C3 Howitzer Replacement

[quadrapiper]

Large screen monitor is interesting and speaks of a degree of permanence a bit behind the lines.

Also looks like something to had cheaply at Staples, rather than a screamingly expensive bespoke OD item.

 

[Kirkhill]

The return of the RCAC Anti-Tank Regiment?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1592433221341704192

Poland May 2022

PGZ-MBDA UK agreement for tank destroyers | Press Release | MBDA

Nine companies of the Polish Armaments Group (PGZ) have concluded an agreement with MBDA UK regarding co-operation in the tank destroyer segment.

www.mbda-systems.com

Poland Signs Contract For MBDA Brimstone-Equipped Tank Destroyers | Aviation Week Network

Typically considered an air-to-ground weapon, Poland will follow Ukraine's tactic of firing Brimstones from ground vehicles.

aviationweek.com

Brimstone 1, 2, 3, Sea Spear and Land Precision Fires

MBDA unveils Land Precision Fires Family

MBDA’s new surface-to-surface fires capabilities for the British Army are being showcased for the first time at Defence Vehicles Dynamics (DVD) 2022.

www.mbda-systems.com

MBDA presents 2 new platforms for its Brimstone missile and unveils the LPS missile for the British M270

In order to keep pace with the changes in the British Army and to meet the need for mobile anti-tank capabilities, MBDA has developed two prototypes equipped with Brimstone anti-tank missiles. Long-range artillery is not left out, as MBDA also offers the new Land Precision Strike missile for the...

aircosmosinternational.com

Brimstone | Missile Threat

The Brimstone missile family is comprised of fixed-wing-, rotary-, and surface launched missiles developed and deployed by the United Kingdom.

missilethreat.csis.org

LPS is a match to MRLS/HIMARS launchers, SkySabre CAMM-ER launchers, Boxers, Ares and Supacat Coyotes.

Brimstone is also a match to Typhoons, Apaches, Lynxs, ships, boats and stationery platforms.





Brimstone Contracts

Spain Dec 2022

UK MoD awards MBDA contract for Brimstone 3B advanced software upgrade

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has awarded MBDA in the UK a contract for an advanced software enhancement to the Brimstone 3 precision-attack weapon system.

www.janes.com

RAF Feb 2021

UK MoD awards MBDA contract for Brimstone 3B advanced software upgrade

The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has awarded MBDA in the UK a contract for an advanced software enhancement to the Brimstone 3 precision-attack weapon system.

www.janes.com

RAF Nov 2020

https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/brimstone-missile-contract-boosts-manufacturing-at-bae-systems

RAF Mar 2018

UK backs MBDA's Brimstone missile to 2030 and beyond | Press Release | MBDA

The United Kingdom has awarded MBDA a £400 million contract for the capability sustainment programme (CSP) of the advanced Brimstone […]

www.mbda-systems.com

 

[FJAG]

The return of the RCAC Anti-Tank Regiment?

No. Return of the RCA Anti-tank regiments!

 

[daftandbarmy]

No. Return of the RCA Anti-tank regiments!

You're just suffering from 'armour envy'

17-pounder Achilles self-propelled gun

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

 

[FJAG]

You're just suffering from 'armour envy'

17-pounder Achilles self-propelled gun

Harold writes articles on Canadian military history, including Military Parachuting, Warplanes, Armour and Artillery, Castles, Fortifications, Sieges and Battles, Warships, The Cold War, Women in the Canadian Forces, First Nations and Black Canadian Military Service. Each article is supported by...

www.silverhawkauthor.com

I know that's being said tongue in cheek, BUT

The sign behind everyone on the platform (besides having a gunner cap badge over it) belongs to the 2nd Canadian Army Group Royal Artillery.

Interestingly 2 AGRA did not have any SP Atk guns - just 3 medium regiments. 2 Canadian Corps, however, had the 6th Anti-tank regiment and one each (2nd, 3rd and 5th) in its three divisions. Within the 1st Canadian Army in total were 150 towed 17 pounders and 150 of the Achilles 17 pounder M10 variants in eight regiments. Each anti-tank regiment had 4 batteries, 2 towed and two SP of eight guns each.

