M77 155 howitzer

[chris vickery]

Here's a question for our arty types. I was just reading an article in an industrial magazine regarding a new 155mm howitzer purchased by the Canadian Forces. It carries a designation of M77 and we ordered 6 of them. From what the article said, they are an American product, the USMC ordering several hundred and I guess we either tagged along or have bought some for trials???
The jist of the article was that they are made of a high percentage of titanium and aluminum to make them strong yet lightweight. Any insights???

[servicepub (RIP)]

Chris,

Check out this.

[sapper740]

Originally posted by chris vickery
Here's a question for our arty types. I was just reading an article in an industrial magazine regarding a new 155mm howitzer purchased by the Canadian Forces. It carries a designation of M77 and we ordered 6 of them. From what the article said, they are an American product, the USMC ordering several hundred and I guess we either tagged along or have bought some for trials???
The jist of the article was that they are made of a high percentage of titanium and aluminum to make them strong yet lightweight. Any insights???

While we're on the question of artillery, whatever happened to our domestic GC-45? I seem to remember back in the day reading about Gerald Bull's ERFB shell which in his reverse-rifled guns could launch a 155mm shell 39km with the same accuracy as the M109 at it's maximum range of 18km. Another case of the Canadian government eating it's young, a la CF 105?



CHIMO!

[RHClarke]

Originally posted by sapper740
While we're on the question of artillery, whatever happened to our domestic GC-45? I seem to remember back in the day reading about Gerald Bull's ERFB shell which in his reverse-rifled guns could launch a 155mm shell 39km with the same accuracy as the M109 at it's maximum range of 18km. Another case of the Canadian government eating it's young, a la CF 105?

CHIMO!

Derek,

I think you are referring to the SRC guns...as far as I know, the CA Army did not use Bull's guns (maybe Nicolet used them, but I am sure that info is classified), but rather we fired the ERFB from M109s...less than fond memories of doing Safety Officer with a bunch of scientists around the gun...I do recall reaching Gagetown's southern impact areas from the washracks...

I would agree with your sentiments about our past government's shyness to embrace military technology. Bull got screwed, but S. Africa, China and Iraq truly benefited from his technology. Up until we got the triple 7s, we were seriously outranged by potential enemies...

As for reversed rifling - was the rifling on the outside?!?

[John McGillivray]

My understanding is that the M777’s were bought for the current operations in Kandahar. It appears that there is one troop of three guns deployed, while the second troop is in Canada for training.

http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca...ed&ascending=0

[sapper740]

Originally posted by RHClarke
Derek,

I think you are referring to the SRC guns...as far as I know, the CA Army did not use Bull's guns (maybe Nicolet used them, but I am sure that info is classified), but rather we fired the ERFB from M109s...less than fond memories of doing Safety Officer with a bunch of scientists around the gun...I do recall reaching Gagetown's southern impact areas from the washracks...

I would agree with your sentiments about our past government's shyness to embrace military technology. Bull got screwed, but S. Africa, China and Iraq truly benefited from his technology. Up until we got the triple 7s, we were seriously outranged by potential enemies...

As for reversed rifling - was the rifling on the outside?!?

Gerald Bull developed a gun he called the GC-45 ( GUN, CANADA 45 cal. ) He called this 155mm gun "reverse rifled" in that instead of the shell riding on the lands and thus requiring a driving band to prevent gas blow-by as with a standard gun, he devised a shell with "fins" that engaged grooves cut into the barrel which negated the need for the driving band thus making a more efficient, aerodynamic shell that could be fired with much greater charges as there was no soft metal band to leak gas.
Iraq put this gun into service as the GHN-45 and created huge concerns for the U.S. military.
Gerald Bull's ERFB shells also incorporated "base bleed" which helped to achieve the great range of this gun.


CHIMO!

[John McGillivray]

Originally posted by sapper740
He called this 155mm gun "reverse rifled" in that instead of the shell riding on the lands and thus requiring a driving band to prevent gas blow-by as with a standard gun, he devised a shell with "fins" that engaged grooves cut into the barrel which negated the need for the driving band thus making a more efficient, aerodynamic shell that could be fired with much greater charges as there was no soft metal band to leak gas.

This sounds a lot like the Woolwich Rifling from the late 1800’s where the shell had soft metal studs which fitted into grooves cut into the barrel.

There is also the Probert Rifling where the grooves become shallower until the barrel becomes a smooth bore towards the muzzle. The driving band is worn completely down to give a smooth aerodynamic shape. This was used on the British 3.7in Mk6 HAA gun which had an effective ceiling of 40,000ft.

