Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[GK .Dundas]

I was wondering about sustained fire (WW1/Ukraine). Days, if not months, in the same firing position chucking rounds downrange. Would the L5 manage to function effectively in that environment? My expectation is that lightened weapons give up life expectancy for other attributes.



Fair enough if the M198s are clapped out. I was thinking that the Ukrainians might be able to find a use for them given that they were happy enough to be using old Soviet kit.

New Zealand deployed I believe a regiment of L 5's during their foray into Vietnam .
Within two years they were withdrawn because they were basically worn out .
Designed for mountain/ airborne warfare it just wasn't up for sustained operations.
I believe they were replaced by the M 101/ C 1 105 mm howitzer.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the NEMO/Mjolnir issue -

If the only use for the turreted mortar in Canadian service were in an armoured brigade would the money spent on that battery or so (8 to 16 turrets?) be better spent on an equivalent number of SPHs (wheeled or tracked?)

 

[dapaterson]

New Zealand deployed I believe a regiment of L 5's during their foray into Vietnam .
Within two years they were withdrawn because they were basically worn out .
Designed for mountain/ airborne warfare it just wasn't up for sustained operations.
I believe they were replaced by the M 101/ C 1 105 mm howitzer.

Guns wear out. Operational plans need to consider equipment, its lifespan and its required maintenance.

 

[Fabius]

This might suggest that infantry are going to infantry and armour is going to armour.

By that I mean that the focus of the infantry may be on the foot-borne fight while armour focuses on the vehicular fight.

If that then the infantry's vehicles are first and foremost carriers for the infantry and their weapons. The weapons are intended to follow the infantry when they leave their carriers into terrain the carriers can't traverse.

Conversely the armour focuses on fighting while mounted which means that their weaponry is integral to the vehicle.

Turrets, especially with heavy weapons, don't seem compatible with all-terrain dismounted ops.

Mjolnir/AMOS/NEMO seem like excellent additions to an armoured brigade. Probably not so much for a light brigade.

Which leaves one struggling, again, with the gray zone in between, the medium brigade. Is it a motorized light brigade (original Stryker) or a terrain restricted light armour brigade?

If this decision on mortars has any intellectual cohesion it might suggest that the infantry is to focus on the dismounted battle. Turrets on the carriers could then focus on short range self-defense against aerial and ground targets.

I would love to hear that the complementary decision is to create a proper armoured brigade based on the CV90 or some such, and exploit the capabilities of tracks a full array of heavier, turreted, weapons (Sky Ranger and NEMO for example).

If only it could be grasped that Infantry in the Armoured Bde need different systems than the Infantry in a light airmobile Bde.

Ignoring all the evidence of TBI with the 120mm systems is just dumb. It will cost us more long term likely than the cost of an automated system.

 

[Kirkhill]

If only it could be grasped that Infantry in the Armoured Bde need different systems than the Infantry in a light airmobile Bde.

Ignoring all the evidence of TBI with the 120mm systems is just dumb. It will cost us more long term likely than the cost of an automated system.

Is the simpler solution just to restrict the mortar to 81mm and buy more guns for the arty?

Perhaps even 105 lights to accompany the light air mobile troops?

I don't think there is much difference in vulnerability to CB fire between the 120 mortar and the 105 gun. The advantage would go to the gun on range.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps we could even resurrect the L5 and pack it on an Argo UGV.

 

[childs56]

I think we should be looking at the South African 105mm systems in my opinion for replacement of our 105 systems not 120mm mortar. We could order 300 of these gun systems. 200 Towed and 100 turreted. Mount the turrets on a LAV chassis. Integrate them into the LAV battalions.
It is a conglomerate of GDL and Denel G7 105 mm gun. So I am sure we could get some magical spin off for some Canadian company.
Equip the Reserves with both the Towed and Mounted versions. Add them to the Deployment manifest for Latvia.
You can have a stock of conventional and improved munitions to effect the fire you need and want. It fits a decent bill. From all I have read the Ukraine Army likes the 105mm for its simplicity, able to be towed behind a pickup truck, and the Ammo is easier to transport. All wins for a all out combined arms war where the lines change and equipment needs to be replaced on regular.

 

[KevinB]

That might not be the final solution, its a GDLS solution. It might be a 120mm that is lowered from the back of a lighter vehicle to the ground. But it's not going to be overly complicated over engineered high maintanence required system.

