Army.ca Forums

Army.ca => Combat Support => Artillery => Topic started by: MattGotts on March 11, 2016, 00:22:06

Title: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MattGotts on March 11, 2016, 00:22:06
Hello Comrades,

Aside from some soldiers being equipped with brown boots, tan boots, swat boots, or no boots, I've seen that equipment and supply in the army can be somewhat ....difficult..

Boots aside, I've also heard the rumours that the C3 Howitzer, the loveable beast of the mo's, has no scheduled replacement. Through a few semi-annual pow-wows with leadership, I've heard: Reserve Artillery units could get 120 mm mortars (hah), converted to just 81 mm, have the 81 mm given back to the infantry, have no replacement at all and only be trained on the M777 to augment the Reg Force, as well as infinite other delicious yet farcical rumours, not to mention what the East is going to do with their LG1's.

What have you other Gunners been hearing? I haven't heard much out West.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on March 11, 2016, 11:20:57
This issue has been discussed here a fair bit, nothing solid in the works, the ideas kicked around are the 120mm, 81mm and the South African 105mm which is quite a nice gun and one of the people here did a on hands review of it as I recall. South Korea still has a fair number of the original 105mm howitzer, we could likely pick them up cheap. Wiki claims they have 1,000 in storage. considering all the things we need to fix right now, this is likely the cheapest and fastest way to go. Plus the job of refurbishing them could be done here in Canada. A quick scan of Wiki shows about 19 Reserve Artillery regiments and independent batteries, which works out 114 Howitzers for a 6 gun battery, if we bought 150-200 of them we could re-equip and have spares, with no changes to our training or our ammunition supply. The Won seems a good exchange against the Cdn$ as well.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Republic_of_Korea_Army#Field_artillery
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 11, 2016, 11:31:12
As an infantry guy, is it OK if my vote goes to MLRS? :)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on March 11, 2016, 11:50:29
oh that's so warlike....You might upset our current masters. At least these howitzers would only be for "training and peacekeeping"  8)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Loachman on March 11, 2016, 12:05:43
One can keep a lot of peace with an MLRS...
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 11, 2016, 12:20:41
oh that's so warlike....You might upset our current masters. At least these howitzers would only be for "training and peacekeeping"  8)

You forgot "snow clearing in the Rockies".  [:-[
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Loachman on March 11, 2016, 12:22:54
One can clear a lot of snow with an MLRS...
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: RCPalmer on March 11, 2016, 12:54:06
I'm glad to hear that there is at least talk of a replacement in the Arty community (which is not to say a replacement will materialize...).  I would also be curious to know how any acquisition would tie in with the equipment allocations for the RegF Arty Regiments. As far as I know (and correct me if I am wrong), there aren't enough M777s out there to equip every RegF battery, so perhaps we could revitalize our indirect fire capabilities with one smart purchase?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: dapaterson on March 11, 2016, 13:14:51
Those with DWAN access can go to the Capability Investment Database (CID) and look up "Indirect Fire Modernization" to get a sense of current Army thinking. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on March 11, 2016, 13:49:26
Ive seen pictures of m777 conversion courses for the PRes on the army facebook page. A sign of things to come?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: jeffb on March 11, 2016, 14:15:16
The M777 conversion course is nothing sinister. Under Artillery Transformation, each gun Battery has two guns that are manned by PRes (on paper at least). The M777 conversion courses currently being run in 4 Div are simply to set the conditions for PRes pers to make up gun dets on the road to high readiness next year as part of Op REINFORCEMENT.

With respect to the MLRS, there's been talk of HIMARS for the Artillery for some time now but I can't imagine any scenario in which it would go the PRes. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on March 11, 2016, 14:20:50
The M777 conversion course is nothing sinister. Under Artillery Transformation, each gun Battery has two guns that are manned by PRes (on paper at least). The M777 conversion courses currently being run in 4 Div are simply to set the conditions for PRes pers to make up gun dets on the road to high readiness next year as part of Op REINFORCEMENT.

With respect to the MLRS, there's been talk of HIMARS for the Artillery for some time now but I can't imagine any scenario in which it would go the PRes.

I believe the intent is still to replace the 105's with 120mm mortars for the reg/reserve. As of the last we were briefed the key hold up on that plan was honourary colonels and ceremonial openings for parliaments (provincial and federal).

As for HIMARS, there is currently no intent on procurement of that system. If it were procured it would go to 4 Arty Regt and definately not to the reserves.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 11, 2016, 14:42:44
One can keep a lot of peace with an MLRS...

Yes!

We could stuff them with leaflets! (that are not infected with weaponized biological agents ;) )
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 11, 2016, 15:38:08
Additional benefits of the MLRS

Air transportable - meaning you can get it where it needs to be
Standoff distances of 70 to 300 km - meaning you can be in the next country over
Mobile - meaning that when detected you can relocate in a hurry
Armoured cab - meaning that if hit survival is improved
Small crew - meaning few heroes for the highway

It isn't an F35.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Arty39 on March 11, 2016, 18:39:57
Additional benefits of the MLRS

Air transportable - meaning you can get it where it needs to be
Standoff distances of 70 to 300 km - meaning you can be in the next country over
Mobile - meaning that when detected you can relocate in a hurry
Armoured cab - meaning that if hit survival is improved
Small crew - meaning few heroes for the highway

It isn't an F35.
Can level and entire grid square in one f/m.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: medicineman on March 11, 2016, 21:57:28
If PET Jr is anything like his dad, I'm thinking something like these may be the replacements.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: cupper on March 11, 2016, 22:48:51
We should really be looking at the more high tech options for today's modern battlefield.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 11, 2016, 23:11:41
We should really be looking at the more high tech options for today's modern battlefield.

And it should be cheap too.  Just think of all that hemp rope that will be available as a by-product after marijuana is legalized.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Loachman on March 12, 2016, 01:01:18
I lucking fove trebuchets.

I built a couple of tiny ones years ago, and yearn to build one capable of hurling flaming toilet bowls into the night sky.

if there is peace, snow, or a Liberal wherever those flaming toilet bowls land, well, bonus!!!
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on March 12, 2016, 01:13:41
My friend built a 9-10' high one (to the arm vertical) we set it up on Spanish Banks and started flinging rocks into the water, a bylaw office came by sputtering about our "catapult" upon which several people watching corrected him and then we asked which bylaw we were breaking, apparently city council neglected to ban siege weapons on the beach.


meanwhile speaking of MRLS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwET4BnP-fA
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 12, 2016, 01:23:25
We should really be looking at the more high tech options for today's modern battlefield.

If adopted, it would be the only EMP-proof indirect fire support asset in our arsenal.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: medicineman on March 12, 2016, 02:01:24
If adopted, it would be the only EMP-proof indirect fire support asset in our arsenal.

Have to use signal flags and semaphore to send back fire corrections though...unless using tracers such as Loachman suggested.

MM
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 12, 2016, 12:36:29
Have to use signal flags and semaphore to send back fire corrections though...unless using tracers such as Loachman suggested.

MM

We'll have hundreds of serfs per battery though, so can extend a human chain from the target to the battery to pass messages by voice.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: George Wallace on March 12, 2016, 12:41:21
We'll have hundreds of serfs per battery though, so can extend a human chain from the target to the battery to pass messages by voice.

 >:D

Having remembered that "Party Game"; the end result of the message may not be the exact same at the receiving end as it was initially sent by the originator. 

 [:D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: medicineman on March 12, 2016, 12:47:09
>:D

Having remembered that "Party Game"; the end result of the message may not be the exact same at the receiving end as it was initially sent by the originator. 

 [:D

Agreed - you'll end up with a serious blue on blue if you do that...maybe even a premature.

MM
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Rick Goebel on March 12, 2016, 18:23:15
And it should be cheap too.  Just think of all that hemp rope that will be available as a by-product after marijuana is legalized.

And just think of the low carbon footprint.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on March 12, 2016, 22:45:49
For very modern, apply modern mathematics like the Murlin Trebuchet:

Edit to add: Since spring is coming, here is a site where you can find plans and videos for this and other types of catapult fun.

http://kirkwoodhomeblog.com/murlin-trebuchet-blueprints
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: cupper on March 12, 2016, 23:43:05
In a pinch you can build one with lumber and use only duct tape to hold it together. Oh, and an engine block for the counterweight.

https://youtu.be/bHs5KC0SafU

A clip from the final season of Mythbusters, the lost duct tape episode.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MattGotts on March 18, 2016, 02:45:17
Good spit balling boys, glad to see the situation seems normal all across the board.
In regards to the siege weapons and such, I'd hope we can do some counter battery fire on some during this summer's exercises. We need to get back to the fundamentals.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 24, 2016, 19:04:36
I believe the intent is still to replace the 105's with 120mm mortars for the reg/reserve. As of the last we were briefed the key hold up on that plan was honourary colonels and ceremonial openings for parliaments (provincial and federal).

As for HIMARS, there is currently no intent on procurement of that system. If it were procured it would go to 4 Arty Regt and definately not to the reserves.

WRT HIMARS/MRLS there is a new round in the works, being developed by Boeing and Saab.  It sticks a Small Diameter Bomb on top of an MRLS booster rocket and generates a system that can ripple off 6 rounds and hit 6 independent 1 meter targets within a 150 km radius - flying into tunnels on non-ballistic trajectories and taking out reverse slope targets.

Just what every peace-keeper should have at their beck and call

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkkfE5yHejc

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsaabgroup.com%2Fglobalassets%2Fcision%2Fimages%2F20150903-en-1045582-435528.jpg&hash=4a0b5e3225978630ed8759492e09dc8c)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 25, 2016, 06:24:35
WRT HIMARS/MRLS there is a new round in the works, being developed by Boeing and Saab.  It sticks a Small Diameter Bomb on top of an MRLS booster rocket and generates a system that can ripple off 6 rounds and hit 6 independent 1 meter targets within a 150 km radius - flying into tunnels on non-ballistic trajectories and taking out reverse slope targets.

