C3 Howitzer Replacement

[IKnowNothing]

A clear and accurate analysis of the RFI.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's one oversight. I think Ceasar would also be disqualifed on 3.1 e. Sustainability and Survivability "Must protect crews from threat and overpressure while firing"

Don't Caesar crews fight the gun on foot?

Am I wrong in the impression that this RFI is tending towards setting the table for a sole source award, and that such an award would both significantly expedite this project, and free up resources for others?

I think there's a win there. Even if in this case its not your/our preferred choice, following on the heels of the P8 it would show an institutional committment to cutting through the red tape and getting shit done.

 

[suffolkowner]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's one oversight. I think Ceasar would also be disqualifed on 3.1 e. Sustainability and Survivability "Must protect crews from threat and overpressure while firing"

Don't Caesar crews fight the gun on foot?

Am I wrong in the impression that this RFI is tending towards setting the table for a sole source award, and that such an award would both significantly expedite this project, and free up resources for others?

I think there's a win there. Even if in this case its not your/our preferred choice, following on the heels of the P8 it would show an institutional committment to cutting through the red tape and getting shit done.

unless it gets thrown out and we have to start all over again for that exact reason

 

[IKnowNothing]

unless it gets thrown out and we have to start all over again for that exact reason

Could the decision to throw out the decison be in turn thrown out by cabinet/PMO along with an edict to smarten up and pay attention to the world we're now living in?

 

[suffolkowner]

Could the decision to throw out the decison be in turn thrown out by cabinet/PMO along with an edict to smarten up and pay attention to the world we're now living in?

they can do whatever they want. I dont think they want to though

 

[FJAG]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's one oversight. I think Ceasar would also be disqualifed on 3.1 e. Sustainability and Survivability "Must protect crews from threat and overpressure while firing"

I'm not sure that Caesar can deliver "One battery of six howitzers must engage a target with a minimum of 96 rounds and come out
of action in less than a total of three minutes." That equals 16 rounds per gun. Caesar is rated at 6 rounds per minute (i.e. one round every ten seconds) which falls within the spec until you calculate the time for it to come out of action and subtract that from the 3 minutes. The figures that I've seen are from between 30 to 40 seconds for that which means it must deliver 16 rounds in appx 2:20 to 2:30. That equates to 14 to 15 rounds in the allotted time frame. It's splitting hairs but tight. Archer is a bit better at 20 rounds in 2:30 and AGM at 9 rounds per minute with faster out of action times.

Don't Caesar crews fight the gun on foot?

Yes.

Am I wrong in the impression that this RFI is tending towards setting the table for a sole source award,

That's my view.

and that such an award would both significantly expedite this project, and free up resources for others?

I think there's a win there. Even if in this case its not your/our preferred choice, following on the heels of the P8 it would show an institutional committment to cutting through the red tape and getting shit done.

It didn't for JUSTAS or the F35. Objections by industry over a skewed SOR can create major delays. While I prefer tracked, I wouldn't have a problem with AGM nor Archer on wheels. Archer is a bit troubling with its 20 round magazine and current resupply system, but it just squeezes in. That leaves a competition.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm not sure that Caesar can deliver "One battery of six howitzers must engage a target with a minimum of 96 rounds and come out
of action in less than a total of three minutes." That equals 16 rounds per gun. Caesar is rated at 6 rounds per minute (i.e. one round every ten seconds) which falls within the spec until you calculate the time for it to come out of action and subtract that from the 3 minutes. The figures that I've seen are from between 30 to 40 seconds for that which means it must deliver 16 rounds in appx 2:20 to 2:30. That equates to 14 to 15 rounds in the allotted time frame. It's splitting hairs but tight. Archer is a bit better at 20 rounds in 2:30 and AGM at 9 rounds per minute with faster out of action times.


Yes.

That's my view.

It didn't for JUSTAS or the F35. Objections by industry over a skewed SOR can create major delays. While I prefer tracked, I wouldn't have a problem with AGM nor Archer on wheels. Archer is a bit troubling with its 20 round magazine and current resupply system, but it just squeezes in. That leaves a competition.

what about the vehicle being a Piranha 10x10?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I'm not sure that Caesar can deliver "One battery of six howitzers must engage a target with a minimum of 96 rounds and come out
of action in less than a total of three minutes." That equals 16 rounds per gun. Caesar is rated at 6 rounds per minute (i.e. one round every ten seconds) which falls within the spec until you calculate the time for it to come out of action and subtract that from the 3 minutes. The figures that I've seen are from between 30 to 40 seconds for that which means it must deliver 16 rounds in appx 2:20 to 2:30. That equates to 14 to 15 rounds in the allotted time frame. It's splitting hairs but tight. Archer is a bit better at 20 rounds in 2:30 and AGM at 9 rounds per minute with faster out of action times.


Yes.

That's my view.

It didn't for JUSTAS or the F35. Objections by industry over a skewed SOR can create major delays. While I prefer tracked, I wouldn't have a problem with AGM nor Archer on wheels. Archer is a bit troubling with its 20 round magazine and current resupply system, but it just squeezes in. That leaves a competition.

I suspect the British version of the Archer will be able to carry a larger ammunition load, although the ready magazine remains the same. I also think it's time to give them each a ring mounted MG to provide some FPV drone protection on the move.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have to say that I am pleasantly surprised that the proposed howitzer and 120mm quantities were much larger than I expected. The RFI actually looks fairly well written, too.