I agree with the army's direction on this. Exquisite systems are a mistake in this case.

120mm Mortars should be breech fed:
1) So no one is trying to schlep the mortar bomb up 6’ in the air.

2) So you can put it in a turret

3) If you’re not using a turret, at least you can have a decently large blast deflector on the end of the tube to provide enough mitigation from the concussion so you aren’t giving your crew TBI.

There is a massive difference between a 81mm and 120mm mortar and no one should be making parallels between the two.

If the CA is too stupid to understand the differences in equipping a light force and a heavy force, well that would not shock me either.

 

[FJAG]

I'm going to highlight something very clearly here. I can confirm the following:

The 120mm mortar solution will not be exquisite. It will be a tube with people dropping rounds into it. It will be fully dismountable from what vehicle it attaches to. It will be used exclusively by the infantry (explaining why the first two points are important).

The example shown above with the GDLS 120mm mortar (and the Stryker system) will likely be the solution or one of the proposed solutions. The GDLS mortar has a baffle attached to it to avoid TBI from shooting a mortar out of a metal box that reflects concussive waves back at you.

So the Mjonir system and all the other cool heavy mortars listed here, nope. Its going to be old school, simple, and proven.

Somehow I'm not surprised. It's a non-serious solution for a non-serious army. Sometimes the simple solution makes sense. This, however, for an army committed to a brigade (of sorts) fighting in a highly mechanized context, is a cop-out.

I was wondering about sustained fire (WW1/Ukraine). Days, if not months, in the same firing position chucking rounds downrange. Would the L5 manage to function effectively in that environment? My expectation is that lightened weapons give up life expectancy for other attributes.

New Zealand deployed I believe a regiment of L 5's during their foray into Vietnam .Within two years they were withdrawn because they were basically worn out .
Designed for mountain/ airborne warfare it just wasn't up for sustained operations. I believe they were replaced by the M 101/ C 1 105 mm howitzer.

Any gun fired in a sustained fashion will have issues. The M101 (or M2A2 as it was then) is definitely a more robust gun than the L5 (or even the LG1 in my mind). It was built right the first time around. Sustained fire is often a misnomer. If the Ukrainians are firing 6,000 rounds per day and they have an estimated 1,600 guns, then on average each gun fires less than five rounds per day - easily done. But of course it doesn't work that way. Some guns spend weeks firing nothing while others are firing a lot. The thing with the L% is it is easily fixed - as I mentioned for barrel replacement above. I had an L5 packed in because a small brass trunnion bearing was flattening under recoil. The gun was back in action the next day because we had the parts. The L5s biggest issue was its wheel spindles which didn't use bearings. That's only an issue for towing. Range is another factor. The L5 has slightly less range than the M101 10,500m to 11,000m, but practically speaking you tried not to fire charge 7 with the L5 to save on wear and tear which brings the range down to the 8-9,000m.

I know the L5 was replaced by the M2A2 after the battle of Long Tan where they were fired extensively but I've seen no definite articles as to what role robustness played. As I said, there is no question that the M2A2 is more robust - and its great in a fire base role - the issue, however, did the L5 need replacing because of that. It has been used in many sustained-fire situations over the years.

Fair enough if the M198s are clapped out. I was thinking that the Ukrainians might be able to find a use for them given that they were happy enough to be using old Soviet kit.

I've read online arguments about why the US isn't sending M198s. Quite a few were sold off, but the educated guesses are that there are still at least 300 in US storage. No official figures are readily available. There must be a reason why the US would send a hundred plus of their surplus M777 rather than M198s.

Guns wear out. Operational plans need to consider equipment, its lifespan and its required maintenance.

Not only operational plans but basic procurement and in-service sustainment plans for both peace and war.

Is the simpler solution just to restrict the mortar to 81mm and buy more guns for the arty?

No. Both are essential in their respective roles.

I think we should be looking at the South African 105mm systems in my opinion for replacement of our 105 systems not 120mm mortar.

I don't believe that they have any 105mm guns in service. You are probably thinking of the Denel G7 variant that was touted for the Stryker/LAV III SP howitzer. To my understanding it's not really in production but keeps being thought about.

They built some good 155mm guns which have been made even better with conversions to L52 barrels. Their 155mm ammo has been delivering better range than the more common US ammo we've been using.

 

[KevinB]

Is the simpler solution just to restrict the mortar to 81mm and buy more guns for the arty?