So, in short, the Canadian artillery had a very significant role in the anti-tank fight. Somewhere after Korea, the artillery was squeezed out of the anti-armour role and the anti-aircraft role. The former by the infantry (eventually with 106 RR and SS11s) and the armoured corps and the latter to the air-force). It's the usual tale of trying to do more with less and as you cut back the force there are certain capabilities that get squeezed out, consolidated or just plain forgotten about.

My general viewpoint is that anti-armour crosses all boundaries. The infantry should have an entire array of anti-armour capabilities organic to their battalions but optimized to whatever is the now considered the range arc within which a battalion/company/platoon can effectively operate with limited coordination. The armoured corps should concentrate on shock action tanks. Their cavalry, if we decide it should be more robust (and I do) should have weapon systems similar to the infantries. Lastly, the artillery needs to have long range precision anti-armour weapons. IMHO the main reason for this being an artillery role is because of the high level coordination needed to provide general support across the entire brigade/division area of operation and the relative ease with which artillery batteries in AMAs can be resupplied. (in short it's much easier to replenish artillery batteries with large quantities of ammunition than to resupply a recce squadron in the screen or an infantry platoon in the line). Such artillery systems do not need to be heavily armoured at all. Just sufficiently to defeat shell splinters. They should absolutely be tied in to target acquisition resources in the front area, whether FOOs or recce patrols or electronic sensors or whatever.

At the very least, we need an anti-armour systems battery in each close support regiment. Better yet would be a general support regiment for the army as a whole with STA resources and a depth response capability by way of something like HIMARS and much lower scale individual guided/fire forget anti-armour missiles/CUAVs.

 

[FJAG]

Duplicate post - deleted.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Lastly, the artillery needs to have long range precision anti-armour weapons.

I thought that Excalibur, and other smart munitions delivered by indirect fire, were the best long range anti-people and stuff capabilities?

 

[FJAG]

I thought that Excalibur, and other smart munitions delivered by indirect fire, were the best long range anti-people and stuff capabilities?

Excalibur is a GPS guided munition. It flies to a geographic point on the earth. Really good against a static HQ, Very limited against tanks that can and do change position.

For moving targets you need a round that can either self guide/fire and forget or can home on something that is laser illuminated, for example the Ukrainian's 152/155mm Kvitnyk. The limitation is that these need a 155mm gun and its crew to use and those guns may be needed for multiple missions at the same time. I see something dedicated and lighter - something that can go on the back of a lightly armoured pick-up or modified TAPV (or even a trailer pulled by a TAPV) with a small crew that can launch multiple small ant-armour guided missiles rapidly. There's lots of this stuff maturing on the market and, IMHO some great opportunities for a small business in Canada to turn out several hundred to a thousand a year if there was a guaranteed multi-year contract to be had.

I think you could put a firing battery in the field with lets say eight, multiple-tube launchers and less than 50 people. Great role for reservists from a small town in rural Saskatchewan (or even Victoria).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could use the artillery AT units to bolster infantry defences, basically the infantry get lighter AT weapons up to Javelin size. Arty AT units have heavier longer ranged missiles under armour and can move around as required, similar to the AT units of the US army in WWII. This would free up the few tanks we have from a defensive AT role, for more aggressive work.

 

[KevinB]

You could use the artillery AT units to bolster infantry defences, basically the infantry get lighter AT weapons up to Javelin size. Arty AT units have heavier longer ranged missiles under armour and can move around as required, similar to the AT units of the US army in WWII. This would free up the few tanks we have from a defensive AT role, for more aggressive work.

I’d argue that larger/longer range missiles than Javelin aren’t really dedicated AT systems, nor are they necessarily the sole purview of the Artillery.

If you have Bde/DivRecce, I/JSTAR elements they will/should also have integral midrange fire capabilities. Which may be coordinated by the Bde/Div Arty as well, but not necessarily manned by.