 

[FJAG]

what about the vehicle being a Piranha 10x10?

I presume you mean for an AGM turret. I really don't know but the carriage appears at least as robust as the 8-wheel Boxer. I've seen nothing but glossy brochure stuff on both these vehicles so can't say for certain. I will say that the Brit's have taken AGM on Boxer into service and that leads me to conclude that this particular version is at least serviceable enough for them. Accordingly I conclude that the AGM turret is a proven and acceptable system which only leaves the question of the performance of the 10x10 Piranha. Its GDLS heritage has me suspect that its a viable front contender.

I suspect the British version of the Archer will be able to carry a larger ammunition load, although the ready magazine remains the same. I also think it's time to give them each a ring mounted MG to provide some FPV drone protection on the move.

I can't see the Brit Archer turret ammo load changing. These things were bought on what appears to me to be a UOR contract and with the AGM Boxer coming on line, I can't see the Brits maintaining the Archer for long. I suspect they'll divest them to Ukraine once AGM Boxer is there in sufficient numbers.

An RWS weapon system with an anti-air capability strikes me as important for all these systems albeit I could see that on an accompanying ammo limber as a better choice due to crew numbers and functions.

 

[PrairieFella]

Isn't GDLS-C working on a tracked LAV? Maybe that could work with an AGM turret.

 

[suffolkowner]

I presume you mean for an AGM turret. I really don't know but the carriage appears at least as robust as the 8-wheel Boxer. I've seen nothing but glossy brochure stuff on both these vehicles so can't say for certain. I will say that the Brit's have taken AGM on Boxer into service and that leads me to conclude that this particular version is at least serviceable enough for them. Accordingly I conclude that the AGM turret is a proven and acceptable system which only leaves the question of the performance of the 10x10 Piranha. Its GDLS heritage has me suspect that its a viable front contender.


I can't see the Brit Archer turret ammo load changing. These things were bought on what appears to me to be a UOR contract and with the AGM Boxer coming on line, I can't see the Brits maintaining the Archer for long. I suspect they'll divest them to Ukraine once AGM Boxer is there in sufficient numbers.

An RWS weapon system with an anti-air capability strikes me as important for all these systems albeit I could see that on an accompanying ammo limber as a better choice due to crew numbers and functions.

yes, but does it have to be on a LAV700/LAV600 10x10 or could it be on straight truck is more what i am wondering like a Zetros or Rheinmetall ?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can't see the Brit Archer turret ammo load changing. These things were bought on what appears to me to be a UOR contract and with the AGM Boxer coming on line, I can't see the Brits maintaining the Archer for long. I suspect they'll divest them to Ukraine once AGM Boxer is there in sufficient numbers.

An RWS weapon system with an anti-air capability strikes me as important for all these systems albeit I could see that on an accompanying ammo limber as a better choice due to crew numbers and functions.

Just looking at the platform, it has more room to carry extra ammunition. Just requires a box and racks. As for the MG, getting a RWS is another thing to be maintained and to break. Ring mounted MG would be manned by the crew will on the move near the front, cheap, reliable and easy to mount on each vehicle.

 

[KevinB]

Isn't GDLS-C working on a tracked LAV? Maybe that could work with an AGM turret.

Tracked LAV died as the chassises are not readily compatible.

The designs of tracked hulls are done in certain ways - while wheeled are done in different ways due to the nature of the drive train and suspensions.

Trying to have a 1 size fits all hull/chassis is a recipe to suck at everything

 

[KevinB]

Just looking at the platform, it has more room to carry extra ammunition. Just requires a box and racks. As for the MG, getting a RWS is another thing to be maintained and to break. Ring mounted MG would be manned by the crew will on the move near the front, cheap, reliable and easy to mount on each vehicle.

Colin, I don’t think you understand how useless ring mounts are compared to RWS for engagement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin, I don’t think you understand how useless ring mounts are compared to RWS for engagement.

Where is the money for all these RWS?
Who is going to maintain them?
Will they survive the blast effects of the gun?
You are going to have the truck and the crew anyways, the ring mount MG gives them a chance. Yes a RWS is nice, but with all the other things to buy, you don't have the money for 6-12 RWS per battery.

 

[KevinB]

Where is the money for all these RWS?
Who is going to maintain them?
Will they survive the blast effects of the gun?
You are going to have the truck and the crew anyways, the ring mount MG gives them a chance. Yes a RWS is nice, but with all the other things to buy, you don't have the money for 6-12 RWS per battery.

You vastly overestimate the effectiveness of a ring mount. Realistically they are decent for ground based self defense when moving through an ambush at close range - but useless for pretty much anything else.

Most ring mounts are very limited for elevation as well.

They are not a realistic C-UAS system.

 

[FJAG]

Isn't GDLS-C working on a tracked LAV? Maybe that could work with an AGM turret.

See @KevinB above. Also GDLS already own the AJAX line of ASCODs which are also the genesis of the M10 Booker line.

If you go to that, however, speed remains an issue and you might as well look at other tracked 155/52 systems.

yes, but does it have to be on a LAV700/LAV600 10x10 or could it be on straight truck is more what i am wondering like a Zetros or Rheinmetall ?

No reason why not, but an armoured chassis with a lot of automotive compatibility with the ACSV line would be desirable.