Why?

Perhaps even 105 lights to accompany the light air mobile troops?

What light airmobile troops do you see? Or what aviation assets?

I don't think there is much difference in vulnerability to CB fire between the 120 mortar and the 105 gun. The advantage would go to the gun on range.

These days there are 17km 120mm rounds.
But you miss the point
The Mortar Platoon is an integral part of the Infantry Battalion.
The Gun Battery belongs to the Fires Bde at Division.

It isn’t an either or aspect.

 

[KevinB]

I think we should be looking at the South African 105mm systems in my opinion for replacement of our 105 systems not 120mm mortar. We could order 300 of these gun systems. 200 Towed and 100 turreted. Mount the turrets on a LAV chassis. Integrate them into the LAV battalions.

Glossy brochures beyond one off prototypes.

It is a conglomerate of GDL and Denel G7 105 mm gun. So I am sure we could get some magical spin off for some Canadian company.
Equip the Reserves with both the Towed and Mounted versions. Add them to the Deployment manifest for Latvia.
You can have a stock of conventional and improved munitions to effect the fire you need and want. It fits a decent bill. From all I have read the Ukraine Army likes the 105mm for its simplicity, able to be towed behind a pickup truck, and the Ammo is easier to transport. All wins for an all out combined arms war where the lines change and equipment needs to be replaced on regular.

Gee let’s add a unique orphan item that wouldn’t be acquired or produced in any volume, and wonder why it didn’t work out.

The issue is the CA isn’t going to buy a lot of them — so you will get maybe 100 built, the line will shutter and everyone will be angry.

Maybe ask the RCAF how that works out


I’d rather see a BAE CV90 built in Canada that can be fitted into every single variant that Canada needs or may need.

Rather than trying to develop something that isn’t needed, and will hurt more than help.

I agree that you need a domestic product. But don’t go in on an obsolete caliber, on a bizzare combo.

 

[KevinB]

Getting back to the Indirect Fire Modernization.

Ideally this would be part of a comprehensive CA update. But I highly doubt it, as apparently it’s better to reorganize deck chairs about how many LAV can fit on the head of a pin.

Rockets: it’s pretty clear the HIMARS is best of breed, as a Corps (and now Division) asset Rocket forces probably don’t need to be tracked, even if their Division (or Corps) is.

SPA: Outside some very oddball suggestions it’s pretty clear 155mm is the caliber of choice for SPA’s, simply because there isn’t much point in going through with a 105mm SPA given the number of towed 105mm still available. I prefer tracks simply because side they are less terrain limited, and all the wheeled howitzers seem to be compromise designs to either crew protection or practical operation.

The biggest issue is the CA isn’t big, and shouldn’t be looking at unique designs, but also shouldn’t be doing the easy path simply due to it being easy.

 

[FJAG]

The Mortar Platoon is an integral part of the Infantry Battalion.
The Gun Battery belongs to the Fires Bde at Division.

That's the big ticket. I've tried to bring that point across repeatedly in this and other forums as other folks keep bringing it up.

One has to think of mortars as the one indirect fire system that a battalion commander can always count on because they are his, to use when and if he considers appropriate. Their fire support won't ever be taken away from him. They are simple and robust systems, easily maintained and used albeit manufacturers keeping pushing the complexity. The simplicity of a mortar is what dictates its high angle fire - i.e. push recoil directly into the ground without the need for a heavy carriage and wheels. Sure the infantry could use a battalion gun instead of a mortar (and they did in the past) but then it would be heavier and more complex.

Artillery on the other hand is fickle. Their networking system is designed specifically so that large volumes of fire can be moved and shifted across a large frontage and depth. Close support and priority of call on fire can be and does get removed from a battalion by way of a simple radio call originated from the brigade or divisional commander's gunner. On top of that longer range means firing at lower angles which means heavier and more complex guns but you can afford that further back in the line. Yes there are large artillery mortars but, for the most part, most systems now go with the "gun-howitzer" which operates at both high and low angles.

There are very fundamental reasons why we, and most countries like us, organize mortars and artillery the way we do. There is no valid reason to change that even as we upgrade our systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another alternative to the 120mm mortar for the light forces

Successful live-fire demo of Rheinmetall Mission Master SP and Thales 70 mm guided rockets | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

7 km ballistic
4 km guided

12.5 kg round with Laser Guidance and a 4.1 kg warhead

And we have our own CRV-7 manufacturer.