Originally posted by sapper740
Gerald Bull's ERFB shells also incorporated "base bleed" which helped to achieve the great range of this gun.

Isn’t base bleed now used for the extended range ammunition? The Canadian 105mm C3 has a range of 11.5km with the standard NATO ammunition, but has a range of 18km with the extended range ammunition.

[sapper740]

Originally posted by John McGillivray




Isn’t base bleed now used for the extended range ammunition? The Canadian 105mm C3 has a range of 11.5km with the standard NATO ammunition, but has a range of 18km with the extended range ammunition.

John, not being an arty type I'm not sure if the Canadian extended range ammo uses base bleed or not. (for those of you reading this post and aren't sure what base bleed is, here goes: a small pyrotechnic charge is placed in the base of the shell which produces sufficient gas to relieve the low pressure zone directly behind the shell thereby decreasing drag and increasing range up to 30%) I know Gerald Bull used base bleed back along with an extended (from 39 cal. to 45 cal.), re-rifled M109 barrel in the seventies to get his great increase in range.
The story of Gerald Bull is indeed fascinating and a good read, especially for you conspiracy types.
I do know that the new howitzer will utilize the GPS/IN Excalibur round which can hit an 8 digit grid reference at 40km!!!!and reports from the U.S. Army state that a rate of 5 rds. per minute can be achieved with a trained 10 man crew. Look out Al Qaeda!



CHIMO!

[Jon Skagfeld]

Originally posted by chris vickery
Here's a question for our arty types. I was just reading an article in an industrial magazine regarding a new 155mm howitzer purchased by the Canadian Forces. It carries a designation of M77 and we ordered 6 of them. From what the article said, they are an American product, the USMC ordering several hundred and I guess we either tagged along or have bought some for trials???
The jist of the article was that they are made of a high percentage of titanium and aluminum to make them strong yet lightweight. Any insights???

Chris et al...for a flip-side opinion about the 777s, check out Vol 12, Issue 12 of Esprit de Corps, p.18...

"Several years ago Defence Department bureaucrats in the policy office determined there was no longer a place for heavy artillery on the modern battlefield, so Canada scrapped all of its existing self-propelled M109 155mm howitzers. To replace them, the army invested in some light 105mm towed howitzers capable of being moved about the battlefield by heavy-lift helicopters (which we don't have) [further side bar...we sold our heavy hook assets to the Dutch who are using them to fine advantage, thank you very much]. However, the recent guerilla warfare experience of coalition troops operating in Afghanistan and the Iraq war have shown the necessity to employ precision-guided munitions in order to minimize collateral damage and maximize effectiveness. Since no one bothered to develop a precision-guided 105mm shell, Canadian planners had to scramble to fill this niche. Their solution is to "borrow" the six M777 howitzers from the Marines-light towed guns capable of being moved about the battlefield by heavy lift helicopters (which, er, we don't have).

In the meantime, the policy and procurement bureaucrats have begun a competition to see which cannons will fulfill our artillery's long-term requirements. With the six 777s entering temporary service with the Canadians, their manufacturer-BAE Systems-figures that it has a leg up on its nearest competitor. However, a close comparison of the Giat-Caesar howitzer system shows that the M777 comes up short in some key categories. For instance, the Caesar can unleash two shells in just eight seconds, while the M777 requires 30 seconds to perform the same feat. The time required for a battery of Caesar guns to set up and fire its first round is approximately one minute, while a M777 detachment would need closer to four minutes. (Note: This is despite the fact that the Caesar requires just five gunners, while the M777 needs eight personnel.)

As for considered mobility, the Caesar has its own integrated truck and is therefore self-propelled as opposed to the towed M777s, which require separate tractors. Despite this, the Caesar unit can be moved in six separate C-130 loads, while the M777 needs up to nine planeloads to deploy."

[John McGillivray]

More on the GPS/IN Excalibur.

