Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[PrairieFella]

The Army Reserve needs to lose a lot of its history and embrace the future instead.

Units need to have training areas within reasonable proximity. There needs to be a force structure designed for outputs, not perpétuation of fictional tales of heroism from the world wars. There needs to be institutional commitment to members, and member commitment to the institution.

Why? Why demoralize the Reserves even further without tangible benefit? There's no kit, no institutional support, limited training budgets, crumbling infrastructure, a lack of communications equipment, poor quality personal kit and few plans for actually addressing this for the next decade but the problem is reservists need to embrace the future and ditch the history (whatever that means)?

My brother in Christ, the only thing holding together most combat arms reserve units is esprit de corps and Ottawa seems to like it that way. Cheap.

 

[dapaterson]

Montreal is three hours from Valcartier. Toronto two hours from Borden.

Vancouver? Train infantry, sustainers and Provost Corps.

It's not rocket science. Perpetuation of generations of failure should not be the go to solution.

 

[ytz]

Why? Why demoralize the Reserves even further without tangible benefit? There's no kit, no institutional support, limited training budgets, crumbling infrastructure, a lack of communications equipment, poor quality personal kit and few plans for actually addressing this for the next decade but the problem is reservists need to embrace the future and ditch the history (whatever that means)?

My brother in Christ, the only thing holding together most combat arms reserve units is esprit de corps and Ottawa seems to like it that way. Cheap.

You don't need to get rid of unit history. But there's no reason the role should be so firmly rooted in history. If a former armour unit needs to become a transport unit so be it. We have RCAF squadrons flying transports that used to be bomber squadrons and a helicopter squadron that used to be a fighter squadron.

I also think the pride of your branches suffers because your regiments are so big. Each of the infantry regiments need to be broken up so that each of the battalions ends up a regiment in its own right. This way your unit ID becomes like it is in the air force or army and your branch affiliation becomes more important. Just like it it for most of the CAF.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Montreal is three hours from Valcartier. Toronto two hours from Borden.

Vancouver? Train infantry, sustainers and Provost Corps.

It's not rocket science. Perpetuation of generations of failure should not be the go to solution.

Vancouver troops spend most of their time on exercise in Chilliwack pretending to be fighting in the Fulda Gap on tiny postage stamp sized parcels of flat land surrounded by 8000ft mountains and primeval rainforest.

This is the way

 

[markppcli]

I also think the pride of your branches suffers because your regiments are so big.

By bran h you mean corps / branches or do you mean army as a branch?

Each of the infantry regiments need to be broken up so that each of the battalions ends up a regiment in its own right. This way your unit ID becomes like it is in the air force or army and your branch affiliation becomes more important. Just like it it for most of the CAF.

Objectively not the case. People are proud of their branches and what they do. If you broke up the 3 regular infantry regiments and frankly wed just replace one tribalism for another, and have just as many people working in career shops while having more time spent on regimental accoutrements.

 

[Underway]

That's my problem. The RFI was entirely too limiting and seemed pointed at something wheeled. I don't know why the Canadian army has this fetish for air transportability, road speed and wheels.

Its an RFI. If the RFP is the same then you can start complaining. The RFI is sent out to see what industry has to offer. If the Korean's offer a K9 with Nitrous Oxide booster to meet some of the speed requirements game on (WITNESS ME!!).

You then use the RFI to develop the RFP (or award directly to a single supplier).

---

As I'm not in the cult of tracks I will say this,

LAV 10x10 is a domestic design, which will have domestic supply/spares, and commonality with the rest of the LAV fleet. That means something and is valuable.

 

[Furniture]

Its an RFI. If the RFP is the same then you can start complaining. The RFI is sent out to see what industry has to offer. If the Korean's offer a K9 with Nitrous Oxide booster to meet some of the speed requirements game on (WITNESS ME!!).

You then use the RFI to develop the RFP (or award directly to a single supplier).

If the RFI sends the wrong message, people with good kit might just ignore it because they feel it's a biased game they can't win anyway.

As I'm not in the cult of tracks I will say this,


LAV 10x10 is a domestic design, which will have domestic supply/spares, and commonality with the rest of the LAV fleet. That means something and is valuable.

Unless the LAV 10x10 with RCH turret turns out to be like the MGS, and is utterly unsuitable for service... Then we have wasted the better part of decade polishing a turd, when better systems were readily available from the start.

 

[FJAG]

You don't need to get rid of unit history. But there's no reason the role should be so firmly rooted in history. If a former armour unit needs to become a transport unit so be it. We have RCAF squadrons flying transports that used to be bomber squadrons and a helicopter squadron that used to be a fighter squadron.

That can certainly be done. We re-role field artillery to air defence. These are different skill sets. In the past we've re-roled cavalry to machine gun and infantry to anti tank. It can be done.

The thing is though that there are so few army reservists, that it isn't necessary to re-role anyone. IMHO, we are short sigs and logisticians and to an extent gunners. There are enough reserve force sigs regiments - we just need to fill them up. We do need more logistics regiments, but if we fill the ten reserve ones we have we're already a long way there. We could probably use half a dozen to a dozen more but there is no magic in forming those as long as they are given a leadership core to start with. There are enough artillery regiments - we just need to man them to 600 rather than 150. And everyone needs equipment. Armour looks fine as well. We need both tank and cavalry. They just need filing up too.

We don't need 50 ARes infantry battalions. 30 are probably enough for combat roles but the remainder could form training battalions or security force battalions.

The bottom line issue in my view is to create a force structure now that has the ability to grow when needed.