Just what every peace-keeper should have at their beck and call

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkkfE5yHejc

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsaabgroup.com%2Fglobalassets%2Fcision%2Fimages%2F20150903-en-1045582-435528.jpg&hash=4a0b5e3225978630ed8759492e09dc8c)

But can seeds be added to sew legal dope fields across Canada? If we can convince the current bunch, then maybe we can procure the 'Marijuana Launching and Roto-tilling System' to use for other things too :)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 25, 2016, 11:22:09
Plants need phosphorus.....
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: ueo on March 25, 2016, 11:50:35
Easy peezy, altho a bit messy.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sunrayRnfldR on March 28, 2016, 04:31:05
On a more serious note, The Royal Australian Artillery equip some of their reserve units with 81 mm mortars and retain, in the same unit, several C2 howitzers for saluting duties. One example is 7 Bty of 3 Field Regiment, a part of 13 Reserve Brigade in Karrakatta, a suburb of Perth, Western Australia. Perhaps this model would work for the RCA.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on March 28, 2016, 11:40:00
In due time I expect something similar will happen with Canadian Reserve Artillery units, i.e they will end up training live just with 81's, and their C3's will be used for salute purposes.  The only exception being a few C3 kept for Avalanche control in Rogers Pass, although that task can be (and for a short while already was) done by LG1. Besides which Parks Canada might well find a more cost effective and less risky or intrusive solution in the next few years.

Besides the current fiscal climate limiting any major procurement for years, I doubt there's any plan to replace the C3 at all
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MeinBob on March 28, 2016, 12:39:27
When last at the School of Excellence in Gagetown, (summer of 2015) the IG's and Ack IG's informed my course that the plan was (or is) to keep the C3 going for as long as possible. (The LG1 is almost finished, and will be done soon.) This solution could work for the next 10 years or so. Then the plan is to procure a 120 mm mortar system to replace the C3.

This seems to be the plan, such as there is one, for the future of Reserve Artillery. However, this solution has its challenges, and I am not at all sure if this "plan" is going to stand the test of time. It makes sense as far as it is a good low-cost system that the Reserves could maintain, train, and even take into combat. The problem arises when you look at the Reg force's need to draw gunners for operations. Conversion training on a M777 is much more difficult when the Reservist being called up has only trained on mortars.

I think it is possible, given the current level of funding for new weapons systems, that the Reg Force Artillery will be given a 120 mm Mortar to replace the M777 and C3, with the Reserves getting 81 mm Mortars. Given that the cost of maintaining and training on the M777 is so high, it might be the low-cost way of keeping some indirect fire capability in the Canadian Army. I hope this does not happen, but it is the kind of thing I have come to expect. Alas, maybe I have become too much the cynic. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 05, 2016, 15:10:55
Sad way to cut capability that we can't easily source a replacement howitzer. I like the 120mm idea for the Reserves, replacing 155's with it is a bad idea facing anyone who looks a bit like a real army and can counterbattery. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 05, 2016, 16:09:54
I cant see them tossing the 777 unless someone really hit their head hard, you can't have arty regiments without arty, and IMO mortars aren't the best arty.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 05, 2016, 16:18:28
You don't need artillery to peacekeep, and we're about to see a defense white paper by a government that was against using airpower to stop genocide.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on April 05, 2016, 16:31:05
One artillery system that IS NOT at odds with peace-keeping is GBADS-CRAM.  It fits nicely into the R2P (Resposibility to Protect) paradigm of creating safe-havens.

It allows, to follow on from Colin's rapier analogy, the defender to parry - constantly countering the rapier, not attacking the swordsman.

An added benefit is that a system base on launching ESSM missiles to knock down other missiles, is equally capable of launching NSM missiles to take out stationary targets on the ground - should the need, and the inclination, arise.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 05, 2016, 17:44:20
hmmm yes like the way you think.....

It is a good time to look at what we want the Reserve Artillery to look like, but it needs to be done quickly and it needs to keep in mind that in this day and age if you don't have loud toys like howitzers or fancy toys like UAV/missiles or AD gus, you are going to suffer on the recruiting end.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 05, 2016, 17:48:27
hmmm yes like the way you think.....

It is a good time to look at what we want the Reserve Artillery to look like, but it needs to be done quickly and it needs to keep in mind that in this day and age if you don't have loud toys like howitzers or fancy toys like UAV/missiles or AD gus, you are going to suffer on the recruiting end.

Well that aspect does ad to the wow factor to recruiting, if all your reserve arty becomes is a mortar det, is it really worth it?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 05, 2016, 18:01:38
I remember joining up in the late 70’s I wanted armour, but all they had was jeeps, artillery had big cannons so I went there, not deep thinking, but then young males rarely do.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Ostrozac on April 05, 2016, 18:26:09
You don't need artillery to peacekeep, and we're about to see a defense white paper by a government that was against using airpower to stop genocide.

You can use artillery in peacekeeping missions. MONUSCO in the Democratic Republic of Congo has artillery (Tanzanian D-30 122mm) to go along with their attack helicopters. MONUSCO is, as I understand it, the largest UN peacekeeping mission in history.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MCG on April 05, 2016, 18:56:32
What about the L119/M119?  It is a light air-portable 105 mm that has been linked with a digital fire-control system derived from the same system as is used on the M777.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Hamish Seggie on April 05, 2016, 19:02:58
Can level and entire grid square in one f/m.

But you might actually hurt....woe is me....or kill some peace loving purveyor of a misunderstood religion!!!
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 06, 2016, 18:48:47
What about the L119/M119?  It is a light air-portable 105 mm that has been linked with a digital fire-control system derived from the same system as is used on the M777.

and in service with several nations with the upgrade done recently. Just missing the will to fix the problem.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 06, 2016, 18:53:55
and in service with several nations with the upgrade done recently. Just missing the will to fix the problem.

and a procurement system to purchase it before the system is obsolete. On this issue on the 120mm mortar, if we got it as a towed system, could we create a mortar carrier variant of say a LAV as a mobile fire support unit?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on April 06, 2016, 19:55:30
What about the L119/M119?  It is a light air-portable 105 mm that has been linked with a digital fire-control system derived from the same system as is used on the M777.

When I was at the arty school the AIG course I was running was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 105mm replacement and the IG course was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 120mm mortar system for the reserves.

The options the AIG came up with was essentially a rebuild of the C3, the L119, and the self propelled 105 CAESAR.

At the end of the session the CIG got up and said that there was no intent to buy another 105mm as they aren't intending to deploy them operationally (that's the M777 role at this time) and that the 120mm was being considered to maintain a reserve training capability and potentially to have a deployable capability.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: CBH99 on April 06, 2016, 21:09:37
If the powers at be have stated they have no intention of replacing the 105mm with another 105mm, and the M777 is to be our deployable artillery asset -- any word on purchasing more M777?

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)


A 120mm mortar may actually be a relatively low maintainence, easily trainable, useful mission for the reserve artillery.  (As was stated above, even peacekeeping needs to have a heavy hand available when needed.)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 07, 2016, 11:09:02
When I was at the arty school the AIG course I was running was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 105mm replacement and the IG course was tasked to come up with 3 x alternatives for a 120mm mortar system for the reserves.

The options the AIG came up with was essentially a rebuild of the C3, the L119, and the self propelled 105 CAESAR.

At the end of the session the CIG got up and said that there was no intent to buy another 105mm as they aren't intending to deploy them operationally (that's the M777 role at this time) and that the 120mm was being considered to maintain a reserve training capability and potentially to have a deployable capability.

Yet other nations happily deployed them from what I have read and with good effect, plus they are easier to move. As for "intent" that's what they said of the Bison and Cougar as well. If the crap really hits the fan big time, it will be come as you are party and they will need every gun and round they can find.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 07, 2016, 15:28:38
Yet other nations happily deployed them from what I have read and with good effect, plus they are easier to move. As for "intent" that's what they said of the Bison and Cougar as well. If the crap really hits the fan big time, it will be come as you are party and they will need every gun and round they can find.

Somehow I feel our war stocks aren't what they used to be
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 07, 2016, 15:55:06
Somehow I feel our war stocks aren't what they used to be

Pretty sure our "war stock" doesn't exist anymore. What we have at units is what we have total.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 07, 2016, 16:39:24
I would almost be afraid to ask
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Eland2 on April 07, 2016, 17:54:58
Pretty sure our "war stock" doesn't exist anymore. What we have at units is what we have total.

We probably haven't had any real war stocks since the end of the Korean War, given the succession of governments over the ensuing decades
that have tried to do defence on the cheap.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Retired AF Guy on April 07, 2016, 18:19:08

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)

Initial purchase was of 12, then a follow-up order of 25 for a total of 37.

 $118 Million in New Orders for BAE Systems' M777  (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/105619/bae-wins-%24118m-orders-for-m777-howitzer.html)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on April 07, 2016, 19:16:14
If the powers at be have stated they have no intention of replacing the 105mm with another 105mm, and the M777 is to be our deployable artillery asset -- any word on purchasing more M777?

There aren't enough M777 for both training and deployable stocks, are there?  (My understanding is 34 guns were purchased, but I could be wrong?)



