• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LAV III 105 mm SPH

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
231
Points
710
I can think of four reasons why Our Liberal Government could bless this kit.

1.  GD London vehicles - Canadian Jobs in Ontario
2.  GD Calgary? fire control - Canadian Jobs in the WEST
3.  South African Licensing - Aid to Africa
4.  Probably derived from Canadian Technology investigations via Gerald Bull.

CANCON at its finest.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Kirkhill said:
I can think of four reasons why Our Liberal Government could bless this kit.

1.   GD London vehicles - Canadian Jobs in Ontario
2.   GD Calgary? fire control - Canadian Jobs in the WEST
3.   South African Licensing - Aid to Africa
4.   Probably derived from Canadian Technology investigations via Gerald Bull.

CANCON at its finest.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Cheers.

It's sad when you have to look to political self-interest as the necessary driver required
for the ruling party to do the right thing....



Matthew.    :(
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
231
Points
710
You are not wrong Matthew.  But if that is what it takes to get the right kit ......

::)
 

Gobsmacked

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
George Wallace said:
Although I hate to see the M109s and 155mm disappear, I do think that this would be a much better platform for the Artillery than the Truck mounted 105 that is to be the Interim vehicle.

I do not believe that 105mm is in anyway able to replace the 155mm on the Battlefield.  I do not agree with removing the 155 SP capability from our inventory.  It is just another instance of the Gov't neutering the Army.

GW

The 4 August 2004 'JDW' notes, "The US Army is planning to reintroduce production of the M119A1 105mm towed howitzer, the US variant of the BAE Systems RO Defence 105mm Light Gun (427 delivered from 1989).  The army is looking for 275 new howitzers . . . a reversal of a previous plan to refurbish the army's stock of M102 105mm towed howitzers, fielded in the 1960s and early 1970s, (as M101 replacements, because) . . . the M119 would be close to the same price with much greater capability."  Sam Coffman, Artillery Center Futures Development Integration Center deputy chief, noted "There's not a huge difference, at least in the numbers we've been provided, betwee, M102 refurbishment and what it costs to open the M119 line, so you've got a howitzer that's 20 years newer and is in the majority of your units out there already""The army will need the additional howitzers because in the move to modular brigade 'Units of Action [UA]' the number of light brigade combat teams is increasing and the army does not have enough weapons even at present.  The army's active component is expanding from 33 to 43 brigade combat teams [BCT[UA]], although the new brigades will be smaller than the current formations.  The army has also decided to field the Future Combat Systems [FCS] Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon [NLOS-C] into Stryker brigades, which are currently equpped with the M198 155mm towed howitzers (18 per SBCT), . . . in 2008.  Ultimately, the NLOS-C is intended to replace the M109A6 Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer in heavy brigade combat teams.  The army had also considered the (GD/Denel LAV 105mm SPH) 105mm howitzer mounted on a Stryker chassis that was proposed by General Dynamics, but it would require introducing a new sort of powder, which would add to the logistical burden."  :sniper:

George, I agree about the MOBAT.
The Army's recently announced plans to mount Army Reserve, 1950s-era, C3 105mm Howitzers (1990s upgraded M101s) on new trucks acquired under the C$1.156,9B Medium Support Vehicle System within 5 years (Re:  5 May 2004 MapleLeaf article), to be known as Mobile Artillery Vehicle System [MAVS], are far from Transformational and run the risk of adding to the C$939M list of wasted Army related procurements - and hopefully do not represent an abandonment of plans to acquire 155mm LAV-III SPHs under the FIFC project?  MAVS would only give the CF equivalent capability to wheeled MOBAT M101s entering service with Jordan and Chile.  An aging 105mm/33-cal Howitzer, with a maximum 19.5km range, cannot replace the capability of a tracked M-109A3 155mm Howitzer, with 24km range, and the wide array of 155mm munitions available - including ready stocks of M107 and HE projectiles, nor provide the Transformational precision accuracy available from 155mm PGMs.  :salute:
:cdn:
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
108
Points
710
So, if these new GD SP's became the Arty standard, would the Reserve Bty's be frozen out of the system, a' la Reserve Armour/ Coyote and Reserve Inf/LAV 111?
 
