Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[Colin Parkinson]

UK Left With 14 Archers Defense Giants Now Pitching Buggy-Howitzer Combo as Artillery Solution | Defense Express

RCH 155 on a budget ISV buggy paired with 105mm howitzer is what BAE Systems, GM Defense and NP Aerospace offer UK MoD

en.defence-ua.com

Lt Gun and ISV.

3 days in the field later

https://twitter.com/x/status/1990113330174865589

 

[Kirkhill]

3 days in the field later

https://twitter.com/x/status/1990113330174865589

On the other hand that 10 man det can pick it up and carry it.

 

[PrairieFella]

18 guns....
Polish order ..... 679 K9s

Along with

242 Krab SP 155s
290 Chunmoo MRLS
506 HIMARS MRLS
360 K2 MBTs
366 Abrams MBTs
128 Leo 2 MBTs
1000 Borsuk Tracked Amphibious IFVs with 30mm (28 tonnes)
568 Rosomak 8x8 Amphibious IFV with 30mm (22 tonnes)

Thats a lot easier to justify when you share a land border with a sworn nemisis.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thats a lot easier to justify when you share a land border with a sworn nemisis.

Fair.

But do you think they will notice the absence of 18 Canadian guns?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Fair.

But do you think they will notice the absence of 18 Canadian guns?

Only if it’s our turn to bring the donuts.

 

[KevinB]

Order enough for 3x6 gun Batteries worth, plus spares, training aids. Once production restarts on the M777, order enough to 6x 4 gun batteries plus training aids and spares.

Tool up a factory here with the SK help to build M118/119 for ourselves, Ukraine and possibly SK. Also work on producing the ammunition as well.

BAE isn't interested in having SK 'assistance'
Canada would be better of in that instance in going "all in" with BAE for the European Slush Fund - and building plants in Canada to make.
M109A8
CV90 (and beyond)
BsV10
M119 and M777's

 

[KevinB]

A lot of BAE products are also dual bonus -- they are used by America, but also not American.
So the CAF can get the benefit of having a large supply chain, and also the GoC getting points with the elbows Up crowd saying hey - we bought British...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The "threat" of further SK inroads into their markets might be enough to make BAE more pliable. I think starting on the M118/119 will likely be easier for us and not require as much specialist equipment and skills.

 

[Kirkhill]

New Canadian firm and France’s Eurenco plan explosives factory in Canada to meet NATO demand

The project has a potential value of US$1-billion over several years and would generate 500 direct jobs in Canada

www.theglobeandmail.com

This will probably have greater impact than all mechanical solutions combined.

Build a fully automated factory in a remote location to produce energetlics and then trade them for ammunition, weapons and vehicles. The military version of LNG.

 

[FJAG]

BAE isn't interested in having SK 'assistance'
Canada would be better of in that instance in going "all in" with BAE for the European Slush Fund - and building plants in Canada to make.

The slush fund is one thing - a proper in-country production line is another.

M109A8

If the M109-52 ever gets out of vapourware. A 52 calibre M109 should have been possible a decade ago but they fumbled around with ERCA. I'll believe its a done deal when the first battalion of US field artillery is deployed with it. I'm a fan of the L52. I'm a fan of the M109 chassis. Let's make this work.

CV90 (and beyond)
BsV10

Yes please.

M119 and M777's

We have enough M777s. I frankly do not see a need for the M119 and retaining a 105mm calibre. The M777 is already limited enough with its L39 barrel (I'll believe in a 55 calibre barrel when I see an American battalion with one). Yes, one can always dream up a scenario where the M119 works fine (I can do the same for a D-30) but if one has a limited vision for an army then fill that small force with good stuff.

 

[Kirkhill]

The slush fund is one thing - a proper in-country production line is another.

If the M109-52 ever gets out of vapourware. A 52 calibre M109 should have been possible a decade ago but they fumbled around with ERCA. I'll believe its a done deal when the first battalion of US field artillery is deployed with it. I'm a fan of the L52. I'm a fan of the M109 chassis. Let's make this work.

Yes please.

We have enough M777s. I frankly do not see a need for the M119 and retaining a 105mm calibre. The M777 is already limited enough with its L39 barrel (I'll believe in a 55 calibre barrel when I see an American battalion with one). Yes, one can always dream up a scenario where the M119 works fine (I can do the same for a D-30) but if one has a limited vision for an army then fill that small force with good stuff.

The sum total of decades of arguments among you gunners and mortarmen has me plunking for 81mm mortars for the infantry with 105mm guns in support and 120 mm mortars for the "cavalry" - heavy vehicles with turrets - and 155 guns in support. And rockets for all.

 

[FJAG]

The sum total of decades of arguments among you gunners and mortarmen has me plunking for 81mm mortars for the infantry with 105mm guns in support

I don't understand why you want to kill so many of our own infantry?

and 120 mm mortars for the "cavalry" - heavy vehicles with turrets - and 155 guns in support. And rockets for all.

That, I'll buy.

But you do know that the cavalry and the infantry work together and that the artillery system supports them both simultaneously. We need to switch from one to the other in a heartbeat.

Sometime I think we are being too influenced by Ukraine's version of trench warfare. We need to be prepared for that and other scenarios as well. These days 81s and 105s only work in very narrow ones. 120s and 155s are much more flexible.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't understand why you want to kill so many of our own infantry?

That, I'll buy.

But you do know that the cavalry and the infantry work together and that the artillery system supports them both simultaneously. We need to switch from one to the other in a heartbeat.

Sometime I think we are being too influenced by Ukraine's version of trench warfare. We need to be prepared for that and other scenarios as well. These days 81s and 105s only work in very narrow ones. 120s and 155s are much more flexible.

I know that the cavalry and the infantry work together when the cavalry figure out where the fight is and how to get there. Meanwhile the infantry have been thrown into the breach with whatever kit they can squeeze into the transport that delivered them to their predicament.

I am sure the 3rd battalions would love to see a Leo in support. But they were delivered by Griffons, Hooks and Hercs.

 

[KevinB]

The slush fund is one thing - a proper in-country production line is another.

Agreed - and frankly I would suggest Canada use Russian frozen assets to build production lines to support Canadian, NATO and Ukrainian needs.

If the M109-52 ever gets out of vapourware. A 52 calibre M109 should have been possible a decade ago but they fumbled around with ERCA. I'll believe its a done deal when the first battalion of US field artillery is deployed with it. I'm a fan of the L52. I'm a fan of the M109 chassis. Let's make this work.

BAE built a few at least, as they have been shooting them out west for testing.

Yes please.

We have enough M777s. I frankly do not see a need for the M119 and retaining a 105mm calibre. The M777 is already limited enough with its L39 barrel (I'll believe in a 55 calibre barrel when I see an American battalion with one).

If you are building 52 cal 155mm barrels for the 109, you may as well use the same forge and rifle drill to do 52 cal M777 barrels.

I think you know I am not the biggest fan of the 105mm, but I do think they do have a light role. I don't think Canada has enough M777, and frankly for an Airborne role - I would use the M119 to jump at least for most training ex's - plus the retardo gun tractor y'all got for the 777 makes it incredibly awkward.