Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Equipment Development Plan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post
    Regards 155mm been better than 105mm, wasn't there some discussion years ago for Afghanistan, that bigger artillery shells (and bigger aerial bombs) cause more 'collateral damage'.
    The "collateral damage" argument does not stand-up. Depending upon the situation anything from a Hellfire to a 2000lb JDAM was used. The most commonly used 155mm shell the M107 weighs in at 95lb, this is way smaller than the SDB which comes in at 250lb. But size is not the only thing to take into consideration, accuracy is probably the most important aspect if "collateral damage" is to be minimized. During the trials of the G7, it showed a CEP of 120m with the 32km range BB shells. (Remember CEP is the radius of the circle into which 50% of the shells will fall). IMHO anything with a CEP of more than a meter or two cannot be something which minimizes CD.

    Hellfire and the SDB are here way ahead of any 105mm shell. The 155mm comes back with the "smart" shells such as the M982 Excalibur, 155BONUS or the SMart155. These give an accuracy down to 1.6m. In theory there could be similar variants for 105mm afterall Leonardo offer a 76mm version of their VULCANO system. But the market is focussing on 155mm for land systems. I like the G7 system, a modern 105mm gun with a modular charge system but AFAIK no one has put it into service. But staying on the dream that there is a 105mm GPS guided shell in service with the DF, how often could they train with such a munition? The cost will be similar to that of a 155mm version at over 100k, and at that cost there is no way the bean counters are going to be onboard!

    Now we have all see the video from the Ukraine with the title "accurate artillery" which shows a tank or other IFV getting hit by a shell. But look closer and you see the fields are litter with shell holes. That is because no-one wants to show the 100 shells fired that did not hit. And when you have such a system then you want the biggest radius of damage. This goes complete against the needs for minimum CD. The 155mm is a big shell and is dangerous out to 50m from point of impact. So when taken with the CEP of the unguided versions this shows how many shell will be needed to damage things smaller than an MBT. And war is about logistics, the fewer shell to be fired the better.

    And then comes the real world of counter battery. The L118 with BB can reach out to 20,8km, which is not bad for a 105mm system. But the PzH2000 can fire back from 67km and other 155mm systems have similar ranges especially with the "smart" rounds. So as soon as the L118 fires it has a few minutes before it will be hit by counter battery fire. And today it might even get hit before it has set-up as the battlefield is covered with drones watching almost everything. It should come as no surprise that the latest 155mm system, the Boxer RCH can actually fire while moving. Artillery is king of the battlefield but counter battery is the god (at least where CAS/IDS is not available). ​

    Comment


    • A bit off topic here but, while accuracy is likely the most important factor regards collateral damage – somebody once quipped about a boast from US General Powel (I think) and the accuracy of ‘smart bombs’ that:
      It doesn’t matter if you can accurately send the bomb through the window, if the bomb then blows up the entire house, and the surrounding buildings’.

      Otherwise, after accuracy - ‘Availability’ - might be the next most important factor (what is to hand) with ‘Price’ out there at front, especially for Ireland.

      Interesting the above mention regards the 'Boxer RCH', wheeled vehicle with an ‘RCH’ 155mm artillery turret – Noting also - the RCH has also been looked at with the wheeled Piranha IV, 10x10 (25 tons)…

      Additionally, the Denel G7 105mm was once mated with the LAV111 (aka Piranha III 8x8) (17.5 tons) (and Rooikat c.28ton armoured car), and I’m going to note that there was a 10x10 version of the Piranha III (but only used for command & radar in Sweden).

      Some interesting potential equipment mixes above then…

      One difficulty(s) for traditional self-propelled artillery of 155mm though, e.g. of those from France, Korea(K9), UK, Germany, Japan (Type 99) etc., is that that they all fall into the c.40-55 tons range, and tracked, and very large. Though the older US M109 is lighter around 27 tons.

      Two comparison old systems now long-gone, were the 105mm howitzer, tracked, self-propelled guns of France Model 50/Mk61, and the UK’s Abbot - both much lighter at c.16.5tons - the former on AMX-13 chassis, and later on FV430. But the Abbot was dropped it seems, as it was thought the 105mm fragments would not penetrate Soviet armour, and speculation otherwise that if you are going to use a vehicle, might as well mount a 155mm (same fate for US M108 tracked 105mm, and Model 50).

      Plenty of lighter (and heavy) wheeled, self-propelled guns available out there for 155mm (and 152mm and 130mm) artillery, plonked onto the rear of glorified trucks as well (Caesar 1, Jupiter V etc.), and more bespoke armoured vehicles (Archer, Zuzana, DITA, EVA, Aleksander, Caesar NG & G6 etc. etc.) including large turrets, if the DF were looking for such!

      Last edited by WhingeNot; 25 October 2023, 00:27.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post
        A bit off topic here but, while accuracy is likely the most important factor regards collateral damage – somebody once quipped about a boast from US General Powel (I think) and the accuracy of ‘smart bombs’ that:
        It doesn’t matter if you can accurately send the bomb through the window, if the bomb then blows up the entire house, and the surrounding buildings’.

        Otherwise, after accuracy - ‘Availability’ - might be the next most important factor (what is to hand) with ‘Price’ out there at front, especially for Ireland.