I also think the pride of your branches suffers because your regiments are so big. Each of the infantry regiments need to be broken up so that each of the battalions ends up a regiment in its own right. This way your unit ID becomes like it is in the air force or army and your branch affiliation becomes more important. Just like it it for most of the CAF.

The only place that I see that as an issue is in the three regular force infantry battalions and I agree entirely. These three form a power block in the army that has in the past had too much influence in force structure. Artillery is a regiment of regiments. Engineers is a corps of engineers - its somewhat the same issue but then again not so much because they are much smaller entities than the infantry.

But yeah. I'm all for reducing the RCR, PPCLI and R22eR to one battalion each.

 

[Underway]

If the RFI sends the wrong message, people with good kit might just ignore it because they feel it's a biased game they can't win anyway.

RFI (Request for Information) isn't a bid, industry submits their feedback. Things like "this is actually impossible" or "we can meet the requirements in a different way". Plenty of times the RFI get re-released because the ask was too much or ignorant of current availability. Or it was biased towards a single bidder and they still want a bid process. They use that information from industry to craft a better RFP, create a list of prequalified bidders, make a wider bid process, or go sole source.

Unless the LAV 10x10 with RCH turret turns out to be like the MGS, and is utterly unsuitable for service... Then we have wasted the better part of decade polishing a turd, when better systems were readily available from the start.

Switzerland is already doing the 10x10 on a basically the same chassis (Piranha). We will likely have a good idea of the performance before its purchased should we go look at it. There als exists the RCH on the Boxer platform. Which we know works well and it will be in service in at least two NATO nations (UK and Germany). I'm not worried about the system from a "unsuitable for service" perspective. I'm more concerned that its super high tech nature will lead to lower availability rates than is ideal.

 

[suffolkowner]

RFI (Request for Information) isn't a bid, industry submits their feedback. Things like "this is actually impossible" or "we can meet the requirements in a different way". Plenty of times the RFI get re-released because the ask was too much or ignorant of current availability. Or it was biased towards a single bidder and they still want a bid process. They use that information from industry to craft a better RFP, create a list of prequalified bidders, make a wider bid process, or go sole source.

Switzerland is already doing the 10x10 on a basically the same chassis (Piranha). We will likely have a good idea of the performance before its purchased should we go look at it. There als exists the RCH on the Boxer platform. Which we know works well and it will be in service in at least two NATO nations (UK and Germany). I'm not worried about the system from a "unsuitable for service" perspective. I'm more concerned that its super high tech nature will lead to lower availability rates than is ideal.

the Piranha and Boxer are heavier than the LAV though so there is a greater possibility of issues with a LAV 10x10. The Boxer 8x8 has greater weight allowance than the Piranha 10x10. Theres definitely way more risk there

 

[Underway]

the Piranha and Boxer are heavier than the LAV though so there is a greater possibility of issues with a LAV 10x10. The Boxer 8x8 has greater weight allowance than the Piranha 10x10. Theres definitely way more risk there

Piranha 10x10 and LAV 10x10 are basically the same thing, and since no LAV 10x10 has been built yet I'm pretty sure the Piranha will be the baseline design. Like I said though, we'll have a good look at the Piranha and probably know what we are getting into overall.

 

[suffolkowner]

Piranha 10x10 and LAV 10x10 are basically the same thing, and since no LAV 10x10 has been built yet I'm pretty sure the Piranha will be the baseline design. Like I said though, we'll have a good look at the Piranha and probably know what we are getting into overall.

theres a 4.5 tonne GVWR difference

 

[Furniture]

RFI (Request for Information) isn't a bid, industry submits their feedback. Things like "this is actually impossible" or "we can meet the requirements in a different way". Plenty of times the RFI get re-released because the ask was too much or ignorant of current availability. Or it was biased towards a single bidder and they still want a bid process. They use that information from industry to craft a better RFP, create a list of prequalified bidders, make a wider bid process, or go sole source.

I'm aware of what an RFI is, and I am also aware enough to recognize when an RFI is essentially situating the estimate. I also know that the people employed by defense contractors who make more than twice what I do are also aware of these things.

When an RFI is released, indicating the people responsible for the RFP have already made their minds up, the RFI gets ignored.

Switzerland is already doing the 10x10 on a basically the same chassis (Piranha). We will likely have a good idea of the performance before its purchased should we go look at it. There als exists the RCH on the Boxer platform. Which we know works well and it will be in service in at least two NATO nations (UK and Germany). I'm not worried about the system from a "unsuitable for service" perspective. I'm more concerned that its super high tech nature will lead to lower availability rates than is ideal.

Switzerland hasn't built or used any of them... So It's a bit disingenuous to claim that Swiss service is proof of concept. The USA had MGS long before the CAF planned to buy them, and then magically the CAF and US decided they weren't useful.

I'm not against wheeled SPGs, I'm a big fan of Caesar, but if the CAF is playing dumb RFI/RFP games to get the system some people in C Army want, it's bad for all of us. It undermines the RFI/RFP system, and makes all of us look like shills for a particular brand... like the RCAF.

 

[RangerRay]

But yeah. I'm all for reducing the RCR, PPCLI and R22eR to one battalion each.

So bring back RegF Black Watch, Queens Own Rifles, etc? That would be interesting.

 

[Furniture]

So bring back RegF Black Watch, Queens Own Rifles, etc? That would be interesting.

I think Canada needs a Black Watch to keep people in line... A reminder of who we were, and who we are.

A nation of angry people blowing on the inflated innards of helpless animals to create the most magical sounds imaginable.