• 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

Czech_pivo said:
If we are to go with SK K9's or French CAESAR's would offering them to ability to train at Suffield be worth anything in terms of part of the bargaining process. I believe that the UK has or is winding down their use of Suffield, maybe offering it up to the SK and/or the French would be beneficial?
Click to expand...
Given my reading of the RFI... 80km hr road speed, max range 450km. This automatically disqualifies tracked SPGs.

Of the non tracked versions the best is arguably the RCH 155 which takes the turret of the Panzerhabuite 2000 and puts it either on a Boxer or a Piranha 10x10. It can fire while on the move and shoots 9 rounds a minute with an autoloader.

Archer would be my second pick.
 
Underway said:
RCH 155 which takes the turret of the Panzerhabuite 2000 and puts it either on a Boxer or a Piranha 10x10.
Click to expand...
KNDS says the RCH 155 is the artillery gun module (AGM) on Boxer. The AGM on Piranha does not go by that name.
 
McG said:
KNDS says the RCH 155 is the artillery gun module (AGM) on Boxer. The AGM on Piranha does not go by that name.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, what I read was that it's basically the same gun module mounted on a different vehicle. So it was categorized under RCH 155.
 
Underway said:
Given my reading of the RFI... 80km hr road speed, max range 450km. This automatically disqualifies tracked SPGs.

Of the non tracked versions the best is arguably the RCH 155 which takes the turret of the Panzerhabuite 2000 and puts it either on a Boxer or a Piranha 10x10. It can fire while on the move and shoots 9 rounds a minute with an autoloader.

Archer would be my second pick.
Click to expand...
The number of only 2 individuals required per RCH/Piranha is incredible. Our entire ask of 80-98 could be handled by less than 200 individuals for operate/fire the units.
 
Underway said:
Given my reading of the RFI... 80km hr road speed, max range 450km. This automatically disqualifies tracked SPGs.

Of the non tracked versions the best is arguably the RCH 155 which takes the turret of the Panzerhabuite 2000 and puts it either on a Boxer or a Piranha 10x10. It can fire while on the move and shoots 9 rounds a minute with an autoloader.

Archer would be my second pick.
Click to expand...
If I was forced to choose only between those two I would agree if only for the reason that the Brits picked up Archer as an immediate stopgap after sending their AS 90s to Ukraine, but eventually selected RCH155. I'd want it on a LAV 10x10 chassis though for vehicle compatibility with our LAV fleet.
Czech_pivo said:
The number of only 2 individuals required per RCH/Piranha is incredible. Our entire ask of 80-98 could be handled by less than 200 individuals for operate/fire the units.
Click to expand...
Don't believe everything you read about the number of crew. You need two folks to deploy and fire and RCH 155 but a whole hockey sock of folks to handle ammo resupply and forward support. The M777 is a particulalry personnel hungry gun requiring a crew of ten. That's 40 folks serving the four guns currently in a Canadian howitzer battery. That's basically the same number that manned the six-guns on an M109 gun line (i.e 6 guns x 7 pers - leaving aside CPs, recce, FOOs, CSS etc)

The advertised 2-man crew for the RCH 155 is nonsense. That is what it may take to move and fire a gun with a full magazine, but it won't give you 24/7 operation nor provide you with the necessary ammunition handling capability needed. You still need around 7 gun numbers. My guess is that a Canadian battery, as currently configured could probably operate two three-gun troops with the PYs that they currently have.

A Canadian artillery regiment is currently configured at around 552 PYs and 102 ARes positions. That mans two four-gun batteries with the PYs alone, but two six-gun batteries with their ARes augmentees.

As is, the regiment could probably man 12 x RCH 155s with their PYs alone.

To add the third six-gun battery would require appx 115 extra PYs or ARes positions (not counting the BC, FSCC, and FOOs who already exist for a third battery).

IMHO the regiment could probably harvest some 50-60 PYs internally by turning the STA battery into a troop that is part of the HQs bty, however, my preferred solution is to keep the STA battery and its 146 PYs/ARes positions but re-rolled as a loitering munitions general support battery by reducing the STA elements to a single troop and adding two troops of loitering munition launchers/controllers.

