I know Canada and the USMC used M777s in Afghanistan. Not a peer to peer situation and the logistics of getting MBTs there was a PITA as would SPGs so there is some value IMO of having some helicopter deployable guns. Anyone know the ratio of towable guns to SPGs that were used there?
I was thinking in terms of the highland of PNG or the inland areas of East Timor as likely problem areas for SPHs.
Nope
Excalibur is getting a laser capability. You need laser designation (or some other terminal seeker) if you are going to hit anything that is mobile at any time from calling for fires throughout time of flight, otherwise having an x metre CEP is still worthless.
USMC are reducing from 21 M777 batteries to 5, and increasing investment in long range and mobile rocket artillery. MarkMiles has commented on US Army.
Thanks ... seems we are heading along a similar trajectory with SPH and rockets. The rockets seem to make so much sense for use with the distances we need to cover and the limited road networks outside of the eastern states.
They are not heading on a similar trajectory. The needs of the Australian Army and US Marines are totally different. The marines aren't moving to SPH, as one they have the same range as towed artillery but are less moveable. They are moving to rockets due to their increased range which means they don't need towed howizter with them, making there groups easier to move. That's also why they are reducing their numbers of tanks. The longer range of the rockets means they can be on the ship or somewhere more accesible.
It was noted in the FSP, although no program timeline or cost was given. Whilst I agree an SPG is going to be better for most things, there may be niche roles (noting words lightweight and deployable) where an SPG may not fit the bill. For the record, I don't believe employing heavy artillery in the mountains of PNG is the right way to go.
Or replacement.
A lot of programs actually are very vague. Can be annoying for us on the outside but does give the command chance to change and adapt programs going forward on an as needed basis without having to get the entire thing signed off again. Program X still does in basic terms what was described and still fits the budget, just because it isn't what was imagined a decade ago they still get what is relevant. With how fast tech is changing we can't afford to be exact, we need to be open to change going forward.
Wasn't the first time. Happened in WWI and in WWII. the Aboriginals acting as scouts etc are one of the key factors that allowed the Commonwealth forces to so quickly knock out Italian East Africa.
Vague it is then............maybe leaves a door open for a future towed possibility or alternatively some prospective coin in the bank to spend elsewhere.
And hopefully augmentation - do it properly with all of the released manpower from the towed guns.
Is that a wish list or what you expect the numbers will end up at? So I am clear your numbers come in at 54 of each system plus training? Thata significant bump up in numbers that would be welcome.
Hi Bob,