Artillery. The U.S. Army’s Excalibur 155-millimeter projectile was designed specifically to be guided in-flight. Its nosecone contains an ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) GPS chip, a data processor chipset, and an IMU incorporating a Micro Electro-Mechanical System (MEMS). Once in flight, it deploys canards controlled by a drive guidance unit which makes use of the navigation data derived by the GPS/IMU. Compared to current 155- millimeter shells, which typically land more than 370 yards from their target, Excalibur shells could hit within 10 yards of their targets and have a much greater range (more than 35 miles).
Recently an industry team achieved a milestone in the development of long-range precision-guided projectiles in support of ground maneuver warfare. During a test, an Autonomous Naval Support Round (ANSR) fired from a 5”, 62-caliber gun flew 62 miles. The test was part of a program to develop a ballistic trajectory, GPS-guided solution to U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, and Army requirements for affordable, long-range, precise artillery. According to the team, the technology is applicable to other precision projectile systems, such as the U.S. Navy’s 155 Advanced Gun System (AGS) and the U.S. Army’s Excalibur and Multi-Role Armament and Ammunition Systems (MRAAS) programs.

http://gpsworld.com/gpsworld/article...l.jsp?id=30093

Also:
http://www.rin.org.uk/pooled/article...NEWSART_165101

http://www.raytheon.com/products/ste...s01_054624.pdf

[sapper740]

Originally posted by Jon Skagfeld


"Several years ago Defence Department bureaucrats in the policy office determined there was no longer a place for heavy artillery on the modern battlefield, so Canada scrapped all of its existing self-propelled M109 155mm howitzers. To replace them, the army invested in some light 105mm towed howitzers capable of being moved about the battlefield by heavy-lift helicopters (which we don't have) [further side bar...we sold our heavy hook assets to the Dutch who are using them to fine advantage, thank you very much]. .)

Sounds like another case of the prescient gurus at the D.N.D. gazing into their crystal ball to divine the future battlefield ... incorrectly again, as usual! They tell us that there is no need for MBT's, so we get top heavy APC's with a penchant for rolling over.
The CF 105 was cancelled because, as we were told,
"There is no need for a manned interceptor in the future battlefield."
So we deployed the Bomarc missile system which, when it was determined wasn't able to prevent forays by Russian Bears into our airspace, we purchased the F 101 Voodoo, which we all know are a manned interceptor!
Many companies, and simple farmers too, made gobs of money after the war by selling back to the R.C.A.F. the aircraft which had been hastily disposed of by the D.N.D. The Found Brothers of Malton, Ontario financed their aircraft business by selling, at new price, back to the government the Lancasters, Merlins, and spare parts they had purchased at scrap prices a few years before.
The greatest tragedy perpetrated on we Canadians by the D.N.D.? Leaving all our CMP's where they were parked instead of returning them to Canada!


CHIMO!

[RHClarke]

Originally posted by sapper740
Sounds like another case of the prescient gurus at the D.N.D. gazing into their crystal ball to divine the future battlefield ... incorrectly again, as usual! They tell us that there is no need ... The greatest tragedy perpetrated on we Canadians by the D.N.D.? Leaving all our CMP's where they were parked instead of returning them to Canada!

CHIMO!

Well, since I work with the "gurus" at DND, I'll add my 2 cents worth...

First principle - the government outlines its policy and gives direction to DND - not the other way around, although DND has some input into the process.

Second principle - today's battlefield is everchanging.

Third principle - funding is limited.

Fourth principle - the approval process starts with the military but ends with Treasury Board approval and a ministeral signture.

With that in mind, let's talk about major procurement constraints:

- define the requirement in line with the principles.
- deliver before the battlefield changes or deliver a product that can respond to all changes.

Sounds easy, eh?

Not quite. Look at ADATS for an example - in the 80s there was a desparate need for defence from soviet air attack - Blowpipe and Boffin just were not capable of defending our airfields and formations. ADATS was procured, but never fired a missile in anger (although it remains as one of the best multi-purpose missile platforms in the world). Ronny Regan spent the Soviets into the poorhouse, and the great bear was reduced to riding a tricycle in a circus. The USAF achieved air supremacy and still maintains it. ADATS then spent a lot of time conducting domestic type support operations and more emphasis on anti-armour engagements.

Fast forward to September 11 - which shaped the battlefield of the day. Enter the "snakes". Policy changed and the army started its transformation - for the better in my mind. We now have more flexibility, mobility and precision. All that is missing is the additional 25,000 trained soldiers and equipment to keep sustained pressure on those who wish us harm.


Now - a comparison of the Caesar to the triple 7:


- Detachment size - Caesar - 3 - Triple 7 7-10 depending

- Protection - Caesar - armoured cab - Triple 7 - helmets and vests

- Air portable (CC130) - Triple 7 (gun/tractor/detachment/ammo)yes - Caesar no (we have no heavy air lift beyond the Herc)

- Air transportable by helicopter - Triple 7 yes, Caesar no

- Supply chain supportable - Triple 7 yes, Caesar no

- Precision - single shot with 20 m CEP - Triple 7 yes - Caesar - no

- Limited collateral damage - Triple 7 - reduced - Caesar 300 m CEP and 1000 m safety circle

- Cost - Triple 7 - expensive - Caesar - Outrageous!