Depends how you view the problem. If you look at current Regimental configurations of 2 x 4 or 6 gun batteries (4 x gun to be regular force manned, 2 x guns to be reserve) than there is a need for a maximum of 36 x M777, not including the guns needed for the artillery school (2 last I heard) and the RCEME school (1). in reality, they are kitted to the 2 x 4 gun standard. So, in theory, to achieve the 2 x 6 gun batteries we should have a minimum of 40 M777.(Note- this may have changed).

For war, the LOO 5 (or whatever LOO it is) described in CONPLAN JUPITER would see a worst case deployment of 2 x 6 gun batteries, 1 x STA battery, and some form of GBAMD shooter once there's a capability. So, for operations there's a requirement for 12x M777 plus spares (say 2).

The M777 deployed, in theory, would be from the Regiment within the Brigade. Many of the Regiments though still keep 1 x 105 gun or 1 x 81mm battery and put their 8 x M777 into 1 battery. 1 RCHA, for example, has A Bty supporting 3 VP and using 81mm mortars.

Realistically, Canada needs to be able to force generate, at most, 1 brigade to either be part of a multinational div under the Americans or our very own Div HQ. If the threat model changes than we could go back to 3 gun battery regiments, but as that isn't expected in the next 20 years,it is likely that the system that replaces the M777 would be the one intended for that purpose.

Buying a cheap 105mm for the reserves, to me, would be good to use as a training gun, allowing the M777's to be babied... The computer systems and hydraulics aren't designed to bound through Gagetown or Shilo, so having a cheap C3-esque gun to do that with would be optimal, with the M777 being used for static fires and the high readiness Regiment, IMHO.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on April 07, 2016, 19:50:27
....
Buying a cheap 105mm for the reserves, to me, would be good to use as a training gun, allowing the M777's to be babied... The computer systems and hydraulics aren't designed to bound through Gagetown or Shilo, so having a cheap C3-esque gun to do that with would be optimal, with the M777 being used for static fires and the high readiness Regiment, IMHO.

Wouldn't you just be encouraging the development of bad habits?  If the weapon needs to be treated with care and consideration why would you train people to handle a similar weapon roughly?  Just curious.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on April 07, 2016, 20:14:35
Wouldn't you just be encouraging the development of bad habits?  If the weapon needs to be treated with care and consideration why would you train people to handle a similar weapon roughly?  Just curious.

The intent was to allow for more "strenuous" training to be allowed, mostly in the recce and deployment arena. The M777 CAN be bounded and deployed IAW the TTPs, so it's not necessarily training poor habits. However, with the cost of the system it's preferable to drag a cheap and mechanically simple gun all over the training area than risk breaking the M777. The arty school, for example, uses the LG1s and C3s for recce and deployment on courses to this day as they dont want to break the 2 M777 they have. When doing danger close on the FOO course they use the M777 to improve realism, but 105mm for the rest of the shooting.

The only difference for recce and deployment would be the gun platform requirements, which you could still force students/jr Officers to recce, whether a 105mm or the M777 eventually sits on.

 :2c:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 07, 2016, 20:23:30
The intent was to allow for more "strenuous" training to be allowed, mostly in the recce and deployment arena. The M777 CAN be bounded and deployed IAW the TTPs, so it's not necessarily training poor habits. However, with the cost of the system it's preferable to drag a cheap and mechanically simple gun all over the training area than risk breaking the M777. The arty school, for example, uses the LG1s and C3s for recce and deployment on courses to this day as they dont want to break the 2 M777 they have. When doing danger close on the FOO course they use the M777 to improve realism, but 105mm for the rest of the shooting.

The only difference for recce and deployment would be the gun platform requirements, which you could still force students/jr Officers to recce, whether a 105mm or the M777 eventually sits on.

 :2c:

I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on April 07, 2016, 20:57:05
I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)

Why are things that are needlessly complicated called "Byzantine"? (https://www.quora.com/Why-are-things-that-are-needlessly-complicated-called-Byzantine)

We have myriads of systems that perform miraculously once, on the test range.  But what happens when IT can't take your call?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 07, 2016, 23:26:27
I guess that begs the question of why we have to rely on a 'fragile' gun that might pack up at critical moments during a high intensity conflict.... unlike the 25 pounder of course :)
And there it is...the m777 does not stand up to the abuse of constant off road and rough terrain. It is extremely maint heavy. Having deployed to the sand box as a tech for the m777s and spending 5 years at the guns I have yet to see an ex where multiple guns dont go down for various mechanical (usually the hydrolic scavenge system)  or something electrical with the GMS. (another thing the had canadian mods that, IMO
, screwed up a good working system that the brits have been using on their 105 for quite some time).
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 07, 2016, 23:56:20
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 08, 2016, 00:11:41
Thats how we moved them in the stan when I was there....actually have a wicked video of a drop off and pickup at the same time from sper on 1-10

I can see not wanting to lose the firepower to an ied
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 08, 2016, 01:10:26
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

In a high intensity conflict 'if it flies, it dies', so I doubt that choppers would be available all the time.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 08, 2016, 01:29:08
With the amount of technology out there, we're all dead in a peer on peer fight. Obviously if we don't have air superiority, you can't sling load it, but you're also a nice target dragging a big towed gun. Risk assessment I guess.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on April 08, 2016, 09:42:42
Its almost like we should find some sort of machine that could move them off a roadway, perhaps in the air? Definitely not practical in a training sense (good luck getting Chinooks out everytime), but isn't airmobile how they're meant to be moved tactically?

No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GR66 on April 08, 2016, 09:44:19
Another example of the Quality vs Quantity debate?  If we have 12 x M777's deployed for a brigade group and a Russian Independant Motor Rifle Brigade (according to Wikipedia anyways:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/200th_Independent_Motor_Rifle_Brigade) has 36 x 2S19 Msta self-propelled howitzers and 18 x BM-21 Grad Multiple Rocket Launchers then does the quality of the M777 make up for the quantity of the Russian guns/launchers?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Lumber on April 08, 2016, 10:03:44
Maybe I'm just ignorant of army tactics, but why not go with a self propelled variant?  There doesn't seem to be anyone really using a 105mm SPG, but there are a lot of 155s. We could get a few from the Germans alongside our tanks!

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 08, 2016, 11:21:43
Next you be wanting a CCV type tracked vehicle to stay with the tanks, why to much like a NATO Brigade then.....

Getting rid of the SPG's was always a dumb move, keeping one battery towed for missions like Afghanistan is fine, but at least 1/2 of the Reg force should be in SPG's. Looking at the US army storage depot, I count around 250 M109's in storage in Nevada. I suspect the US would be willing to see us a bunch to be upgraded to improve NATO's punch.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on April 08, 2016, 12:32:37
You know who is not dead in a peer on peer fight: the guy with the pointy stick.

How long does it take to work the target list down past aircraft carriers and missile silos, past frigates, subs and aircraft, past guns and tanks and CCVs?  Judging from the limited experience of Gulf Wars 1 and 2 I would suggest a matter of months.  If people haven't come to their senses in that time, and still have the will to continue the fight the fight will continue at the partisan/terrorist level.

And weaponry will be whatever can be cobbled together locally - back to spring loaded catapults for chucking hand grenades.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 08, 2016, 15:23:34
How about a 105mm on a LAV 6 chassis? would mean a lot less maintenance cost due to commonality of parts. Towed arty will always have it's place I feel, but in a highly mobile warfare situation, a group of self propelled artillery is required.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 08, 2016, 15:36:16
No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.

Was that not due to the lack of integral medium lift helo support in JTF-A? We didn't get our own chinooks until 2009 I think, and what ones in theatre were real busy moving everything else around. I think it was more necessity that they were moved by road, not a preferred COA.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on April 08, 2016, 15:56:48
How about a 105mm on a LAV 6 chassis? would mean a lot less maintenance cost due to commonality of parts. Towed arty will always have it's place I feel, but in a highly mobile warfare situation, a group of self propelled artillery is required.

http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21166.msg18224.html#msg18224

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg78.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv293%2Ftanker_karl%2FSouth_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic006.jpg&hash=1405cf710a75e1273de285361d3a0fbf)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 08, 2016, 16:30:08
http://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,21166.msg18224.html#msg18224

(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg78.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv293%2Ftanker_karl%2FSouth_African_105mm_LEO_Self-Propelled_LAVIII_jpg_pic006.jpg&hash=1405cf710a75e1273de285361d3a0fbf)
Exactly what i was referring to

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Bird_Gunner45 on April 08, 2016, 17:46:27
Was that not due to the lack of integral medium lift helo support in JTF-A? We didn't get our own chinooks until 2009 I think, and what ones in theatre were real busy moving everything else around. I think it was more necessity that they were moved by road, not a preferred COA.

For that particular theatre, yes, airmobility would be valuable. In a theatre with a GBAD threat than this would be unlikely. The point is that they were designed to be towed OR airmobile, without one being the prime mover.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on April 08, 2016, 18:54:21
No, not at all. They're designed to be capable of airmobility, as the older US US towed 155 was too heavy (hence the title Ultra Lightweight Towed Howitzer). For the most part they weren't airlifted in Afghanistan either.... in the 2010 timeframe yes, earlier than that, no.