I prefer to keep Rocket/Missile Artillery looking deeper, and trying to keep platforms fairly constant.
So if you have Rocket Artillery, they also get ATACMS/PrSM, but 40km and in missiles can be with the Cav/Recce elements.
Rather than having Arty also have yet another system they are trying to manage.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Rather than having Arty also have yet another system they are trying to manage.

But like the RCAF and things that fly, the Gunners have traditionally wanted to control all fires indirect and 'heavy direct'.

It's nothing personal, it's just in their nature

 

[markppcli]

I thought that Excalibur, and other smart munitions delivered by indirect fire, were the best long range anti-people and stuff capabilities?

Excalibur is expensive and can’t track something that moves. PGK is cheaper but still can’t track a moving target.

You could use the artillery AT units to bolster infantry defences, basically the infantry get lighter AT weapons up to Javelin size. Arty AT units have heavier longer ranged missiles under armour and can move around as required, similar to the AT units of the US army in WWII. This would free up the few tanks we have from a defensive AT role, for more aggressive work.

If they have Javelin probably there’s not much need for anything beyond that in the Bn, at least in the direct fire role. Javelin is out ranging TOW now so there’s not much value in having multiple systems. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen us employ tanks in a defensive AT roll but who knows, maybe that’s a fine thing somewhere else, I’m sure there’s a couple Maj’s here who can speak to that.

I’d prefer to see us maintain a Div level GS Regiment with HIMARS and Brimstone. They become the missile regiment and handle those depth strike tasks. I got back from Florida a month ago, the HIMARS we worked with were manned by the Florida NG, and the SSgt who was essentially their RSS said “honestly the hard part is getting the truck to the range, the system is really simple.” Ie perfect for reservists to man.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The artillery AT system would be more of a fire brigade, to help stiffen the defences of a section of line under heavy attack. That was the concept of the US AT Battalions. They dropped it because they have a tank heavy force, we should consider it as we don't. As it would be vehicle based it would have more reloads and more mobile. Absolutely the MRLS is needed as well.

 

[KevinB]

The artillery AT system would be more of a fire brigade, to help stiffen the defences of a section of line under heavy attack. That was the concept of the US AT Battalions. They dropped it because they have a tank heavy force, we should consider it as we don't. As it would be vehicle based it would have more reloads and more mobile. Absolutely the MRLS is needed as well.

That role is redundant down here not due to the tanks but given CAS and Attack Helicopters.

@markppcli
Personally I don’t see much of a reason for Brinstone, it’s really just a Hellfire ER, I would suggest that Spike NLOS ER is a significantly better capability. But again I’d give it to the Armoured Recce/Cav in the Bde and Div role.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That role is redundant down here not due to the tanks but given CAS and Attack Helicopters.

Post WWII they decided that tanks would replace the AT Battalions who would be rerolled to tanks and towed AT guns dropped. Then the task as you mentioned was handed to aviation assets later still

 

[markppcli]

That role is redundant down here not due to the tanks but given CAS and Attack Helicopters.

@markppcli
Personally I don’t see much of a reason for Brinstone, it’s really just a Hellfire ER, I would suggest that Spike NLOS ER is a significantly better capability. But again I’d give it to the Armoured Recce/Cav in the Bde and Div role.

I just used brimstone as an example of an NLOS atgm. No reason for it to be forward with recce as long as they can target for it.

 

[KevinB]

I would not necessarily put it up with the forward part of the Recce elements - but down here we have been experimenting with them with the 120mm Mortar Dets that are part of the Cav.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rocket Artillery

Rocket Propelled Grenade - 40/85mm, M72 - 66mm, Hydra-70/APKWS - 70mm, Stinger - 70mm, Martlet - 76mm, Grad - 120mm, AIM-120 - 120mm, AIM-9 - 127mm, Javelin - 127mm, Starstreak - 130mm, NLAW -150mm, MRLS/GMRLS/GMRLS-ER - 227mm, Patriot PAC-3 - 300mm, SM-2 - 343mm, SM-6 1B - 530mm, ATACMS - 610mm, Minuteman - 1680mm, Trident - 2110mm, SpaceX Starship - 9000mm.