S

solidpoint

Guest
Having Googled the Denel stuff to death, it sure looks like they are just doing it better than anyone else - building on the genius of Gerald Bull. The PFF rounds are showing up everywhere. RUAG has some great 60mm and 120mm mortar rounds using steel/tungsten balls - which transmit energy much better than ambient air does. The PFF rounds could be used in 155mm guns as well, but except for Denel's G6 they aren't being used. I find it interesting that Denel's muzzle brake is the only one to actually INCREASE the range of the gun - in addition to controlling recoil. This would appear to translate directly into potential weight savings, as the lower recoil doesn't require as much weight to control it.

I'm not convinced that platform-specific ammunition will increase logistics as actually deployed. Presumably one would field like systems together in the same theater, so all the guns in a given theater would use the same ammo and generate no added logistical requirements.

The Denel PFF rounds have another advantage - the distribution pattern is very uniform, so the "safe" zone is much more sharply defined and the round can therefore be used in urban environments or "danger close" troop support with reasonable safety. This is pointed out in the excellent .pdf provided above. Thanks, Kudos. Very informative.

An interesting note on the Denel 105 at 6k lbs is that weight is about the max weight that the new 4-bladed, up-engined UH-1Y USMC and USN Huey can lift. Five thousand would be much more comfortable, and Denel seems to invite the research $$$ to lighten their gun in their press releases so I assume it is relatively easy to accomplish in towed form.  A gun with the terminal effects and range of a 155 that can be moved at 150mph - or maybe a little less in the real world - over 300 miles slung under a Huey would be pretty sweet. Talk about your "hail Marry" play!  Based on GE's press releases it looks like the new engines are de-rated a bit and the ceiling of 20k ft tends to indicate that as well, implying that the new Huey would have the power at altitude to lift 5k lbs up to 10-12k ft to deliver the guns to a firebase in say Afghanistan.

Others here know more about the terminal effects of a 155 vs 105, but I would point out that adding base-bleed or rocket assist takes away from the size of the warhead, so a muzzle-brake that ADDS to range is a definite plus not only in the range dimension, but in the terminal effects dimension as well. An interesting development in mortar rounds is the use of winglets deployed at the shell's apex to extend the range by flying the last half of the trip. It appears, at least for mortar rounds, that this provides more range than rocket assist with less payload displacement and provides the basis for precision guidance.

solidpoint
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
Can you guys talk at all about the accuracy of some of these systems.

I was doing some googling myself over the weekend looking for any mention
of precision-guided 105mm's and couldn't find squat.

Lots of information on the Excallibur 155mm munition, but that's it....

Where I'm going with this is "Are the accuracy gains of PGM incremental
or exponential and do they justify passing up the on the Denel system to
wait for a suitable 155mm system?"

Many thanks guys,



Matthew.    :salute:
 

bruno

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
cdn blacshirt look up course correcting fuzes or fuses the us look at a course correcting fuse that has exicalibur capablites for 105mm and 155mm standard projectiles cost about 1,300.00 americian dollars. that was in 2004- 2005 do not know how much farther they got. :tank:
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
840
Points
910
Well this would likely be an easier sell right now than a tracked SPG, and would make life easier for the Vehicle techs in theatre. I wonder if it has supports that drop down to prevent wheel rock and spread out the recoil?
 