Actually they were being moved by Chinook from 2006 on, frequently, just not Canadian ones then

Recce is actually different using the GMS, so too are the gun drills.  Maybe if the School practiced it more often instead of mostly using C3 and LG1, perhaps those being trained at the School would be better at deploying it and have more confidence in it
Training with optic sights and survey instruments is good for learning the back up methods, but can lead to misunderstanding and underestimating the advantages of GMS, especially at night

The "D" in DGMS hasn't been working so well, not since the micro light radio was abandoned for the heavier LINAPS hung on the cradle, and the newer Det Commander tablet came into use.  That needs to be fixed and once it is, FWIW, I believe it should be fitted to the C3 and LG1 as well
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 13, 2016, 12:00:00
meanwhile across the pond: ammo issues

http://forces.tv/10503849
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on April 13, 2016, 18:59:59
Actually they were being moved by Chinook from 2006 on, frequently, just not Canadian ones then

The "D" in DGMS hasn't been working so well, not since the micro light radio was abandoned for the heavier LINAPS hung on the cradle, and the newer Det Commander tablet came into use.  That needs to be fixed and once it is, FWIW, I believe it should be fitted to the C3 and LG1 as well

Just to correct myself, it is the EPLRS radio hung under the cradle, not LINAPS
LINAPS is the basis of Automatic Pointing System used on the British light gun and the M777; it does not need a radio to work, but that being said something does need to replace the aging FABCS used for passing voice orders
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 13, 2016, 19:15:11
Good thing it doesn't need the radio to work, because you're rolling dice with EPLRS.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 13, 2016, 21:48:25
Yeah every trial we ran with eplrs was brutal....not to mention ripping the antena off the trails a few times.....

Now if they got rid of the GPS integrated into system and just rolled with the inertial navigation that would fix a ton of issues as well.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: PuckChaser on April 13, 2016, 21:53:58
Problem is, it was only designed to send PA information for US vehicles. We bought it because Raytheon said they could push lots of data with it, and make it highly reliable. It was never designed to do what we want it to do.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 14, 2016, 10:47:48
Problem is, it was only designed to send PA information for US vehicles. We bought it because Raytheon said they could push lots of data with it, and make it highly reliable. It was never designed to do what we want it to do.

Man if I had a nickel for every time we said that about a piece of Army equipment I would have a crap load of nickels
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on April 14, 2016, 11:34:43
Yeah every trial we ran with eplrs was brutal....not to mention ripping the antena off the trails a few times.....

Now if they got rid of the GPS integrated into system and just rolled with the inertial navigation that would fix a ton of issues as well.

The UK did go with a Inertial Navigation only system some time ago, called PADS (Position and Azimuth Determining System), but since it required calibration points "sprinkled" about the AO, they've since gone to GPS based systems, supported by INU backup, instead.
Regt Survey used to be responsible for putting those RSCP (Regimental Survey Control Points) out, but Canada no longer has that capability within its Arty Regts, and I doubt very much MCE would be able to support it either.

The GPS component of GMS does have flaws, and vulnerabilities, but if people trained with it more often they'd know how to deal with those limitations better. I don't think we should adopt the UK approach for the 105 fleet though, which would be to abandon all optic sights and go with an APS only; we never seem to have any depth to our procurement to support such a concept, so we need to have a "soldier proof" backup system for the gun
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on April 14, 2016, 12:04:07
Forgive me for a land navigation war story. A million years ago (actually in 1967) I was the battery recce officer in A Bty in Germany. Before the last practice camp before I rotated home to go on the IG Course our recce vehicle, a M37 3/4 ton cargo truck, was fitted with a NAVAID. This was a rather bulky and not too mechanically reliable Canadian designed land navigation system that used a gyroscope for orientation and an analog system for distance traveled geared to the odometer. John Simons, the recce sgt, and I decided to give it a fair trial and to adapt to its limitations. A major limitation was that the gyroscope had to be started about an hour before the vehicle moved off in order for it to settle down. It, of course, oriented itself on true north so we had to input the lat and long to convert to grid bearings.

We also used to pick way points along our route in advance and correct the indicated grid references the NAVAID produced. As time went on it began to become more accurate, but I can't really explain this. We also tested it for accuracy on recces for live firing and had accumulated enough data that we would have been comfortable originating the battery grid from it. We actually did that on a night recce for a night deployment, but had time after first light to do conventional battery survey to confirm the orientation and fixation of the gun troops.

From time to time we would drive to each troop gun position, record the grid of troop centre, and then return to our point of origin, usually the battery director. If the grid of the point of origin matched the one when we started, we would have been able to use the troop grid references for firing.

It, of course, could not be used for orientation.

Maybe this was a tiny glimpse into the not too distant future.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 14, 2016, 14:36:21
The errors dont usually stem from people not trained on it. Only issue that way is people not loading crypto properly or not knowing how to recognize it not loaded.
The main problems ive encountered as a tech is the gps failing but the system doesnt revert back to inertial navigation. Which as we all know can create a huge issue where the gun thinks its pointing compared to where its actually pointing.


I had a ton more written out but I think id be running into opsec so i left it out.

Either way the gps is a good idead but the software package wasnt designed for it and is very glitchy
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: cupper on April 14, 2016, 15:37:46
It was never designed to do what we want it to do.

Man if I had a nickel for every time we said that about a piece of Army equipment I would have a crap load of nickels

Doesn't the procurement system just assume that anyway?

I thought it was designed to reject anything that did what it was supposed to do.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 14, 2016, 17:37:08
Forgive me for a land navigation war story. A million years ago (actually in 1967) I was the battery recce officer in A Bty in Germany. Before the last practice camp before I rotated home to go on the IG Course our recce vehicle, a M37 3/4 ton cargo truck, was fitted with a NAVAID. This was a rather bulky and not too mechanically reliable Canadian designed land navigation system that used a gyroscope for orientation and an analog system for distance traveled geared to the odometer. John Simons, the recce sgt, and I decided to give it a fair trial and to adapt to its limitations. A major limitation was that the gyroscope had to be started about an hour before the vehicle moved off in order for it to settle down. It, of course, oriented itself on true north so we had to input the lat and long to convert to grid bearings.

We also used to pick way points along our route in advance and correct the indicated grid references the NAVAID produced. As time went on it began to become more accurate, but I can't really explain this. We also tested it for accuracy on recces for live firing and had accumulated enough data that we would have been comfortable originating the battery grid from it. We actually did that on a night recce for a night deployment, but had time after first light to do conventional battery survey to confirm the orientation and fixation of the gun troops.

From time to time we would drive to each troop gun position, record the grid of troop centre, and then return to our point of origin, usually the battery director. If the grid of the point of origin matched the one when we started, we would have been able to use the troop grid references for firing.

It, of course, could not be used for orientation.

Maybe this was a tiny glimpse into the not too distant future.

Likely the accuracy improved as the gyro settled down and self -corrected the precession which as i recall starts to align with the motion of the planet. What we found on the ships is that gyros need a stable voltage supply otherwise they can fall off, which is why we used to check the gyro against the magnetic compass every 15minutes or so in my day.

and please do not stop posting on the "old stories" as they are very interesting and add flavour to these conversations.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GnyHwy on April 14, 2016, 19:23:32
This thread is getting away from C3, but rest assured our gryo and GPS skills are solid.

Old Sweat, rest assured, a modern gyro spins up in much less than an hour!  :)

 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 14, 2016, 20:29:10
This thread is getting away from C3, but rest assured our gryo and GPS skills are solid.

Old Sweat, rest assured, a modern gyro spins up in much less than an hour!  :)

Well to this point we have beaten the horse to death on the C3, and LG1, until we get some sort of news about a replacement or more info from the inside not much more to discuss
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 14, 2016, 23:22:13
This thread is getting away from C3, but rest assured our gryo and GPS skills are solid.

Old Sweat, rest assured, a modern gyro spins up in much less than an hour!  :)
Haha yes indeed. The laser ring gyro on the m777 takes 10 min to align.
Forget what it is to spin up the gyro on the glps but its fast.....and man that is a sweet piece of kit. Huge glps fan.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: sidemount on April 14, 2016, 23:23:01
Well to this point we have beaten the horse to death on the C3, and LG1, until we get some sort of news about a replacement or more info from the inside not much more to discuss
Didnt the horse used to tow the  C3.....:D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 14, 2016, 23:25:26
Didnt the horse used to tow the  C3.....:D

nope they were in short supply, had to use a large number of privates, sorta like now a days
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: quadrapiper on April 15, 2016, 01:52:36
nope they were in short supply, had to use a large number of privates, sorta like now a days
This sort of thing, but with more green, less wood?  :)
(https://Army.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy45%2Fquadrapiper%2Fth_75525_194524774000747_1566831037_n_zpsvaw8rcnu.jpg&hash=faff4ae9a9ecde02b62fc62ec3c9ca8a) (http://s2.photobucket.com/user/quadrapiper/media/75525_194524774000747_1566831037_n_zpsvaw8rcnu.jpg.html)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 15, 2016, 11:10:10
Part of the detachment commanders course was all about learning to "walk" a gun  8)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on April 15, 2016, 11:18:07
Part of the detachment commanders course was all about learning to "walk" a gun  8)

The dread cry of "Without drag ropes, prepare to advance."

In real life, as a recruit in the RCA Depot manhandling a C1 Howitzer across the Shilo Ranges for a few hundred metres which is much different from doing it on the level concrete floor of the gun park. Don't ask me why.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 15, 2016, 13:10:38
I always made walking the gun over open ground part of the drills, somethings need to be done for real and doing it slowly and carefully during daylight, means less chance of people getting hurt.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on April 15, 2016, 13:28:12
I always made walking the gun over open ground part of the drills, somethings need to be done for real and doing it slowly and carefully during daylight, means less chance of people getting hurt.

At one stage we were having difficulty getting over a hump. SSgt Hooper, the AIG and a big man, lay across the muzzle of our C1. This took all the weight off the trails and we were able to rock the gun over the hump very easily. Lesson learned.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: George Wallace on April 15, 2016, 15:21:59
At one stage we were having difficulty getting over a hump. SSgt Hooper, the AIG and a big man, lay across the muzzle of our C1. This took all the weight off the trails and we were able to rock the gun over the hump very easily. Lesson learned.