Brimstone (1/2/3)/SPEAR/SeaSPEAR/Land Precision Fires - 180mm

Ranges

• Brimstone 1 - 12 km from a stationary helicopter and 20 km from a jet in flight
• Brimstone 2 - 40 km from a stationary helicopter and 60 km from a jet in flight
• SPEAR/SeaSPEAR - 7 km from a ship and 25 km from a helicopter

These are evolutions of the Brimstone, twice the mass and twice the length but the same diameter, warhead and sensors.

• SPEAR 3 - 130 km
• Land Precision Fires - >80 km

Gun Artillery

C7/C8 - 5.56mm, C6 - 7.72mm, M2-12.7mm, M242 - 25mm, Mortar - 60mm, (Cougar) - 76mm, Mortar - 81mm, M1 - 105mm, L7 - 105mm, Mortar - 120mm, Tank - 120mm, Howitzer 155mm. End.

 

[FJAG]

But like the RCAF and things that fly, the Gunners have traditionally wanted to control all fires indirect and 'heavy direct'.

It's nothing personal, it's just in their nature

I think that there is a lack of understanding within the anemic Canadian manoeuvre arms as to the practical complexity of massing and coordinating fire support across a larger formation than a battalion. It's nothing personal but its a fact that our practical training focuses on companies and battalions with the odd FTX/CTX above that level.

Indirect fire support needs to be centralized to be flexible. It's nigh impossible to take a resource organic to a battalion and apply it outside the battalion's AO. Indirect fire support needs to be able to switch priority of support, without endangering our own troops, at a moments notice.

I’d prefer to see us maintain a Div level GS Regiment with HIMARS and Brimstone. They become the missile regiment and handle those depth strike tasks. I got back from Florida a month ago, the HIMARS we worked with were manned by the Florida NG, and the SSgt who was essentially their RSS said “honestly the hard part is getting the truck to the range, the system is really simple.” Ie perfect for reservists to man.

I believe that there are currently 10 x HIMARS/GMLRS battalions in the US ARNG.

It's a perfect system for reservists to use.

1 year I would have agreed with you about our depth need only requiring HIMARS. Today, after watching what's happening in the Ukraine I believe our need is for both HIMARS as well as cheaper single moving target, anti-armour missiles that are either terminally guided or fire and forget.

 

[KevinB]

Indirect fire support needs to be centralized to be flexible. It's nigh impossible to take a resource organic to a battalion and apply it outside the battalion's AO. Indirect fire support needs to be able to switch priority of support, without endangering our own troops, at a moments notice.

I think there needs to be distinct boundaries on what are organic assets to a unit/sub unit and what a supporting assets from higher. Flexible for some will be inflexible for others.

The three CS Bty for a Bde makes sense when you have 3 maneuver elements. They can be allocated as needed, but generally that was the reason the BC’s were out with the Bn’s so they could have ‘their’ battery if needed, but the Mortar Platoon was the the only true organic IDF asset the Bn has.

I am a big fan of 3x 8 gun Bty’s for the CS Reg’t mainly as it can allow for a troop to over watch while another moves, but also it gives the Bde 24 tubes which I think is the bare min to cover the needs of the commander*

The GS unit from higher supplied the CB fire. For that I think HIMARS and MLRS check the box. I like the additional rocket ability of MLRS but given the range, the tracks don’t provide any more needed mobility, as it’s not up crossing with the A vehicles.

I always liked the idea of the 120mm Mortar (preferably vehicle mounted) for Mech units. As it can put significantly more weight of fires than the 81mm.
The 81mm I would limit to Light (Airmobile/Para) units.

Now why I like the Spike NLOS ER, and putting them under the Bde Cav, I subscribe to the US style Cav setup, and it provides a precision strike capability to support their actions, to which I’d also have the 120mm Mortar support there as well.
With the ABCT or Armored Div’s the CAV are a sense and strike unit that can also screen as needed, in the Lighter Units they have enough firepower to extract under contact from heavier units.


*24 155mm is on top of Bn and CAV Mortars, as well as AH and CAS etc.
Frankly in the CA context, I think a CS Reg’t probably needs a lot more due to the lack of those support systems.