b) Rheinmetall has not shown a MAN HX3 10x10 artillery variant firing yet, as it will be offered with the new 155 mm L/60 gun (the old L/52 gun can be fitted on customer request). It carries 40 rounds of ammunition (projectiles and corresponding propellant charges) and has still 5 tonnes of growth potential. This is one of the more interesting gun system being developed. It can be operated remotely and (semi-) autonomous if desired. The turret can be fired at the whole 360° horizontal azimuth.​

2. I like the simple but functional Japanese Type 19 155 mm Wheeled SPH — the truck chassis is a RMMV HX 8x8. The KHI C-2 can fly eight 463L Pallets or a single Type 19 (and its ammo load), enabling Japan to deploy an artillery brigade by air to support JSDF’s rapid deployment forces, who are first to a fight — in a reinforcement of Taiwan scenario. Given that Japan and Taiwan are preparing to fight out numbered, having more gun crews will manage the fatigue factor from day 2 of war onwards, if resupply reaches them.

​

(a) This 23 ton Type 19 artillery system that easily fits into the KHI C-2, is operated by a gun crew of 5. The lack of automation is intentional — to enable both ammo and truck to be flown in a single flight — while ensuring that there are enough gunners for local security. The heavier the Type 19 is, the poorer the short field performance of the KHI C-2.​

​

(b) Some modifications were made to the vehicle. To save weight, the cab of the Type 19 has a more simple construction than that of the HX77. The cab accommodates 3 crew members. Another 2 are seated in the middle of the vehicle — the Type 19 design has space/length to enable the Type 19 to be upgraded a L/58 caliber howitzer — while remaining within the KHI C-2 aircraft’s weight margins.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1172883482143420416

3. The 33-ton (66,000 lb) BAE System’s Archer uses the reliable FH 77 155mm/52-caliber cannon at the rear of a 6×6 Volvo A30D truck. Compared to the Type 19, the the Archer 155mm 52 caliber howitzer, developed for Sweden and Norway (also available on a HX-77 8x8 truck, as shown above) — has partial automation and huge counter weight at the rear.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427865286657589253

4. If you are a country like Japan that is facing off against China’s PCL-181, the 35 ton RCH155 howitzer is too pricey for its role; and a little to heavy to be flown in the KHI C-2.

5. Singapore is developing a 155mm L/52 AMGS artillery system, using the HX-77 8x8 truck (that has a gross vehicle weight of 28,000 kg) — not sure why there is huge delay in this project. Range, weight and ground pressure all matters to the SAF, as they seek to spec the system to suit the SAF’s needs. This is in part because there is a weight limit on the bridging system and recovery vehicles used to support the artillery brigade that moves 10km behind FEBA.

 

[Goknub]

I'd be curious to know how it holds up after a sustained engagement, being able to take the recoil has always been the downside to wheeled SPGs. The other issue will be getting an order large enough to achieve economy of scale with costs. There are now over 1,700 K9s for example.

 

[Big_Zucchini]

I'd be curious to know how it holds up after a sustained engagement, being able to take the recoil has always been the downside to wheeled SPGs. The other issue will be getting an order large enough to achieve economy of scale with costs. There are now over 1,700 K9s for example.

Depends what type of wheeled vehicle. Most if not all truck based systems do not transfer the recoil through the automotives, rather through deployable legs.
Tracked vehicles may actually suffer more actual damage as the automotives transfer the recoil to the ground.
Their downside is a non zero deployment time.

 

[kato]

In this video we see the maturation of the RCH, and we've seen this process occurring in previous videos about the RCH demonstrating new capabilities every time.

The media presentation during which the video was filmed showed off multiple separate capabilities for RCH155 actually, the video only shows part of that:

• Fire on the move (see video) against a target 9 km away, accuracy not disclosed of course. Fire-on-the-move according to KMW is currently possible at up to 30 km/h, although they're still testing higher speeds. The capability inclusion comes from KMW btw, and was not requested by the Bundeswehr.
• Shoot and Scoot with the barrel moving back into default position and getting lashed there while the vehicle is already in motion.
• MRSI fire (5-round MRSI sequence) and high-volume fire (9 rounds per minute). Nothing spectacular there.
• Direct-fire hunter-killer capability (!), shown against a target at 500m distance. Uses the carried FLW200 remote weapon station operated by the commander as independent optics, with systems that can automatically sleeve the main gun onto direct-fire targets selected in the RWS.