Knowing the 'Center of Balance' is important.   [:D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 15, 2016, 17:11:41
Not to mention "Left brake on", "right brake off" , "Trails right", "right brake on", "Left brake off", "Trails left" to get over a bit of a hump. Ah yes my gun crew just loved me...... [lol:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on April 15, 2016, 17:25:45
Not to mention "Left brake on", "right brake off" , "Trails right", "right brake on", "Left brake off", "Trails left" to get over a bit of a hump. Ah yes my gun crew just loved me...... [lol:

Along with cries such as "Double man the left trail" and "Don't walk backwards with the trail."
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on April 16, 2016, 02:09:11
While sadly no one in positions of power are going to look at this issue seriously (if at all), I will follow Chris Pook's lead and try to do a bit of catalogue shopping.

Perhaps the most reasonable alternative might be the Dragonfire 2 system trialled by the USMC some years ago. A 120mm mortar system which is capable of automatic fire and is highly automated, so only a very small gun det is needed per tube. Dragonfire can be carried on a towed mount, but was also demonstrated mounted in a LAV 25 chassis, so there are two options which fit with out ways of doing things (a Dragonfire 2 in a re-purposed LAV III chassis or a LAV 6.0 would be no problem.

Thinking a bit sideways, the Russian 82mm 2B9 Vasilek automatic mortar has been trialled mounted on the back of a HMMVW, as well as in Russian service ion Afghanistan on the rear deck of BMP's and MTLB's. While the Russian mortar itself isn't going to be in our inventory, there seems to be no reason that it can't be "reverse engineered" by us. The 2B9 Vasilek also comes on a towed mount, so our analogue can be pulled by a light or medium truck, if desired.

The Cockerill CT-CV 105HP turret is a "drop in" turret for LAV class vehicles. While designed for armoured warfare, it has the unusual property of begin a Wegmann turret with a max elevation of 420. Armoured troops have the ability to use their cannons in a "semi indirect" role, and firing 105mm rounds from a mobile, armoured platform is always a useful ability, even if the cap badge is armoured rather than "Unique". Similar abilities exist with single and dual barrelled AMOS 120mm mortar turrets for LAV class vehicles.

Finally, the Swedish "Archer" SP system provides a 155 cannon with a high degree of mobility and autonomy. Each gun is mounted on an articulated truck chassis and only requires a 3 man Det to set up and fire. The gun fires form a magazine, so the echelon follows with pre loaded magazines for quick change outs, also using largely automated systems. This is the most capable of all the catalogue choices, and also the most expensive in terms of unit cost and the amount of second line support that it might need, but it compliments the M-777 in both range and ability, and while the M-777 can be moved by helicopter and road, the Archer is readable and has some cross country mobility to compliment the M-777.

While Rocket artillery and GBAD/C-RAM systems are also important elements of the Artillery park. I would suggest they are more for the Reg Force than the Reserve.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 16, 2016, 18:16:53
Dragon Fire 2 would be a good system to have both towed, and LAV mounted. Buy the towed variations for the reserves, LAV mounted for reg force. Low cost, but still helps keep some of those skill from fading.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 18, 2016, 13:32:55
I would convert some Reserve units to towed 120mm, frees up more guns for the others, negotiate to buy some 105mm out of the South Korean stocks and rebuild to C3 standards. Also I was thinking a FOB that had mortars and a couple of light field guns could really reach out, particularly when you don't have space and resupply for the 155mm. It would not be hard to have a turntable for the C3, using the same mounting methods as the avalanche guns and portable turntable. Yea I know I am dreaming again.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on April 18, 2016, 13:57:26
Do you mean like the old 25 pdr?

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6059/6276107276_7f83306a2a_b.jpg)

I think I remember reading that it had its advantages but rather slowed the "scoot" when the platform had to be dug out of the mud.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: NFLD Sapper on April 18, 2016, 14:09:18
Do you mean like the old 25 pdr?

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6059/6276107276_7f83306a2a_b.jpg)

I think I remember reading that it had its advantages but rather slowed the "scoot" when the platform had to be dug out of the mud.


I guess the same can be said of the LG-1?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 18, 2016, 14:32:05
I was thinking more as an option for long term usage in one spot. The 105mm C3 is a heavier gun already than the 25pdr, so carting that around all the time will cause issues. It is a nice feature though.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on April 18, 2016, 15:37:49
I would convert some Reserve units to towed 120mm, frees up more guns for the others, negotiate to buy some 105mm out of the South Korean stocks and rebuild to C3 standards. Also I was thinking a FOB that had mortars and a couple of light field guns could really reach out, particularly when you don't have space and resupply for the 155mm. It would not be hard to have a turntable for the C3, using the same mounting methods as the avalanche guns and portable turntable. Yea I know I am dreaming again.

The British L118 has a turntable too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118_light_gun

29 Cdo enjoy man hauling the thing up into odd places from time to time:

BRITISH commandos have hauled a two-ton artillery gun up a 130ft cliff by hand to protect a vital strategic outpost in Afghanistan.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article158257.ece
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 18, 2016, 16:24:12
Where is  a will there is a way, the British have long history with "Pack artillery" http://www.victorianmilitarysociety.org.uk/reserach/2012-09-09-11-20-22/archive/27-mountain-gunners-a-brief-history-of-the-indian-mountain-artillery-1840-1914
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Cloud Cover on April 20, 2016, 18:14:37
The modernized version of the M119 with digital fire control systems is still in production at Rock Island. Really, this should be an easy decision if the only criteria was "replacement". But I am getting the sense that the army is looking at newer or different capabilities, and DND brain trust is likely asking why the guns or this component of the army reserve is needed at all, whether with guns, mortars or missiles.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: George Wallace on April 20, 2016, 18:20:02
The modernized version of the M119 with digital fire control systems is still in production at Rock Island. Really, this should be an easy decision if the only criteria was "replacement". But I am getting the sense that the army is looking at newer or different capabilities, and DND brain trust is likely asking why the guns or this component of the army reserve is needed at all, whether with guns, mortars or missiles.

When will they then make up their minds on "Pomp and Ceremony"?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: dapaterson on April 20, 2016, 18:32:24
Tragically, I think selling it on "gun salutes" instead of "indirect fire capability" could be a winner.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 20, 2016, 18:45:52
The modernized version of the M119 with digital fire control systems is still in production at Rock Island. Really, this should be an easy decision if the only criteria was "replacement". But I am getting the sense that the army is looking at newer or different capabilities, and DND brain trust is likely asking why the guns or this component of the army reserve is needed at all, whether with guns, mortars or missiles.

and where pray tell will they get guns and gunners from in a hurry when the crap hits the fan again in a conflict they never actually envisioned? Why also should someone join the Reserves if they don't get to do interesting non-civilian stuff? If you treat the Reserves purely as a holding cell for a warm body, you soon find the warm bodies have moved on. By all means convert some to 120mm mortars and also add AD and UAV troops. But they have known that the guns needed replacing 20 years ago, now somebody needs something "transformative" and that means you end up with nothing yet again.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GnyHwy on May 31, 2016, 18:58:19
Tragically, I think selling it on "gun salutes" instead of "indirect fire capability" could be a winner.

Sadly, there is some truth in this. Is a gun salute an actual task? There are plenty of people that would say yes. Perhaps when the C3 is truly retired (many years from now), we will keep a few around for this. Or maybe we should go truly classic and use a 25 pdr or 75mm?

C3 replacement is probably a bad title, since we are not likely to replace the C3. The C3 still has plenty of usage, transferable skills and is a low cost option for training. There are initiatives to keep this machine moving forward.

The M119, although capable, is not a realistic option and would only be another (expensive) band aid on top of the existing band aid. The GMS for the M119 could provide a smaller delta for training on the 777, but probably not worth the investment. From my POV, in the current situation, our Res F are tasked with augmenting Reg F, whether it be the 777, 81mm or other enablers, and the C3 and 81mm fulfil this adequately. That said, I am very confident our Res F could stand up a very effective C3 Bty in very short notice.

Long term for the Res F, 12O mm or 155 mm are where the growth potential is at. Whether or not we have the cash to do it is another question. Going ultra-light (<81 mm) or long range rockets is probably something best left for the Reg F.

Cheers,
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on June 29, 2016, 11:32:12
Meanwhile in India http://qz.com/717243/india-will-spend-750-million-on-artillery-guns-to-secure-its-border-with-china/
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 29, 2016, 11:36:15
I hope that defence budget number of  $620B number is a typo and not actually dollars.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on June 29, 2016, 11:46:17
could be a currency conversion oops
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: dapaterson on June 29, 2016, 11:53:40
That's for FY 14-22, a period of 8-9 years, as near as I can tell.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on June 29, 2016, 22:56:35
Easy to tell it's an American M777 gun Det and not a Canadian one in the pic; everyone has their PPE on
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on June 30, 2016, 11:23:02
This buy could drop the cost of the gun and lead to some improvements, might even spur us to pick up some more. A reserve 155mm battery at Shilo fed by gunners from across Canada for the summer?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 05, 2017, 11:21:12
Seems like the C3 is not going anywhere soon. Apparently we have 93 still in operation  https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-BM-036-26282
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Lightguns on April 05, 2017, 13:06:28
Get rid of them? They are the only gun that doesn't freeze solid in the winter time!
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 05, 2017, 15:51:50
Speaking of which I have heard that the LG-1 is a bit problematic, but have never heard what the issues were?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 05, 2017, 18:28:51
Speaking of which I have heard that the LG-1 is a bit problematic, but have never heard what the issues were?
Carriage is garbage and constantly needing maintenance

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 06, 2017, 13:22:47
Thanks, now as I understand it, SK has 1500 105mm in storage, buy 1-200 of them, refit some to C2 standard for training and update some to C3 for operational use.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on April 23, 2017, 01:06:57
Speaking of which I have heard that the LG-1 is a bit problematic, but have never heard what the issues were?