Why?


What light airmobile troops do you see? Or what aviation assets?


These days there are 17km 120mm rounds.
But you miss the point
The Mortar Platoon is an integral part of the Infantry Battalion.
The Gun Battery belongs to the Fires Bde at Division.

It isn’t an either or aspect.

The point is not missed.

The issue is can the 120 be safely fired by dropping rounds into the tube by hand.

If yes then this whole discussion goes away.
If no then the 120 needs mechanization to create standoff between the loader and the muzzle. Mechanization leads to weight, which leads to motorization which leads restricting infantry movement.

One solution is to restrict the infantry to the 81mm mortar in the mortar platoon and ensure that each battalion has the direct support of a battery of guns (or for that matter a mechanized 120mm).

...

As to the facetious comment about the light troops -

We have precious little of anything. We aspire to much. One of the things we apparently aspire to is a useful air-mobile/air-portable force.

Just as we aspire to a heavy force and a functional medium weight force.

 

[KevinB]

Another alternative to the 120mm mortar for the light forces

Successful live-fire demo of Rheinmetall Mission Master SP and Thales 70 mm guided rockets | Canadian Army Today

canadianarmytoday.com

7 km ballistic
4 km guided

12.5 kg round with Laser Guidance and a 4.1 kg warhead

And we have our own CRV-7 manufacturer.


The point is not missed.

The issue is can the 120 be safely fired by dropping rounds into the tube by hand.

If yes then this whole discussion goes away.
If no then the 120 needs mechanization to create standoff between the loader and the muzzle. Mechanization leads to weight, which leads to motorization which leads restricting infantry movement.

One solution is to restrict the infantry to the 81mm mortar in the mortar platoon and ensure that each battalion has the direct support of a battery of guns (or for that matter a mechanized 120mm).

...

As to the facetious comment about the light troops -

We have precious little of anything. We aspire to much. One of the things we apparently aspire to is a useful air-mobile/air-portable force.

Just as we aspire to a heavy force and a functional medium weight force.

I swear sometimes you go off in search of answers to problems that exist in your mind only.

Direct Fire systems aren’t Indirect and one doesn’t replace one with the other.


I’m not a fan of the 120mm Mortar for dismounted usage simply because it’s big and bulky - you need a Hummer or larger to pull it on its wheeled chassis.
It’s not a Light system at all.
The 81mm can be used for the light role.

There are 120mm breech loaded variants that don’t require one to schlep mortar bombs overhead. - no automation required, though considering you don’t want to have an open top mortar carrier - then why not have an automated turret system to reduce crew physical demands - I’m much in favor or working smarter not harder.



WRT Airmobile - you need a slew more Helicopters to do anything beyond a Coy movement

 

[Kirkhill]

I swear sometimes you go off in search of answers to problems that exist in your mind only.

I didn't raise the question of the 120mm and TBI.
If not that then what?
Options - Mechanized 120s, Light Guns, 70mm Rockets.

Direct Fire systems aren’t Indirect and one doesn’t replace one with the other.

GPMG in SF role. Direct or Indirect?
Mortar LOS. Direct or Indirect?

I’m not a fan of the 120mm Mortar for dismounted usage simply because it’s big and bulky - you need a Hummer or larger to pull it on its wheeled chassis.
It’s not a Light system at all.

I think we can actually agree on that.

The 81mm can be used for the light role.

We agree on that. In fact that was what I was suggesting.

There are 120mm breech loaded variants that don’t require one to schlep mortar bombs overhead. - no automation required, though considering you don’t want to have an open top mortar carrier - then why not have an automated turret system to reduce crew physical demands - I’m much in favor or working smarter not harder.

Don't I want an open top carrier?

I think we are agreeing that a 120, together with its ammunition, pretty much demands a vehicle. I feel that that makes them unsuitable for light infantry but possibly appropriate for light artillery and for mounted forces. In either case, if you are going to have a vehicle then you might as well have an automated turret.

But don't mix armoured and light requirements.

WRT Airmobile - you need a slew more Helicopters to do anything beyond a Coy movement

No doubt. Please donate your surplus Blackhawks. A couple of Apaches too, if you have them.

 

[KevinB]

I didn't raise the question of the 120mm and TBI.
If not that then what?
Options - Mechanized 120s, Light Guns, 70mm Rockets.