Perhaps a bit interestingly KMW also plans to offer a fully automatic munition resupply system on both Boxer and truck chassis in order to offset the limited carrying capacity of RCH155 (only 30 rounds instead of the 60 of PzH2000), similar to how it exists for competing SPH like K9.

The presentation during which the video was filmed was attended by representatives of the Bundeswehr (including the Inspector General of the Army), the British Army and the Qatari army. Besides RCH155 it apparently also showed the current Puma IFV iteration and as a second current development project PuBo RCT30 (Puma turret on Boxer chassis, for German Army - besides infantry fire support they're now trying to sell it for C-UAS purposes).

 

[kato]

RC155 hunter-killer capacity demonstration published 37 minutes after my last post...:

Note RWS turning clockwise in order to keep optics sighted while main turret moves counter-clockwise to shift onto target.
Machine gun fire at start is a MG5 mounted on the FLW200.

Lashing hook for barrel also unlocks just as turret moves back (after firing smoke).

 

[Big_Zucchini]

@kato I'm not yet convinced hunter-killer is a necessary capability.
Ideally we'd fight in an environment where our tanks and other direct fire assets can multirole as indirect fire and air defense, and our indirect fire assets can do that and fight like tanks.
But until then, a commander's independent weapon/sensor system might seem like a rare luxury.

A solution I've seen not long ago, on some marketed vehicles, is a single sight that acts as both a panoramic sight and a gunner's sight (apparently now we can do amazingly accurate zeroing).

I haven't seen a gunner's sight on the RCH. Is my observation just bad, or do they rely on an RCWS with a sight to act as both sight types?

 

[kato]

I haven't seen a gunner's sight on the RCH. Is my observation just bad, or do they rely on an RCWS with a sight to act as both sight types?

Remember that on the RCH the turret is entirely unmanned and the commander sits in the carrier vehicle. Position should be behind the driver. Any sensors or effectors mounted on the turret are interacted with remotely only.

There is no separate gunner on the RCH. Gun laying is entirely handled automatically based on computed fire solutions derived from targeting data off of the artillery network. PzH2000 already operates like that (with a three-man crew), although it does have the nominal space - and a number of optics - for a gunner and loader as manual backups if the first-generation automatic systems fail.
RCH simply moves the commander from the turret to the carrier vehicle and replaces the "second loader" whose only job was to place the powder bags during loading with a robotic solution.

The commander already did have an independent panoramic sight (plus laser rangefinder) on PzH2000. On RCH this seems to have been integrated with the FLW200 remote weapon station. Optics for the FLW200 can be chosen depending on what the customer wants. The standard outfit chosen by the Bundeswehr consists of a daytime high-resolution CCD, a thermal imager and a laser rangefinder.

Of course hunter-killer in its nominal "traditional" form requires operation by two entities (usually gunner and commander) operating separate weapon and sight systems independently. As there is only one operator on the RCH the second entity is an automatic process, in which the operator through his optics assigns a specific direct-fire target to combat to the computer. While the commander continues his separate operation of the RWS (in the video: suppression and blinding using the MG) the system independently and without further interaction sleeves the turret and main gun onto the selected target point and fires a shot at it automatically.

 

[STURM]

Zucchini,

What is your personal view on towed arty? That they’re simply not survivable on the modern battlefield and Mack the mobility needed to keep pace with manoeuvre units or that it depends on the operational context; that some armies still have a need for them?

You mentioned that an independent commander’s sight seems like a luxury. Apologies if I got it wrong but are you suggesting that such sights in this day and age are not an absolute must have for MBTs? Also; given that the bulk of targets will be unobserved; why would a SPH need an independent commander’s sight?

 

[ngatimozart]

Now for something completely different.

Came across this YouTube video on PLA-GF SPAAG based VSHORAD.