Design-wise the carriage is "garbage" because the wheels can only be lowered, and firing platform raised, as the trail legs are closed. This causes problems for bringing the gun out of action when spades on said trail legs are buried deep from firing, even more so when in spring thaw/freeze conditions.
There have been a number of reliability problems, first with cracking barrels, which was eventually fixed, but then more recently cracking breech rings (not fixed, far as I know). There have been other issues with a high failure rate of components. For example the original indirect fire sight was so bad it was replaced by the same panoramic telescope used on the C1/2 and C3, and the hydraulic pump for closing the trails is another sore point.

The gun does have some advantages though, its semi automatic breech can give it a high rate of fire, and is accurate due to a relatively stable platform.  It's also capable of firing long range ammunition, the High Explosive Extended Range round, although the HEER round causes considerable barrel wear

The gun at least still has an Original Equipment Manufacturer in existence to support it, something the C3 does not. The lack of an OEM for the C3 has presented problems for sustained use, and especially when something drastic happens, like a carriage snapping in two, or barrels cracking, trail legs warping, the list goes on

IIRC, in late 2010 or early 2011, the decision was made to make the LG1 a training only gun (so is the C3 BTW), and all the LG1 were pooled in the Atlantic area in order to support sustained training at the Artillery School. Part of the rationale was due to looming support problems for the C3 fleet (see above)

I doubt very much there's any impetus to replace them with anything, same goes for C3 (although binning the C3 and buying up a bunch of surplus M101 would be a good idea IMO)
 

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on April 23, 2017, 01:21:25
Imo a lot of problems could be solved i think if we built a workshop, and staffed it with a bunch of Mat techs, kitted out to mamufacture parts for us when our old kit cant be fixed from a supplier

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on April 23, 2017, 08:53:31
That's basically what was happening with the C3, only it was the Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquimalt that was doing the rebuilding and manufacture of parts for the C3, and although that works, to a degree, there remain some intellectual proprietary rights problems with the C3, which is mentioned in that LOI for C3 barrels. |
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 24, 2017, 11:19:48
It really grinds me when I hear "We can't maintain it any longer" It's 1940's tech, the real problem is that we won't maintain it or maintain the capacity to do so.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on May 05, 2017, 16:07:25
That capability should be replaced with something far more modern. While replacing every gun in the artillery park with a M-777 or maybe an "Archer" would be ideal, modern 120mm mortars have the range, weight of fire and even selections of "smart" and iron rounds which can provide all kinds of effects on the battlespace.

And of course weapons like DragonFire 2, AMOS or the Israeli "Spear" have much smaller manning and support requirements (often only needing a utility vehicle like a HMMVW to tow or carry it), making them ideal for Reserve artillery units which have limited manpower and resources anyway.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on January 11, 2018, 23:38:38
Another out of the box idea from Israel, a long rang loitering UAV. This has the attributes of an ATGM, but can have the range of up to 250km. so rather than replace or try to rebuild ancient artillery tubes, look out of the box. The USMC has a somewhat similar idea, although scaled down and designed to work as a "swarming munition (LOCUST), perhaps a split between singular non swarming weapons and swarming munitions would complicate the battlespace for potential enemies (and of course there are still the 155mm howitzers to deal with as well).

How we do artillery probably needs a huge rethink as the means of delivering fire evolve past "tubes". A mixed artillery park which can deliver a wide range of effects will allow the CF to operate in a much broader range of environments from "Near Peer" to COIN, and provide valuable tools to assist our allied partners (rather than being the poor relations who need to borrow everything from them).

https://uvisionuav.com/our-technology/

Quote
UVISION TECHNOLOGY

UVision’s HERO Family is an all-inclusive loitering munition solution designed to meet the complex requirements of the modern battlefield. Tailored to meet specific customer requirements, HERO incorporates a wide range of advanced, cost-effective technologies to enable high-precision terminal engagement with minimal collateral damage.

Suitable for deployment from air, land and sea, HERO features high-speed transit flight and low-speed loitering, depending on the tactical or strategic needs of the mission. Automated flight to target areas allow user-friendly control; final targets are visually selected ensuring full mission control. UVision’s solutions incorporate advanced airborne guidance, a unique cruciform configuration, navigation systems, abort and recovery capabilities, embedded simulators and C4 stations fully integrated with high-speed data links.

Unique cruciform configuration – improved endurance, lift and maneuverability ensuring high accuracy against static or moving targets.

Comprehensive operational range ‒ from 5km short-range tactical strikes to 250km long-range strategic operations

Multiple launcher options – compact pneumatic launcher with low thermal and acoustic signature, as well as rail or multi-tube canister launcher enabling several launches in quick succession

Stabilized EO/IR Seeker Payload – 3-axis gimballed day and night (thermal) cameras onboard and available for user choice of viewing mode

Triple Mode Fuse – A laser-based sensor operating a standalone range detector for proximity mode and additional point detonation and delay modes

Multipurpose munition– large warhead relative to air-vehicle size and effective against a wide variety of targets

Data link terminal – real-time intelligence and transmission of target image and surrounding area

Operator Control Unit (OCU) – intuitive, portable tablet for complete control of the exact time and direction of the attack

Advanced abort and recovery – Touch button mission: abort capability and automatic reentry into the loitering mode, target re-engagement or return to the recovery area using a parachute

Training and embedded simulator – virtual realistic environment for advanced operator training

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on January 02, 2019, 01:06:44
Another out of the box idea is the Chinese SH-5 105mm SP howitzer.

While I would not propose to buy from China, the vehicle itself is a fairly simple 6X6 chassis, and is really only the size of a large utility vehicle and its trailer (if you consider the rear part the "trailer" carrying the artillery ready rounds then you get a better idea of the size). Once again, this is potentially something we could build ourselves in Canada using Canadian industry. Once again this is something which is the sigh sort of size and "footprint" for a reserve unit. Other vehicles like a FOO/FAC, Artillery post CP and transport vehicles to carry extra ammunition cold also be built on that chassis as well.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_artillery_vehicles_and_weapon_systems_uk/sh5_wheeled_self-propelled_howitzer_105mm_technical_data_sheet_specifications_description_pictures.html

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 02, 2019, 01:15:54
Buy some of SK 105mm gun in their reserves, build a mount that drops into the rear bed of the current gun tractors. these are the short barrelled version , but they be perfect for training. In the meantime work on a deployable version with a longer barrel and semi-armoured truck. SK has already done this.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRaMiC6AjXo

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Infanteer on January 02, 2019, 01:28:49
What if I told you that AM General already did that.  ;)

http://www.amgeneral.com/our-products-and-services/hmmwv-hawkeye/

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 02, 2019, 01:39:19
I doubt we'll see anything bought for Primary Reserve (P Res) Arty units anytime soon, but it's a fair guess there might be a realignment of roles/tasks in the near future

My  :2c:
The P Res units in the Atlantic area will keep their LG1s so they can continue to support training at the Artillery School, and to be prepared to Force Generate (FG) individuals for tasks with Regular Force Artillery units in general
Units at saluting bases (Ottawa and Provincial capitals) will keep their C3's for that role, and to facilitate training that supports FG personnel for Reg Force Arty units (except for Charlottetown and St John's, who use LG1's)
Units at non- salute bases lose their C3's and are re-roled to mortars only, to support FG mortar Dets for Reg Force Infantry Battalions; this, in addition to the recent specialization tasks they've been given (which aren't arty specific). The C3's withdrawn from these units would provide more depth to sustain the fleet through cannibalization
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 02, 2019, 01:59:22
The "Fleet"? Yea more like the "mortal remains" of a once proud line of Howitzers  :'(

As for the rerole idea, an excellent way to ensure people don't bother sticking around or signing up. Mortars are nice, but a gun is just that much more of an attraction. Sort of like putting up a neon sign saying "The military is utterly incompetent in ensuring we have the equipment to do the job". I know people are trying to make lemonade, but it does it look good for anyone coming in when they ask: "So where are the artillery guns?".

towed 120mm would at least be a good argument.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on January 02, 2019, 12:50:09
What if I told you that AM General already did that.  ;)

http://www.amgeneral.com/our-products-and-services/hmmwv-hawkeye/

Definitely a role for something like that - 82nd Abn or 16 Air Aslt Bde.

But in Canada?  How many rounds down range before you have to replace the shocks/springs/axles/vehicles?  It seems to me that you would have the same problem as the old Pack Howitzer and LG1 had/have and they would need to be replaced on a regular and rapid schedule.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 02, 2019, 14:09:22
Definitely a role for something like that - 82nd Abn or 16 Air Aslt Bde.

But in Canada?  How many rounds down range before you have to replace the shocks/springs/axles/vehicles?  It seems to me that you would have the same problem as the old Pack Howitzer and LG1 had/have and they would need to be replaced on a regular and rapid schedule.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of SP guns but only if they are sufficiently armoured to increase surviveability and tracked to increase mobility.

I'm generally not a fan of these large calibre "technicals" for one simple reason: The automotive system is the weak link in the chain. Trucks fail--whether for engine issues or stress fractures in the chassis or hydraulics--at a much higher rate than the guns do. If the prime mover of a towed gun fails then one simply replaces it with an ammo tractor and carries on. If an SP truck fails then the gun is out of action for as long as it takes to repair the truck.