3rd Horseman

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As a Gunner I'm saddened. 105mm is a training round not a combat round for the moder battlefield. Wheels....ouch. I guess not enough heavy gunners with rank anymore the light guys are having a hayday.
I found Georges slides interesting as the second last one details the 105mm is more lethal then a 155mm. I wonder how they figured that out.
The Stryker IMHO is not an Artillery piece and should be viewed as light Jag Panzer Cannonen replacement not a arty replacement. Dont get me wrong the Stryker has a place on the battlefield just not at the cost of real SP artillery.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
231
Points
710
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/04_Vickory_105mm_Indirect_Fire.pdf


3rd Horseman: the above was posted by Matthew (Cdn Blackshirt) back in 2004.  The increased lethality comes from the round being packed with tungsten balls.  They have reintroduced the Shrapnel Shell - so presumably they are comparing airburst to airburst against exposed unarmoured targets.

As far as the Jagd Panzer Kanone reference is concerned while the MGS version of the Stryker might fit that bill, I can't see the Denel 105 on the LAV being considered as an anti-tank weapon.  And no it doesn't fire from spades.  It does have wheels but is that necessarily a bad thing when you need it to keep up with wheeled forces in LAVs?  Also given a 32 km range, doesn't that increase the number of "in-range" firing posts for any given target?  Don't wheels and a lack of spades allow you to scoot faster after you shoot - assuming you haven't picked a bog for a firing point?

Having said all of that I am sure that trade could be found for a 52 cal 155.

One thing that does puzzle me though is that whyizzit that the MGS with the 105 tank round and an autoloader can only find room for 16 rounds on board while the Denel turret (fully automated) can make room for 52 rounds with separate charges?  It seems that if all that was required of the MGS was a direct fire rifle then they might want to look at combining the Denel autoloader - an autoloader that seems similar in principal to the Otomelara 60mm turret and the SR76 by the same company.  If it is just to be a direct fire artillery piece then does it need a crewed turret?  Caesar, Bofors and now this Denel are all unmanned guns/turrets.
 

hammond

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am definitely well out of my lane here, but watching Discovery's "Future Weapons" spoke on Sweden's new SPH, the Archer. A SPH based off the Bofors 155mm. To some one with out much military Knowledge, it appears to pack an amazing punch. Ability to deploy in 30 seconds. RWS for crew defence. Compatible with the Excalibur round.

Link to Data Sheet http://www.boforsdefence.com/images/archer.pdf

Link to Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leYCwU7B8jI&mode=related&search=

A little action clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CHfcOPGAt0

Sorry If for the Hijack  :-\

 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
GDLS makes a 120mm mortar on a LAV chasis.  Search "SANG 120mm" (we sell them to the Saudi Arabia National Guard).  That is the only arty piece I am aware of on a Canadian type LAV. The 105mm LAV is most certainly a direct fire weapon.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
231
Points
710
Kirkhill said:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004armaments/04_Vickory_105mm_Indirect_Fire.pdf


3rd Horseman: the above was posted by Matthew (Cdn Blackshirt) back in 2004.  The increased lethality comes from the round being packed with tungsten balls.  They have reintroduced the Shrapnel Shell - so presumably they are comparing airburst to airburst against exposed unarmoured targets.

With respect GnyHwy I would refer you to the link I copied above.  From 2004, refreshed in 2007 and now again in 2009.

The LAV 105 was indeed a high-angle weapon system - an uninhabited turret on a LAV chassis firing Denel manufactured 105mm rounds.

Cheers.
 

Old Sweat

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
47
Points
480
There are a ton of reasons why I don't like the idea including bang for the buck at the sharp end. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why we are in this business. I have not looked at the stability of the platform, especially when firing over the side, but I remain to be convinced.

GnyHwy resurrected an old post, which has been overtaken by events. As he recently completed a tour in the sandbox working directly for G29 (we have been PMing on another subject), I would be interested in his views re a shorter ranged, less capable round in the war and a war.
 

SeanNewman

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Sheesh people, can we let this 105mm LAV issue die yet?  We bought new tanks, so the purpose of these is now nil because we're no longer going with the all-wheeled fleet.  Further, it's open source that in several different computer and real time simulations the systems did not fare that well.

CPR.gif


 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
231
Points
710
GnyHwy said:
I stand corrected.  Has it been used anywhere?

Not to my knowledge.

Old Sweat's question is of more interest
 
Top