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

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

Kirkhill said:
Another candidate -

And at that point it comes down to capabilities and dollars.

Apparently we have already decided that the bear dances..... ?
Click to expand...
Prior to the Ukrainian Invasion by Russia, Patriot was really on its last legs.
MEADS was going to replace it in many Armies, due to the larger range band and being able to do more with the same amount of launchers.
Patriot can use the PAC-3 MSE missile from LocMart which has helped its viability, but the architecture isn’t as open as MEADS to plug into a network of other systems.

While TTHAD may be a bridge to far for Canada, I think a MEADS/NASAM blend would provide a solid foundation for ADA that something like M-SHORAD and two types of MANPADS (an Air Defense specific type, and an ‘easier’ all arms much more portable Stinger type) would offer pretty much a solid AD defense.
 
KevinB said:
Prior to the Ukrainian Invasion by Russia, Patriot was really on its last legs.
MEADS was going to replace it in many Armies, due to the larger range band and being able to do more with the same amount of launchers.
Patriot can use the PAC-3 MSE missile from LocMart which has helped its viability, but the architecture isn’t as open as MEADS to plug into a network of other systems.

While TTHAD may be a bridge to far for Canada, I think a MEADS/NASAM blend would provide a solid foundation for ADA that something like M-SHORAD and two types of MANPADS (an Air Defense specific type, and an ‘easier’ all arms much more portable Stinger type) would offer pretty much a solid AD defense.
Click to expand...

For the Air Defence systems in particular, to my mind, it is all about the Open Architecture and the ability to work with whatever systems are available.

The other thing is the importance of Air Space Co-Ordination in terms of Multi-Domain Operations and Battlespace Management. In one sense those all seem to me to be Ordnance roles - in the sense of the Ordnance Survey maps. The only difference is instead of updating maps every decade or so the maps need to be updated every second or so.
 
4 Air Defence Regiment in the 90s had an Installation Defence Battery based on the Oerlikon GDF-005 twin 35. That was basically the same gun as found on the Gepard. It also had a Manoeuver Support Battery based on the ADATS M113. It was supported by 3 Reserve Batteries armed with Blowpipe ManPAD. I think it is reasonable to say the today all of those would be described as VSHORAD systems in that they are all under 10km in range.

If we still have the Oerlikons then they can be hauled out and reassigned to 4 ADR for Installation Defence in conjunction with their existing MRR radar. That supplies fixed VSHORAD for the Brigade HQ/BMA.

It needs to be augmented by launchers capable of using the missiles we have in stock, ie AIM 9 Sidewinders (10 km), AIM 120 AMRAAMs (20 km) and RIM-162 ESSMs (50 km). Even without mobility and tied to the BHQ/BMA that would still create a defensive bubble under which the Brigade could operate.

Now suppose that it was agreed that the deployed battery described required 5 more batteries back in Canada in order to be able to generate and sustain that single deployed battery.

The Canadian Reserves are organised into 10 Brigades. Suppose that each Brigade were tasked to find and support a single AD Troop. Two Troops equals a Battery so we now have 5 Batteries. Those Troops could be engaged on similar terms to the US National Guard's 176 Squadron which is responsible for the NORAD operations centre in Alaska, or so I believe. In Canadian terms that sounds to me like a local Class B or Class C callout. Those Troops would supply a just in case capability to NORAD as well as learning how Air Space Co-Ordination works by shadowing the local Air Traffic Management System and NORAD ops and be able to conduct national virtual exercises. It seems to me that that would prep them nicely to take up slots in 4 ADR's deployed battery(ies). For those applications the NASAMs system appeals to me although SkyNex seems to also be in the game.

For manoeuver support?

Something more easily relocatable? Truck mounted but still in the same Short-Medium bracket? Is that SkySabre/IRIS-T/ MEADs? Those all seem to fit under the type of thing a centralized Air Defence capability would supply if I am understanding the situation.

Which brings me to the MSHORAD/ManPADs of the world.

Do those get generated by the RRCA and then parcelled out to the Cavalry and Infantry or do those get treated the way the Swedes treat them and become part of the standing organization of the units as Air Defence platoons?

Should each infantry and cavalry unit have its own VSHORAD Air Defence platoon, armed with cannons and Stingers/Starstreak/RBS-70s and CUAS Directed Energy weapons? Or should that be a separate battery within 4 ADR or a separate regiment?

How do/did the Germans integrate their Gepards into their battalions?
 
C-UAS will need to be an all arms task.

On MANPADS I am a big proponent of what we have done down here with the Stinger, and have Cbt Arms soldiers trained in their use and linked to the Bde ADAM Cell (which in tern is linked to the ADA Bde in the Div).
That gives the Cbt Arms Platoon a point defense VSHORAD capability.