Call me a curmudgeon, if you will, but there are a lot of ways we can make our artillery more effective without using glorified pick-up trucks. For example there are several wheeled SP guns (Sweden's Archer and Serbia's Nora B-52) that provide autoloaders and armoured protection allowing for a much enhanced dispersed deployment system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_B-52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_B-52)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System)

What I'd really like to see the reserves get to replace at least half of the C3 batteries with rocket launchers like HIMARS - a battalion has three batteries with a total of 18 launchers plus various command and resupply vehicles. Conceivably one could allocate a two launcher troop to nine different units (add another 3-5 units for the headquarters battery) and pretty much re-assign many of our people to a useful role for a change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M142_HIMARS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M142_HIMARS)

Which would at least offer a new and useful capability to the CAF. They're pricey but also have a low cost, short range practice missile so that one can get in some live fire training.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 02, 2019, 15:36:39


What I'd really like to see the reserves get to replace at least half of the C3 batteries with rocket launchers like HIMARS - a battalion has three batteries with a total of 18 launchers plus various command and resupply vehicles. Conceivably one could allocate a two launcher troop to nine different units (add another 3-5 units for the headquarters battery) and pretty much re-assign many of our people to a useful role for a change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M142_HIMARS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M142_HIMARS)

Which would at least offer a new and useful capability to the CAF. They're pricey but also have a low cost, short range practice missile so that one can get in some live fire training.

 :cheers:

It just so happens, some of the HIMARS for the Long Range Precision Rocket project were supposed to go to a few Primary Reserve units (one in each Div IIRC), with the bulk of the systems going to 4 GSR in Gagetown. Near as I can remember, the thinking was 4 GSR did not have the pers numbers to cover off all the potential tasks (including emerging STA ones, as well as those related to air defence), so needed the additional depth to Force Generate from the Reserves.
I did the range study for this, including use in areas like Meaford and Valcartier; it was viable with a practise rocket ( the M28A1)
The project was put on hold some time ago though.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 02, 2019, 16:47:54
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of SP guns but only if they are sufficiently armoured to increase surviveability and tracked to increase mobility.

I'm generally not a fan of these large calibre "technicals" for one simple reason: The automotive system is the weak link in the chain. Trucks fail--whether for engine issues or stress fractures in the chassis or hydraulics--at a much higher rate than the guns do. If the prime mover of a towed gun fails then one simply replaces it with an ammo tractor and carries on. If an SP truck fails then the gun is out of action for as long as it takes to repair the truck.

Call me a curmudgeon, if you will, but there are a lot of ways we can make our artillery more effective without using glorified pick-up trucks. For example there are several wheeled SP guns (Sweden's Archer and Serbia's Nora B-52) that provide autoloaders and armoured protection allowing for a much enhanced dispersed deployment system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_B-52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nora_B-52)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_Artillery_System)

What I'd really like to see the reserves get to replace at least half of the C3 batteries with rocket launchers like HIMARS - a battalion has three batteries with a total of 18 launchers plus various command and resupply vehicles. Conceivably one could allocate a two launcher troop to nine different units (add another 3-5 units for the headquarters battery) and pretty much re-assign many of our people to a useful role for a change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M142_HIMARS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M142_HIMARS)

Which would at least offer a new and useful capability to the CAF. They're pricey but also have a low cost, short range practice missile so that one can get in some live fire training.

 :cheers:

Which is why i suggest a mount that fits into the truck rear bed. truck breaks down, yank the gun and put it into another truck. The legs and pedestals could look goofy but can be done. The problem of course for Canada, is if your truck breaks down, you don't have another truck.....

Perhaps a 4 wheel trailer the mount fits onto as a backup plan? Also the mount could be deposited at a FOB and the truck used for other tasks.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 03, 2019, 08:38:03
Or, form various committees, develop options, set up project offices, study, post new people in, study, post new people in........
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Loch Sloy! on January 03, 2019, 12:44:18
https://www.janes.com/article/85098/brazilian-army-looks-to-replace-its-105-mm-towed-howitzers

Quote
The Brazilian Army is looking to replace its inventory of 105 mm towed howitzers into a single line of BAE Systems M119 Light Gun 105 mm system, it recently told Jane's .

As part of the Field Artillery System subprogramme of the Army Strategic Program for 'Obtaining Full Operational Capacity', the effort is designed to restructure the field artillery portfolio and provide ground troops with adequate and precise firepower by 2031.

The service currently fields 134 M101s, 67 M101A1s, 60 M56s, and 40 L118 Light Gun howitzers. By fielding a single system, the service is looking to improve training, operation, and logistics, while also providing enhanced mobility and firepower to the service's field artillery units.

The M119 is a 30-calibre lightweight howitzer featuring L20A1 ordnance. It can be towed by a truck or carried as a helicopter underslung load. It fires standard NATO 105 mm ammunition and includes provision to incorporate digital and automated fire control systems, muzzle velocity radar, sight, and a compact electro-optical sensor.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 03, 2019, 18:37:50
If we were smart, we would equip the Reserves with M119, this would make them an excellent training tool for Reserve gunners as it uses the same fire control as the reg force M777. In fact the School could also use them for the basic gunnery course. We are sadly not smart.

From Wiki
L119
The L119 variant has a different barrel (a slightly shorter L20 ordnance with a percussion firing mechanism) for firing the ubiquitous US M1 type ammunition (UK 105 mm How), giving the gun a max range of 11,400 metres (12,500 yd).[7] In British service, the L119 was used only for training at the Royal School of Artillery while stocks of 105 mm How lasted, and the last British L119s were retired in 2005. However, the L119 is popular with many export customers who still rely on M1 ammunition.

M119
Main article: M119 howitzer
The L119 was further modified and produced under licence for the United States Army. The most recent version is the M119A3 introduced in 2013 with a digital fire-control system and GPS-aided inertial navigation unit using software derived from the M777A2.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2019, 13:04:01
This M119 would be one of several options if Canada actually had a plan to make use of the reserves as an expansion of our combat capability rather than as mere "hole-fillers" in existing regular force units. It doesn't. The mere fact that the fire control system would ensure our reservists are more capable of transitioning to M777's isn't enough to justify the cost for our bean counters.

We have for many decades now spent untold wealth in building a vast bureaucracy to merely administer ourselves rather than building a more lethal force. I don't see that changing. I hope we never have a need to use the little that we have in earnest against the more capable enemies that we have already identified.  :brickwall:

 :cheers:

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GnyHwy on January 04, 2019, 17:32:51
Not sure if 119 shrinks the training gap to 777. The common ground is (as you say) FCS, but that essentially boils down to the user interface and software/firmware. If we did get the 119, we would probably get and develop our own FCS (similar to 777). Even with our C3 and LG1s, you can train this by running an ethernet cable CP to gun and use the current software. This is pretty much the minimum standard at RCAS currently. I believe 84th, 1Fd and 3Fd have done it also. If the situation permits, adding ethernet could be seen as simply improving your position.

As blasphemous as it may sound coming from an Arty guy, I lean toward the 120, mostly because of growth potential in armour protection and ammo. 
 

 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2019, 18:41:48
I'm working a bit off what Colin P said about the similarity of the M777 and M119 fire control systems and also, perhaps much more so, the fact that at present there are no roles for deploying C3s in any shape or form.

The M119 currently forms the backbone of the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams in the US Army (both Active and National Guard) which shows that it's a war-ready gun used by our closest ally. Here's an interesting article that discusses the upgunning of the 1-160th FA which is part of the 45th IBCT which is a Oklahoma National Guard formation.

https://www.dvidshub.net/news/294685/160th-field-artillery-live-fire-new-artillery-systems (https://www.dvidshub.net/news/294685/160th-field-artillery-live-fire-new-artillery-systems)

In short the 1-160th which previously had 3 x 105mm M119A2 batteries will now have 2 x M119A3 batteries and 1 x M777A2 battery which essentially use much of the same fire control systems. You might recall that back in the days of the large artillery, our regiments all had 3 x 105mm batteries and 1 x 155mm battery. We got rid of that structure when we changed to M109 medium equipped regiments and L5 light equipped regiments. The theory, however, of mixing shorter range, faster rate of fire guns with longer range, slower rate of fire guns to better cover a brigades frontage and depth is still valid.

Right now, no one in their right mind would augment a regular force M777 regiment with C3s to increase the number of batteries. We'd either go short guns or steal additional batteries from another non deploying regular force regiment.

If, however, our reserves had L119A3s which had compatible fire control systems to their bigger brothers, we could easily consider augmenting a deploying regular force M777 regiment with several M119 batteries manned primarily by reservists who already knew how to employ that weapon (and would additionally also be easier to convert "hole fillers" in the M777 batteries). (and yes I do know that American Stryker BCT's are equipped solely with M777s but then SBCTs aren't shackled with the burden of having one of their battalions as being a non LAV equipped light one nor of having no mobile gun systems nor 120mm mortars like our Regular Force brigade groups are - we seem to do everything on the cheap with no practical/tactical reason for doing so - adding a battery or two of reserve manned M119s would be highly advisable)

My biggest complaint about how Canada uses reservists has to do with the "hole filler" concept. I'm a strong advocate of providing reservists with both the equipment and a role to ensure that our Army has a greater capability than just what is present in our regular force formations and units. I'm a strong advocate of Mattis's view that the Army (albeit the US Army) needs to have more lethality at a more affordable price. Giving reservists guns that they can go to war with does both.

 :worms:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 04, 2019, 20:06:47
There are reasons why, at present, it is not very practical for Primary Reserves to essentially mobilize entire sub-units for deployment, right now even being tasked to force generate individuals can be a hit or miss affair. Even so, each Reg Force Regt 2nd gun Bty is supposed to be filled largely by Reservists, as needed. The ability, and frequency, that can happen I think certainly varies. I certainly agree with you that there is clear benefit to the Reserves training on equipment that minimizes the work up time if they go with a deploying unit. Some efforts were considered to mitigate this, then abandoned, and there is a history of improvising solutions that seems to result in some considering it a low priority to replace or improve the Reserves equipment situation.