Long story short, I think there is a roadmap whereby the existing PYs in a CS regiment can be converted from an 8-gun M777 regiment to an 18-gun RCH 15 and loitering munitions regiment with the addition of as little as 60 - 115 ARes part-time positions.

🍻
 
Last edited:
FJAG said:
If I was forced to choose only between those two I would agree if only for the reason that the Brits picked up Archer as an immediate stopgap after sending their AS 90s to Ukraine, but eventually selected RCH155. I'd want it on a LAV 10x10 chassis though for vehicle compatibility with our LAV fleet.

Don't believe everything you read about the number of crew. You need two folks to deploy and fire and RCH 155 but a whole hockey sock of folks to handle ammo resupply and forward support. The M777 is a particulalry personnel hungry gun requiring a crew of ten. That's 40 folks serving the four guns currently in a Canadian howitzer battery. That's basically the same number that manned the six-guns on an M109 gun line (i.e 6 guns x 7 pers - leaving aside CPs, recce, FOOs, CSS etc)

The advertised 2-man crew for the RCH 155 is nonsense. That is what it may take to move and fire a gun with a full magazine, but it won't give you 24/7 operation nor provide you with the necessary ammunition handling capability needed. You still need around 7 gun numbers. My guess is that a Canadian battery, as currently configured could probably operate two three-gun troops with the PYs that they currently have.

A Canadian artillery regiment is currently configured at around 552 PYs and 102 ARes positions. That mans two four-gun batteries with the PYs alone, but two six-gun batteries with their ARes augmentees.

As is, the regiment could probably man 12 x RCH 155s with their PYs alone.

To add the third six-gun battery would require appx 115 extra PYs or ARes positions (not counting the BC, FSCC, and FOOs who already exist for a third battery).

IMHO the regiment could probably harvest some 50-60 PYs internally by turning the STA battery into a troop that is part of the HQs bty, however, my preferred solution is to keep the STA battery and its 146 PYs/ARes positions but re-rolled as a loitering munitions general support battery by reducing the STA elements to a single troop and adding two troops of loitering munition launchers/controllers.

Long story short, I think there is a roadmap whereby the existing PYs in a CS regiment can be converted from an 8-gun M777 regiment to an 18-gun RCH 15 and loitering munitions regiment with the addition of as little as 60 - 115 ARes part-time positions.

🍻
Click to expand...
So a +100% increase in the number of tubes with a 2 platoon increase in bodies - amazing use of limited resources to increase shells down range by over 100%.
 
In 2022 Finland got 34 K9's + equipment and spare parts for ~3.4 million Euro per. I wonder if we could leverage the subs and order size to get a better deal. Would come in cheaper than new Caesars, much cheaper than new Archers or RCH 155, and come online faster.

How does going gov to gov for used change the procurement process?
 
I suspect (haven't read the docs) that the RFI results will be reviewed & analyzed, a second RFI incorporating feedback will go out that may also include an ITQ, then a formal RFP. Some infra analysis and prep may also begin, but there may be a need to slow roll parts of the infra plan until the successful system is selected.
 
dapaterson said:
I suspect (haven't read the docs) that the RFI results will be reviewed & analyzed, a second RFI incorporating feedback will go out that may also include an ITQ, then a formal RFP. Some infra analysis and prep may also begin, but there may be a need to slow roll parts of the infra plan until the successful system is selected.
Click to expand...
I imagine infrastructure is going to be a huge component of this. Not a chance the RCHA regiments have enough storage space for all of the SPGs. They'll need whole new buildings, not just garages. I suspect it'll be similar at the mech battalions with all the new 120mm ACSVs they'll get.