        Interesting the above mention regards the 'Boxer RCH', wheeled vehicle with an ‘RCH’ 155mm artillery turret – Noting also - the RCH has also been looked at with the wheeled Piranha IV, 10x10 (25 tons)…

        Additionally, the Denel G7 105mm was once mated with the LAV111 (aka Piranha III 8x8) (17.5 tons) (and Rooikat c.28ton armoured car), and I’m going to note that there was a 10x10 version of the Piranha III (but only used for command & radar in Sweden).

        Some interesting potential equipment mixes above then…

        One difficulty(s) for traditional self-propelled artillery of 155mm though, e.g. of those from France, Korea(K9), UK, Germany, Japan (Type 99) etc., is that that they all fall into the c.40-55 tons range, and tracked, and very large. Though the older US M109 is lighter around 27 tons.

        Two comparison old systems now long-gone, were the 105mm howitzer, tracked, self-propelled guns of France Model 50/Mk61, and the UK’s Abbot - both much lighter at c.16.5tons - the former on AMX-13 chassis, and later on FV430. But the Abbot was dropped it seems, as it was thought the 105mm fragments would not penetrate Soviet armour, and speculation otherwise that if you are going to use a vehicle, might as well mount a 155mm (same fate for US M108 tracked 105mm, and Model 50).

        Plenty of lighter (and heavy) wheeled, self-propelled guns available out there for 155mm (and 152mm and 130mm) artillery, plonked onto the rear of glorified trucks as well (Caesar 1, Jupiter V etc.), and more bespoke armoured vehicles (Archer, Zuzana, DITA, EVA, Aleksander, Caesar NG & G6 etc. etc.) including large turrets, if the DF were looking for such!

        Abbot was replaced because it could not use the 105's potential to the utmost. Supposedly, firing on a max charge at higher elevations damaged the hull.

        Comment


        • Just putting the few equipment procurement projects and timelines from the Detailed Implementation Plan here.

          Armoured Fleet Replacement: 2026 - 2028
          Anti-drone capability: June 2025 - September 2025
          Remote Piloted Aerial System capabilities enhanced: May 2025 - September 2025
          Military radar capabilities (RAP): October 2025 - mid 2028
          Additional Fixed Wing: October 2025
          Additional Rotary Wing medium lift: January 2025 - May 2025
          Replacement Rotary Wing: mid 2026 - 2028
          Naval Fleet capability: May 2025 - 2028

          ​Like the Report of the Commission, the Detailed Implementation Plan requires reading between the lines.

          The Armoured Fleet Replacement is certainly referring to the Mowag fleet as the LTAV wasn't mentioned in the CoDF report and the AUV and CSS fleets won't need replacing until after the Mowag. This is a project pushed forward as it was originally proposed that the Mowag replacement start entering service in 2029.

          The Additional Fixed Wing is the C-295 on order, the Additional Rotary Wing medium lift is two interim AW139 helis and the Replacement Rotary Wing is the replacement for the EC135 and AW139 heli fleet. Simple enough.

          The Naval Fleet capability is very vague so could be the air, surface and sub‐surface search capability for naval ships, ship‐borne RPAS and MMCM​ equipment that was advocated.

          A good few CoDF recommendations seem to have vanished.
          There is no mention of a new GBAD system to replace the obsolete RBS70 and Giraffe radars. The anti-drone capability could be for the Air Corps.
          No increased transport for Infantry Battalions, not a word on joining the Strategic Airlift Capability programme or similar and no Coastal radar.
          Last edited by Rhodes; 22 November 2023, 23:31.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
            Just putting the few equipment procurement projects and timelines from the Detailed Implementation Plan here.

            Armoured Fleet Replacement: 2026 - 2028
            Anti-drone capability: June 2025 - September 2025
            Remote Piloted Aerial System capabilities enhanced: May 2025 - September 2025
            Military radar capabilities (RAP): October 2025 - mid 2028
            Additional Fixed Wing: October 2025
            Additional Rotary Wing medium lift: January 2025 - May 2025
            Replacement Rotary Wing: mid 2026 - 2028
            Naval Fleet capability: May 2025 - 2028

            ​Like the Report of the Commission, the Detailed Implementation Plan requires reading between the lines.

            The Armoured Fleet Replacement is certainly referring to the Mowag fleet as the LTAV wasn't mentioned in the CoDF report and the AUV and CSS fleets won't need replacing until after the Mowag. This is a project pushed forward as it was originally proposed that the Mowag replacement start entering service in 2029.

            The Additional Fixed Wing is the C-295 on order, the Additional Rotary Wing medium lift is two interim AW139 helis and the Replacement Rotary Wing is the replacement for the EC135 and AW139 heli fleet. Simple enough.

            The Naval Fleet capability is very vague so could be the air, surface and sub‐surface search capability for naval ships, ship‐borne RPAS and MMCM​ equipment that was advocated.

            A good few CoDF recommendations seem to have vanished.
            There is no mention of a new GBAD system to replace the obsolete RBS70 and Giraffe radars. The anti-drone capability could be for the Air Corps.
            No increased transport for Infantry Battalions, not a word on joining the Strategic Airlift Capability programme or similar and no Coastal radar.
            Not disagreeing with you, but haven't the PR puff pieces on the new Radar systems mentioned Sea detection as well? Is that just people talking out their arses? I suppose we could hope for more idea about the Naval side of things when this new "Maritime Strategy" is published "soon"?

            Comment


            • doesnt really match up with https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates...023-10-03/105/
              "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

              "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

              Comment

              Working...
              X