Some of looks pretty mean and TBH I would want to be in an attack helo going up against them. They have their version of the Oerlikon twin 30mm which they have upgraded. They also have various 35mm mounts including a revolver similar to the Rheinmettall 35mm Millennium gun. Some of the mounts also have twin MANPAD missiles as well. All of the mounts have radar and most have some form of EO sight. One mount is a quad 25mm and they have a truck mounted naval twin 76mm fast auto cannon with similar capabilities and ammo to the Oto Melera 76mm gun. That's a serious gun to have as a SPAAG.

This has to be considered a serious threat to low level aviation of any type and if the PLA-GF field them in significant numbers within ground formations, they will force a change in how rotary wing aviation is utilised. Secondly, the Russian army has a similar philosophy.

This is something that western armies need to consider carefully. In a near peer conflict it is absolute folly to presume friendly air superiority and calibres before 30mm really don't hack it any more. Such capabilities amongst these ground forces, especially within the FVEY ground forces are quite pitiful.

 

[OPSSG]

Off-tangent discussion for context — Part 1

This has to be considered a serious threat to low level aviation of any type and if the PLA-GF field them in significant numbers within ground formations, they will force a change in how rotary wing aviation is utilised. Secondly, the Russian army has a similar philosophy.

This is something that western armies need to consider carefully. In a near peer conflict it is absolute folly to presume friendly air superiority and calibres before 30mm really don't hack it any more. Such capabilities amongst these ground forces, especially within the FVEY ground forces are quite pitiful.

1. In a high end war fighting scenario, to my simple mind, I would assume that the enemy can sanitise the air of attack helicopters or UAVs, by use of multi-layer air defences, which is why it is so important to retain fires capability by self propelled 155mm artillery, HIMARS, PrSM and the like. Increasingly, I think any 155mm L/39 even when it is self propelled is a little too short ranged. Self propelled 120mm mortars must also be supported by its own organic UAVs.

2. Long range strike can be used to takeout SAM layers, with F-35As or F-35Bs serving as additional ISR assets

 

[STURM]

Self propelled 120mm mortars must also be supported by its own organic UAVs.

Agreed. Ideally all arty, 120mm mortars and MLRS should have an organic UAS capability. The problem is, as you pointed out, in a high end fight those UASs might not be able to operate effectively due to an opponent having adequate hard and soft kill means to counter them.

This I feel is a lesson from Nargano Karabakh which tends to be overlooked. Sure the Azeris made extremely effective and innovative use of UASs but this was against an opponent which lacked the means to counter them.

 

[OPSSG]

Off-tangent discussion for context — Part 2

3. The way modern enemies operate, we can expect them to send 100 to 200 suicide UAVs at the SAF, on day 1 — which is why Camouflage, Concealment and Deception (CCD) is so important.

​

(a) CCD involves several techniques designed to work together: hiding a target to conceal its presence, blending it into the background, disguising its identity, disrupting its outline by changing regular patterns or features in the scene, and using false targets as decoys. CCD seeks to introduce doubt into a targeting cycle, all with the goal of reducing probabilities in the SAF's favour. The goal is to reduce enemy attacks on the correct targets from 70% to below 40%.​

​

(b) We can’t really fight a modern enemy by defensive means. Due to system limits, the 7th Singapore Infantry Brigade and 8th Singapore Armoured Brigade need to push out and move to attack under fire at the forward edge of battle area (FEBA) before that happens. Camouflage, And concealment works better if the FEBA is constantly shifting. This means the trigger point for a massive response, based on prior intelligence, to buy both space and time, is much lower.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1351106574203432969

4. But really, I am more afraid of PLA artillery than their UAVs — the PLA is an artillery army. Their rapid deployment forces have so many wheeled PCL-181 SPHs to deploy and they can deploy much more than our 21st division, via the Xi'an Y-20. The PLA artillery brigade is thing of beauty and very well resourced.

This I feel is a lesson from Nargano Karabakh which tends to be overlooked. Sure the Azeris made extremely effective and innovative use of UASs but this was against an opponent which lacked the means to counter them.

5. It all depends on scale. Singapore’s air defence capability, if deployed, can easily stop 10 to 25 enemy UAVS in the first week of war; but beyond that it will get increasingly difficult and the SAF need to slowly delaminate enemy IADs layers, while our 7th Singapore Infantry Brigade and 8th Singapore Armoured Brigade, remain under fire. If you look at the PLA, they have more artillery and more UAVs that us, to support each infantry brigade.