I suspect there will be some very happy construction contractors in Brandon, MB when Shilo needs to double their regimental/battalion hangar space
 
There's an increasing desire to centralize maintenance facilities on bases to reduce infra costs. It's entirely possible that the new facilities will be shared, and not in the RCHA lines.
 
dapaterson said:
I suspect (haven't read the docs) that the RFI results will be reviewed & analyzed, a second RFI incorporating feedback will go out that may also include an ITQ, then a formal RFP. Some infra analysis and prep may also begin, but there may be a need to slow roll parts of the infra plan until the successful system is selected.
Click to expand...
So no dates known or provided?
 
dapaterson said:
There's an increasing desire to centralize maintenance facilities on bases to reduce infra costs. It's entirely possible that the new facilities will be shared, and not in the RCHA lines.
Click to expand...
Just had a quick look at Google maps and there seems to be a new maint facility already near 1 RCHA and 2 PPCLI. If it was built to handle LAVs it should probably be able to handle RCHs and quite possibly K9s.

I've never been in the new 1 RCHA facility but since we used to be able to handle 12 M109s in the old, much smaller gun shed, my guess is they can handle 18 K9s or RCHs. @markppcli would have a better handle on that.

:unsure:
 
Underway said:
For the sharp end that seems like a good enough napkin sketch. The logistics requirements are probably a who different ball game.
Click to expand...
Lots more trucks to keep them fed…

Like @FJAG I‘m concerned about the various wheeled SPA ammo storage and replenishment. No one outside of the US and the South Koreans seem to think of armored limbers. While Western ammo is pretty insensitive, it doesn’t work when hit by CB fire either.

Just looking at the RCH 155 and Archer systems, I’m pretty sure there will be an actual PY loss when it comes to 24/7 operations, as you will need at least 6 / gun to maintain 24/7 ops, and resulting more vehicles.

I’m also sure the 10x10 LAV is a terribad idea. Someone needs to smack someone upside the head about the CA’s inexplicable wheeled vehicle fetish.
 
For reference to the discussion, Daily Mail made an excellent video outlining Archer and CAESAR and their use in Ukraine. The interesting thing is CAESAR is that it's be adapted to at least 2 different vehicles, meaning we could likely use existing CAF heavy prime movers (AHSVS, etc) and have the cannon added in.

Also included is some stats on their survivability. The 80kph requirement seems to line up with Ukraine's shoot and scoot tactics and the CAF wanting to focus on that doctrine vice a SPG stationary system.

 
KevinB said:
Lots more trucks to keep them fed…

Like @FJAG I‘m concerned about the various wheeled SPA ammo storage and replenishment. No one outside of the US and the South Koreans seem to think of armored limbers. While Western ammo is pretty insensitive, it doesn’t work when hit by CB fire either.

Just looking at the RCH 155 and Archer systems, I’m pretty sure there will be an actual PY loss when it comes to 24/7 operations, as you will need at least 6 / gun to maintain 24/7 ops, and resulting more vehicles.

I’m also sure the 10x10 LAV is a terribad idea. Someone needs to smack someone upside the head about the CA’s inexplicable wheeled vehicle fetish.
Click to expand...
It's not a Canadian innovation. Its Swiss, and it was offered by GDELS. Canada could very well get the Marder version.

And to be honest, Canada doesn't have a wheeled vehicle fetish, more of a porkbarrelling problem. FRANCE has a wheeled vehicle fetish that is actually a fetish.

In addition, based on the OS numbers, tracked SPG's are far more vunerable to counter battery fire and their loss rate seems much higher than the wheeled artillery. I'm not team wheeled, but I am team right tool for the job and wheels in this case are probably better.
 
Last edited:
PuckChaser said:
For reference to the discussion, Daily Mail made an excellent video outlining Archer and CAESAR and their use in Ukraine. The interesting thing is CAESAR is that it's be adapted to at least 2 different vehicles, meaning we could likely use existing CAF heavy prime movers (AHSVS, etc) and have the cannon added in.

Also included is some stats on their survivability. The 80kph requirement seems to line up with Ukraine's shoot and scoot tactics and the CAF wanting to focus on that doctrine vice a SPG stationary system.

Click to expand...
Admittedly, I'll never be on a gun line again in my life, but I can see a real value in Caesar as the primary SPG, and a tracked SPG like the M190 or K9 for armoured forces.

With the Caesar costing 1/3 the price of an Archer, we can buy a lot more of them to make sure we have enough for the Reg and Res gunners. The simpler mechanisms also allows for easier maintenance, which means the ResF is more likely to have more of them functional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top