I have zero idea where you are pulling the 70mm from.

But more importantly I thought @FJAG and I had made it clear that the Mortar is an Inf BN weapon. The Arty is a Fires Bde Divisional asset. You need both items.
They aren’t interchangeable or replaceable with the other.

GPMG in SF role. Direct or Indirect?

SF kit isn’t made anymore. Virtually no one knows how to record targets with the C2 sight and no firing tables exist anymore // so Direct

Mortar LOS. Direct or Indirect?

Indirect

I think we are agreeing that a 120, together with its ammunition, pretty much demands a vehicle. I feel that that makes them unsuitable for light infantry

Agreed

but possibly appropriate for light artillery and for mounted forces. In either case, if you are going to have a vehicle then you might as well have an automated turret.

Well there is a breech loading pick up truck mounted 120mm - but I don’t like the fact it’s stuck in the truck.

Mortars and Artillery don’t overlap outside of range bands

But don't mix armoured and light requirements.

110% this.

No doubt. Please donate your surplus Blackhawks. A couple of Apaches too, if you have them.

We will probably give them to some undesirable right wing authoritarian given our current situation here.

 

[PrairieFella]

Beyond the effects on the crew, have the Stryker 120 carrier been effective in US Army service? Genuinely curious as i have no dog in the fight here (unless they finally give the light armoured squadrons IDF capabilities again).

 

[FJAG]

Beyond the effects on the crew, have the Stryker 120 carrier been effective in US Army service? Genuinely curious as i have no dog in the fight here (unless they finally give the light armoured squadrons IDF capabilities again).

I'd say they are much more effective then our LAV ones - Oh! Wait! We don't have any LAV ones.

Effectiveness of a mortar system is not measured by the mortar, but by the terminal effect of the mortar bomb on the target. However, there are things that can interfere with the round getting there such as mortarmen having to seek cover while they are under fire because of splinters coming into an open upper hatch or some guy dropping a grenade on your head from a drone. Turreted mortars are not invulnerable and they are certainly more complex and expensive than a traditional mortar, but I personally would prefer working one than an open hatch one. Then there's the TBI issue. It's an issue that will raise its head for the M777 as well. There's a world of a difference as to the full-charge pressure wave that a gunner is exposed to inside an SP turret and standing out next to a Caesar.

A big point on the Stryker bns. There mortars are used and equipped differently. There are 2 in each rifle coys and 4 with the battalion HQ for a total of ten. More importantly each LAV mortar carrier also has an old style 81mm for dismounted operations. That does create an ammo resupply issue but it does give the battalion light, manpackable mortars to take on dismounted operations. Note there are only enough authorized 11Cs to man one or the other system. (In the US Army the MOS 11C - Indirect Fire Infantryman - is a separate MOS from that of the 11B - Infantryman.)

I think @KevinB has previously outlined several times why a turreted breech-loaded mortar in a mech unit is preferable to merely firing a standard top loaded one out of a hatch in a turret.

I'm entirely on his side in this case. I think our infantry should have both 120mm mortars and 81mm mortars in all battalions. The mech battalions can have their 120s in turreted mounts like NEMO and the light battalions on an attachment to the ISV. In either case there should be the availability of an 81mm mortar on a weapons locker basis. It could be strapped to the outside of the mortar vehicle or kept in stores somewhere.

Canada isn't generally very good when it buys weapon systems. There is an ingrained attitude that you have to give something to get something - something needs to be divested to make more room on ammo shelves or reduce the number of maint issues for in service support or something. We generally fall into this nonsense. My current bugbear is the idea that under the IFM project the self propelled systems are replacing the M777 instead of merely augmenting them. We are getting rid of a good system - yes, we need the SPs desperately - have since 2005 - but we also still have use for the M777 and its not that we've got anything else to fall back on for a towed system.

 

[Fabius]

At this point I think it’s over 80% probable that we will concurrently stand up a light infantry regiment with all three LiBs and divest all the M777s in favour of SP 155mm and rockets.

What exactly will provide fire support to the LiBs is a great question. I suspect the answer is that they aren’t envisioned as ever needing it. If they do it will be in Latvia and the SP guns will support.

I expect the best case being discussed is that the Reg Force will have three CS Gun regiments with SPH and one HIMARS regiment with the M777s being given to the reserves. However that will mean that the airmobile howitzers won’t be available to the high readiness GRTF.