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?
I believe there are currently too many users for towed artillery.
India and China, for example, are two countries where towed artillery is still a must. Mobility requirements are super strict in their mountainous border regions.
Indeed due to the increased need in mobility, all non-attritable firing assets must be self propelled for a start, in countries that either don't have those extra strict mobility needs, or build expeditionary forces.
The US for example has conducted a shoot-off for wheeled howitzers, most likely to replace the M777.
Russia's making wheeled howitzers and tracked ones at the same time.
New products have popped up over the years, primarily relying on new recoil management tech and guidance down to small rockets. Today you can deploy a 4x4 vehicle carrying a small hive of 122mm rockets, as a pocket artillery that is lighter, less manned, more mobile, and easier on logistics, than any towed howitzer.
Regarding sights, my comments were relevant only for artillery vehicles. They are absolutely a must on frontline vehicles, and we're even seeing new concepts with 2 such sights per vehicle, on top of additional optics.
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
The JADC2 will at least passively bring the US back to a point of adequate battlefield air defense.
Right now, although we're seeing renewed efforts to bring dedicated gun air defenses back in Germany and USA, it's perhaps not worth the investment when dedicated platforms in that role may start becoming obsolete by the next decade.
That is why said efforts are not very serious.
Dedicated platforms may instead take a much different form, perhaps relying on a lot more sensors and electronic and optical effectors, turning any kinetic effector a secondary choice. If they'll even exist.
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.
This does not reduce from the importance of UAS. The current vector of evolution is turning said UAS assets into swarms by increasing autonomy, and decreasing the unit costs.
Peers' warfare will highlight strategies and tactics. But to reach that point, you have to have the tools. UAS are one of many tools and they're not invalidated by countermeasures like tanks were not invalidated ever, by any form of weapon.