- Reliability - Triple 7 - so far so good - some minor issues - Caesar - produced by the same company that sold us the light 105 - which continues to provide technical challenges...

- Applicable to the snakes - Triple 7 yes - precision, range, reduced collateral damage and transportability. Caesar - limited off-road capability, lack of precision and lack of air mobility in theatre.

Caesar is a cold war weapon platform designed to deliver weight of fire. It could be upgraded to fire Excaliber or other precision ammo, but who will pay for the R&D to do this?

The M777 was a military off the shelf item that met most of our requirements at the army level and all requirements at the political level. It was a prime example of what can be done on short notice by our procurement process. I personally think that the gurus got this one right. What does your crystal ball say?

Now, if you want an operator's opinion on the gun, there are plenty of gunners in 1, 2 RCHA and the Fd Arty School with time on the gun.

[sapper740]

Originally posted by RHClarke
Well, since I work with the "gurus" at DND, I'll add my 2 cents worth...

First principle - the government outlines its policy and gives direction to DND - not the other way around, although DND has some input into the process.

Second principle - today's battlefield is everchanging.

Third principle - funding is limited.

Fourth principle - the approval process starts with the military but ends with Treasury Board approval and a ministeral signture.

Good points all, with the third principle being paramount for Canada!
Of course, the second principle is extremely problematic with the huge paradigm shift from planning a REFORGER type operation to combat the massed armour of the Warsaw Pact to defending against a road side IED in operational areas or a domestic dirty bomb inside a container.
However, we all know of government interference in the procurement process. Too often the primary consideration is not operational effectiveness but economic benefit.

[RHClarke]

Originally posted by sapper740
However, we all know of government interference in the procurement process. Too often the primary consideration is not operational effectiveness but economic benefit.

Bingo. You win a beer! The unstated rule is that when everyone (particularly the whiners) get a piece of the pie then all is good...

[sapper740]

Originally posted by RHClarke
[B

Not quite. Look at ADATS for an example - in the 80s there was a desparate need for defence from soviet air attack - Blowpipe and Boffin just were not capable of defending our airfields and formations. ADATS was procured, but never fired a missile in anger (although it remains as one of the best multi-purpose missile platforms in the world). [/B]

Since you seem to be in the know, what is the current operational status of the GDF-005 guns and Skyguard? I've only seen them deployed once in the field at OP MARCOT in '98. While setting up the MAGs at Stephenville airport we also played OPFOR. Four battery's were deployed nearby to defend us. A USAF B1 zoomed us, practicing runway denial by simulating a cluster bomb drop when suddenly the LLAD opened up. The sound of a B1 at full afterburner at an altitude of maybe 150 feet and 8 35mm fully automatic guns firing at a combined rate of 4400 rpm was awe inspiring and rectum voiding at the same time!!
My understanding of LLAD is that these guns are to be deployed alongside of ADATS for comprehensive air defence...aircraft flying nap of earth missions to avoid missiles come within range of the guns. Just deploying the guns, even with the AHEAD shell only provides limited air defence.
I've heard rumours that they are to phased out, to be replaced by what and when?
Maybe DND should consider retaining the GDF-005 for use against ground targets...each battery's two guns can send 35mm shells at 1100rpm downrange out to 9 km. That kind of concentrated fire would be devastating to soft skinned vehicles and personnel.
What are your thoughts, mon ami?


CHIMO!

[RHClarke]

Originally posted by sapper740
Since you seem to be in the know, what is the current operational status of the GDF-005 guns and Skyguard? ... I've heard rumours that they are to phased out, to be replaced by what and when?
Maybe DND should consider retaining the GDF-005 for use against ground targets...each battery's two guns can send 35mm shells at 1100rpm downrange out to 9 km. That kind of concentrated fire would be devastating to soft skinned vehicles and personnel.
What are your thoughts, mon ami?
CHIMO!

The guns, Skyguards and Javelin missile system have been taken out of service - for now...This leaves the vernerable ADATS as our sole AD weapon system. 33 ADATS to defend the entire country and any task force that may need AD protection.

As for engaging ground targets with AA guns - I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end...maybe a better idea would be to use them for camp protection against rockets, artillery and mortars...