For a long time there has been a call to replace the M777 with something else. So far it has just been upgraded to the A2 variation (or in some cases, the ER variation). But surely the war in Ukraine has highlighted the need for artillery even against 'near peer' forces. Imagine China building millions of kilometres of trenches, you'd sure like to have artillery to help you get to them. I know the US/UK/Japan/South Korea/Australia (who I assume would be involved in the war against China) aren't incompetent but surely having the ability to drop a dozen artillery pieces onto a hill somewhere is good?
In which case, what should the US (and UK since I assume BAE will be making it just like the M777/1299/Bradley/M113 Replacement) be prioritising? Making it lighter? Allowing three to be carried by a C-130 instead of two? Having a sub 1 min emplacement and displacement time? Fewer crew? Or moving onto something else entirely? There were claims on making a CAESAR equiv.
I think a truck mounted howitzer like the Swedish Archer, that is able to rapidly be redeployed is the right direction to take. It would also have
>autonomous drone spotter organically attached to battery
>improved data links with C4I, and battlefield sensors
>interface with autonomous reloader and munition supply vehicle
>integrated counter battery radar
>light enough to be air mobile
Base vehicle would probably be a JLTV
basically make it more tactically flexible, autonomous, and integrated into command systems, something able to shut down the enemies ability to use artillery and provide direct support to ground elements and rapidly switch between those missions
Purchase more Blackhawks
I personally dont understand the point of Truck SPGs
it's in the weird spot where you might as well just build a properly armored SPG
SPGs would never be deployed in a way that there is any chance they would come under direct fire. Even if you did armor them, there's no way that they would be protected enough in a way that matters without also compromising operational flexibility.
Having a flexible, quickly deployable, and integrated weapons systems is much more important than slowing it down with armor for a situation it ought not to encounter anyways
for the us, "can we move it with a c-130" is an increasingly important consideration because jesus fuck the c-5s and c-17s are going to be busy in the event of a real-ass land war with every vehicle gaining weight like they just got married
RIP suspension. what's the round count/life span on those? what are you going to do in wartime when all your arty trucks kill themselves?
What's the point in making it more mobile if you have to drive the howitzer miles closer to the enemy to hit them anyway?
UGV means it's unmanned
>the Swedish Archer, that is able to rapidly be redeployed
So basically a Caesar?
>So basically a Caesar?
the Swedish Archer sets up and fires 3 shells before the Caesar is able to fire its first shell
Caesar is kinda dogshit in Shoot and Scoot compared to other SPGs
Caesar can fit into a C-130, that's what makes it rapidly deployable.
which is its only redeemable quality
yeah not all of us are so retarded as to not buy any heavy lift aircraft
Archer is really cool bros
Hawkeye and Brutus match what you are talking about mane.
I actually quite like this idea. I understand the need for armored SPGs, unarmored SPGs, towed artillery, etc at different levels. I think a large complement of unmanned SPGs would be kino, though I don't know how well they would handle shit like 'maneuver through woodlines and fire brakes'.
they would still be supervised in person, and could be quickly and directly controlled if needed
>my thread actually got replies
Wow I thought the janny who made a thread and then banned everybody who posted in it got most of the board.
"Properly armouring" a tracked SPH will push its weight into MBT territory
Truck SPHs can wheel down a road faster than tracks can
It's gone now, but it was a thread about some Russian post about the situation in the war. Everybody who posted in it had the post removed and then a few people started saying they got temp bans for off topic (which 99% of the time turn into full ones). So instead of the thread being removed, the guy just sat there banning everybody who posted until the thread went away.
was it the Challenger thread? that one got deleted and I don't know why. I didn't get any bans though.
Nah. It was some Russian going
>Okay so we take Bakhmut, then what? So what? What are the goals? Russian MoD/Putin just says 'demilitarisation' but that is just bullshit. We take Bakhmut, then what? We take Donbass? Okay then what? Ukraine/West has a very simple goal; grind down Russia so they're useless for the next few decades. Russia has no plan or goal, just hoping that victories come along and people can cheer for it without questioning what it was all for. This is why Russia is introducing more laws to stop people questioning 'OK so what's next? What is the goal? How does this war end?'
It was surreal. Watching half a dozen posts just disappear and then one after the other.
with properly armored I meant a fully enclosed fighting compartment + Turret with a minimal amount of protection not pzh2000 level of armor autism
because having a turret is faster and better as no crew needs to leave the vehicle nor does the vehicle need to position itself at specific angles which saves alot of time
Ceasar doesn't have any of that which is why it got such a slow shoot-and-scoot mission time and sometimes literally can't do fire missions on tight forest roads because it cant set up at the proper angle since it has no proper turret
Also the Idea that SPGs shouldnt have any armor or crew protection is stupid since Counter-battery fire has always been a thing and should be expected
Heres also a cool aftermath pic of a Pzh2000 surviving a Lancet Hit
>fully enclosed fighting compartment + Turret with a minimal amount of protection
>no crew needs to leave the vehicle nor does the vehicle need to position itself at specific angles
It is STANAG Level 2 iinm and fully automated
was almost the first of its kind, and is fairly primitive
Swedish Archer needs to setup support pillars and shit before firing or else the wheeled suspension would quickly take a shit
Tracked SPGs are simply better at shoot and scoot
just accept it
You accept it
Anon the Pzh2000 has a Faster setup and Firerate then the Swedish Archer
its literally better in every way other then the Archer having like 5km more range
The Pzh2000 is also 60 tons and needs dedicated engineering support like a main battle tank, whereas Archer can go anywhere a long haul lorry can
>was almost the first of its kind, and is fairly primitive
Archer goes back further than Caesar, but program got delayed into oblivion due to Swedish defense cuts in 2000's that only got reversed after occupation of Crimea. Sweden went for few years where their heaviest indirect fire unit was 120mm mortar.
m777 is no match for zala lancet *~~*~~
Current doctine has it that you just simply apply pressure to one part of a trench line, then move past it to get to the soft underbelly. The US will never need to fight in a trench war, it's for countries that can't fight the modern way of war, and lack everything that's require to break one part and tempo their way through to victory.