6. In the near future, even in a Chapter 7 UN peace enforcement crisis scenario:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1427731190245625862

(a) China could effortlessly use 12 to 20 Xi'an Y-20 to move their rapid deployment troops in support of their operations and keep 4 to 8 to support local operations for months on end. That’s even before we consider the PLA(N)’s capability to move armoured and artillery forces to a nearby port to unload — 10+ PLA brigades have conducted maritime transport/amphib training activities since June 2021. They are prepared to deploy, having trained for it. When that happens, the combined effort of all FPDA members to influence outcomes would just be over looked.​

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1392767213887758336

​

(b) China plays rough in the game of international diplomacy. A trip by the US VP can be delayed by reports of a Havana Syndrome case — they can do more harm than joe public in our countries think, even if they don’t shoot at FPDA troops. The PLA may not be in direct conflict with our troops, but FDPA may still face the need to evacuate people who feel ill from ‘XYZ’ weapons that leave no trace.​

​

(c) In the rough and tumble of international great power competition, Australian, Kiwi, Malaysian, and Singaporean troops deployed in coalition for a UN mission can be attacked by factions armed by great powers with different interests. We better get our act together. We are really not prepared.​

 

[STURM]

If it hasn’t already happened; I wonder which country in the region will be the first to acquire “suicide” drones; IMO unlikely to happen soon given that the priority for most countries at present is to acquire UASs for ISR.

To me; the attack on ARAMCO’s facility and the Russian airbase in Syria us a wage up call. It reinforces the need for tbt ability to deal with a variety of threats; from a UAS operating at high altitude which is easily detected and targeted; to a much smaller one flying at a lower altitude with a low IR signature which makes it hard for IR MANPADs to lock on to; to swarms of mini systems simultaneously making their way to a target from very low altitudes and from different angles.

 

[STURM]

Some of looks pretty mean and TBH I would want to be in an attack helo going up against them.

The Chinese seem to have adopted the Soviet/Russian approach of not only taking low level air defence very seriously but also distributing the capability down to almost every level; having them integral to the units they are intended to support.

On paper having a mobile system consisting of an auto cannon and MANPADs looks brilliant but personally I’m undecided on the issue. I would rather have a layered defence with AA guns and MANPADs supplementing each other of course but but placed in overlapping positions to cover threats from different angles/approaches.

 

[STURM]

but FDPA may still face the need to evacuate people who feel ill from ‘XYZ’ weapons that leave no trace

Indeed. Against the Chinese one has to leave almost every possibility open. One never knows what actually have and are capable of.

Here’s me getting off topic but my greatest worry; not necessarily only in times of war but also during periods of tension would be a massive Chinese cyber/electronic attack which would degrade or neutralise radars, data links, radios, GPSs, SATCOM, radios, cell phones, etc. From what we can gather from open sources the Chinese devote tremendous amount of resources towards cyber/electronic attack.

 

[OPSSG]

Off-tangent discussion for context — Part 3

7. Given our present force structure, the SAF can’t really fight the full spectrum of suicide UAV threats effectively. The bigger SAF problem at this stage is lack of fires dominance, which means the enemy will try to kill our fire direction centres that are organic to each artillery battalion; if our CONOPS don’t evolve to address the developing threat matrix in the Indo-Pacific. In this respect, the HIMARS acquisition forced the SAF to change its targeting capabilities to move from volume of fires to precision fire.

… to a much smaller one flying at a lower altitude with a low IR signature which makes it hard for IR MANPADs to lock on to; to swarms of mini systems simultaneously making their way to a target from very low altitudes and from different angles.

8. I believe a partial solution exists and it is operational in the SAF but it’s not open source. So I am not going to try to guess it’s capability or identity it.

 

[kato]

8. I believe a partial solution exists and it is operational in the SAF but it’s not open source. So I am not going to try to guess it’s capability or identity it.

For one with sorta public release, KMW demonstrated such a partial solution that they propose at the same event as the above RCH155 videos. It involves a COTS RF sensor (from a company supplying similar cUAS EW systems to various authorities) along with various added software routines, mostly in integration into the FCS of a vehicle with an appropriate effector. In the demonstration the system reliable led to detection and destruction of small UAS at sufficient distances.