I do believe however there is a significantly larger requirement for a M-SHORAD type solution for Canada beyond a Battery / Bde
As I believe that there is a requirement to push vehicles down at least Bn and potentially to even Coy/Sqn level to support an Air Defense plan.
 
Just to go off topic but because it is a thread about C3s, here's an interesting photo I came across today.

This is Vietnam. Story goes the NVA attacked this M113 with RPG and killed two. The crew abandoned it and the NVA got on top to try to use the .50 on top. The Americans fired back with a flechette round killing the NVA on top. Those are all flechettes pinned into the side of the M113's Aluminum alloy armour.

Ubique!


362989298_6223980627710535_1541817166898868209_n.jpg



🍻
 
Italian 105mm, apparently donated by Lithuania, in action.... looks like this caliber can still be useful!

 
daftandbarmy said:
Italian 105mm, apparently donated by Lithuania, in action.... looks like this caliber can still be useful!

Click to expand...
Can be is the operative word.
The range of 105mm plus the payload makes it so 120mm Mortar and 155mm are vastly superior.

Ukraine has an artillery advantage now in most of the AO, so the threat of CB is much smaller.

Personally I think if given the chance Ukraine (and others) would not be using 105mm guns.
 
As with all our procurement debates on this forum it's hard to say what particular piece of kit we should get (especially for the Reserves) when there is no real clear direction on what exactly we expect them to do in wartime.

Hopefully the promised defence policy review won't get stalled and at least there will be some form of updated direction from the Government but frankly I don't have a great deal of hope that the Liberals will produce anything that really takes the current strategic threats seriously. I expect SSE with minor tweaks (more talk about NORAD upgrades, maybe things like AD, AT, UAVs and tank replacements) but little/no new direction on the role of the Reserves (and therefore the equipment they need).
 
Based on what the Brits seem to be doing the 105 still has a life but as a replacement for the 81s.

Sections will be using the 40mm for indirect fire.
Platoons will be using the 60mm mortar.
Companies will be getting a pair of 81mms together with their own pair of SUAS enabled MFCs
The Battalion seems to be getting the 105s, potentially on something like this
1690814056959.png

That leaves the Archer 155s at Brigade, range 50 km
And the MRLS at Division with the Division adopting the PrSM missile with a range of over 500 km and GMRLS-ER of 150 km
 
Kirkhill said:
Based on what the Brits seem to be doing the 105 still has a life but as a replacement for the 81s.

Sections will be using the 40mm for indirect fire.
Platoons will be using the 60mm mortar.
Companies will be getting a pair of 81mms together with their own pair of SUAS enabled MFCs
The Battalion seems to be getting the 105s, potentially on something like this
View attachment 79176

That leaves the Archer 155s at Brigade, range 50 km
And the MRLS at Division with the Division adopting the PrSM missile with a range of over 500 km and GMRLS-ER of 150 km
Click to expand...
That 105mm seems overly complicated and pointless.
To gain a little bit of range over a 120mm mortar for less payload, a larger and more awkward launching system and large more cumbersome ammunition.
 
I've never liked the Hawkeye. It really brings nothing to the table that an M119 towed howitzer doesn't and loses the ability to be lifted by a Blackhawk.

On top of that I'd like to see an evaluation of the PEs of a soft recoil gun. I can't help but think that it scatters more.

🍻
 
FJAG said:
I've never liked the Hawkeye. It really brings nothing to the table that an M119 towed howitzer doesn't and loses the ability to be lifted by a Blackhawk.

On top of that I'd like to see an evaluation of the PEs of a soft recoil gun. I can't help but think that it scatters more.

🍻
Click to expand...
Prime example of the Good Idea fairy sprinkling idiot dust.
 
FJAG said:
I've never liked the Hawkeye. It really brings nothing to the table that an M119 towed howitzer doesn't and loses the ability to be lifted by a Blackhawk.

On top of that I'd like to see an evaluation of the PEs of a soft recoil gun. I can't help but think that it scatters more.

🍻
Click to expand...

Does the addition of a muzzle velocity sensor change the scatter? And if we accept that a 155 can do what a 60 can do, with overkill admittedly, then why wouldn't we get rid of the 60s, 81s and 120s as well as the 105s? Or my preferred course of action....

Spend all the Indirect Fire Budget on Chunmoos. ;)

1690909065710.png1690909098444.png
 
Kirkhill said:
Does the addition of a muzzle velocity sensor change the scatter? And if we accept that a 155 can do what a 60 can do, with overkill admittedly, then why wouldn't we get rid of the 60s, 81s and 120s as well as the 105s? Or my preferred course of action....

Spend all the Indirect Fire Budget on Chunmoos. ;)

View attachment 79200View attachment 79201
Click to expand...
Does it matter if the MLRS is from SK, Israel or the US? Some overlap in the variety of hammers can be expected to be dropped. The 105's seem to be the most obvious as no one anywhere seems to know what to do with respct to their replacement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top