Incidentally, as the Afghanistan missions began to increase in scope, the army found itself in a quandary in regards to artillery training. Short shortsightedly all the M109's have been withdrawn without replacement, the LG1s were limited in training value due to barrel cracking, and there were only 2 M777 for training at the start. So Batteries going into high readiness training ended up using the C3 for the bulk of the training, getting minimal exposure to all the bells and whistles of the M777 before going over seas. It took awhile for the powers that be to finally bend enough to get more M777, and that happened only incrementally, but rightly or wrongly it also led to the M777 being the in service gun for the Regular Force. No wonder the deployed gunners were found frequently at fault for mistakes with the gun; they were quite often learning its quirks in battle as opposed to the training area
 
In so far as the equipment goes now, I'd say there are so many competing needs for the limited funding, especially that for sustaining equipment and ammo, that I'd say it's unlikely we'll see anything replacing the C3 soon; my guess is it's not seen as a priority

Yet another short lived project I was PD for was called Light Indirect Fire Digitization. The intent was to put something like the LINAPS, the digital gun aiming system used on the M777 and the M119, onto the LG1's and possibly the C3's as well. The LG1's were the priority because they are the main guns used for training in Gagetown, and there is a (very) remote possibility they could be operationally deployed again. One of the other features of the project was to have tablets in the CP and on the gun line to send and receive fire orders, that way the pattern of activity would be similar to that of an M777 unit using DGMS. The tablets would work off of a contracted civilian service provider's network, with control measures to prohibit "bad" internet surfing, but still able to receive things like Met messages, tgt lists etc. Unfortunately, like so many things artillery-wise, it was deemed not a priority and cancelled.
 
Some local efforts have been going on now for the past few years to deal with such shortcomings. I know 2 RCHA has been particularly pro-active in getting reservists on M777 training, and some on STA courses as well, all of which helps minimize that training delta you're talking about
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 04, 2019, 21:15:39
There are reasons why, at present, it is not very practical for Primary Reserves to essentially mobilize entire sub-units for deployment, right now even being tasked to force generate individuals can be a hit or miss affair. . . .

This is entirely a long standing internal problem. The law provides for compulsorily calling reserve individuals or subunits or units to active service. We do not use it because we have systematically destroyed the reserve's ability to train or deploy in any reasonable fashion. It's essentially a self-inflicted wound

. . . Short shortsightedly all the M109's have been withdrawn without replacement, the LG1s were limited in training value due to barrel cracking, and there were only 2 M777 for training at the start. . . .

Shortsighted indeed. In any civilian industry the people responsible would have been fired.


In so far as the equipment goes now, I'd say there are so many competing needs for the limited funding, especially that for sustaining equipment and ammo, that I'd say it's unlikely we'll see anything replacing the C3 soon; my guess is it's not seen as a priority

I agree that it is not seen as a priority. Some day in the future we will also be able to say that this was shortsighted.

Yet another short lived project I was PD for was called Light Indirect Fire Digitization . . . . Unfortunately, like so many things artillery-wise, it was deemed not a priority and cancelled.

We have a 25 billion dollar budget slated to rise into the 30 billion range. Our priorities are cr@p. Look at the other threads here to see what essential equipment and skills we have abandoned or set aside because of lack of funding. Where is all the money going? (don't bother answering; it's a rhetorical question.)


Some local efforts have been going on now for the past few years to deal with such shortcomings. I know 2 RCHA has been particularly pro-active in getting reservists on M777 training, and some on STA courses as well, all of which helps minimize that training delta you're talking about

I appreciate the local efforts. Back in the 1970s when I came from 3 RCHA to 2 RCHA it was quite obvious that 2 RCHA had a much better plan and system for developing the then Central Militai Area artillery units. I'm very glad to see they still have their hand in it.

Don't get me wrong Petard. It's not that I don't understand some of the problems that are there. It's much easier to sit on the outside and criticize but, quite frankly, the shortcomings that I see are ones that have to be laid at the feet of our senior leadership. When I spent my time on the Chief of Reserves and Cadets Council I tried numerous times to push towards a reserve restructure that provided for a more effective reserve that the Army could count on. It's not that I lost the debate, the matter was never seriously debated because of the excuse that "the grownups" would never go for that. Funny thing was at the time I thought I was sitting at the grownups table.

I know that we are our worst enemy. I don't blame the government. It doesn't know any better. Our senior leaders, however, have been misspending the defence budget for many decades. That's why we have a reserve force of 20,000 some odd people who, as a collective entity, are as useless as t***s on a boar; because we made them that way.

That's why I can't stop myself from continuously criticising what so obviously is a negligent way of running an Armed Forces. If I could figure out a way to lay a s 124 charge against every member of the Armed Forces council I would love to do so. The particulars would read: In that he/she on every day of the year at Ottawa, Ontario while acting as Chief of the Defence Staff (or as the case may be) failed to ensure, as it was his duty to do, that the Canadian Armed Forces was properly manned, equipped and trained to be an effective fighting force.  ;D

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: jeffb on January 05, 2019, 02:07:40
Some local efforts have been going on now for the past few years to deal with such shortcomings. I know 2 RCHA has been particularly pro-active in getting reservists on M777 training, and some on STA courses as well, all of which helps minimize that training delta you're talking about

2 RCHA is fairly well positioned to do this. There are 6 PRes units within a days travel. 42 Field and 30 Field are regularly in the Petawawa training area anyways. Luckily, 7 Tor as one of the STA tasks and it's just a matter of TD to put 2 instructors in a vehicle with a LCMR for a few days in Toronto (not a bad day go either). As for Guelph and Brantford, they are close enough to be able to run courses with each other. 49 Fd is somewhat on their own geographically.

I'm not sure it's fully appreciated what a tremendous effort is required though to export courses. There are only so many Det Comds in a Regt of 8 guns so taking 2 or 3 of them to Guelph is just one more task to add to the task list. 2 RCHA gets his will all the generic Sgt/MBdr tasks that everyone else does, has to conduct its own training, support collective training and run PCF. It's frankly amazing that 2 RCHA has been able to run ANY courses for the PRes in the last few years and speaks to the impact that Command can have on supporting these sort of events. That being said, I think that the best example that I saw in 8 years at 2 RCHA of PRes integration was on Ex Stalwart Guardian 15. 2 x firing units formed from the 6 x Ontario Fd Regts supported by 2 RCHA STA and a full deployed C/S 8 right in the tactical environment. 2 RCHA provided 0/95 as well. The perfect scenario in my mind would have been to grab 30 or so gunners from Meaford a few weeks earlier and run them through M777 conversion or LCMR depending on their stream to be confirmed on Ex SG.

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: CBH99 on January 05, 2019, 06:58:52
The issue of funding has been mentioned a few times above.

It's been my understanding that each year, the CF/DND has to return a good chunk of money to Treasury Board that hasn't been spent.


I understand there are rules/regulations regarding the spending of money, the need for running competitions to procure equipment, etc etc.  However, I do not understand how some of these things can be 'funding related' when we are returning funds each year?  (Slightly off thread, I know.  Just curious about it pertains to this particular issue, sorry.)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Rifleman62 on January 05, 2019, 08:55:34
FJAG:
Quote
We have for many decades now spent untold wealth in building a vast bureaucracy to merely administer ourselves rather than building a more lethal force. I don't see that changing.


Or, as David Stirling, quoted in Rogue Heroes, stated " layer upon layer of fossilized sh-t"
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on January 05, 2019, 09:35:34
I believe Retired General Rick Hillier put it best in my opinion calling it a self licking ice cream cone.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 05, 2019, 15:42:05
I believe Retired General Rick Hillier put it best in my opinion calling it a self licking ice cream cone.

I believe that your tag line:

Quote
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

sums up the whole sorry mess perfectly.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 05, 2019, 17:14:45
The issue of funding has been mentioned a few times above.

It's been my understanding that each year, the CF/DND has to return a good chunk of money to Treasury Board that hasn't been spent.


I understand there are rules/regulations regarding the spending of money, the need for running competitions to procure equipment, etc etc.  However, I do not understand how some of these things can be 'funding related' when we are returning funds each year?  (Slightly off thread, I know.  Just curious about it pertains to this particular issue, sorry.)

Considering this thread is about replacing the C3, that's not really off topic. I don't know what background you might have about this, so I'll pitch this in kind of a crude way that hopefully doesn't sound condescending

I suppose what it comes down to is whether or not the C3 is meeting the need or not, the short answer is it does, but with risk. Despite that, I think the C3 should have a digital aiming system added, and a 120mm mortar system procured for the majority of Reserve Artillery units

There are essentially two types of funding related to this, one is for capitol expenditures (to actually buy something), and the other to sustain it (the overhead and maintenance costs, that also includes wages, ammunition etc). The subject of how convoluted and byzantine the military procurement system is, is discussed at length elsewhere on this site, but as it relates to this subject the funds you're talking about getting returned are largely (but not entirely) those identified for capitol expenditures for one reason or another (project delays, change of scope..the list is long). Far as I know, a case hasn't even been made to replace the C3 anytime soon. I believe one should be made, and it deserves to have a higher priority; it relates to the risk of using such an old gun. Another reason is to address some of the issues FJAG is getting at, albeit in a limited way

Right now the need appears to be met, since the purpose is to provide minimal training to Primary Reservists who might later go on task with a Regular Force artillery unit. The idea is that Reservists would show up with a deploying unit with at least some basic skills, and this would minimize the duration to get them fully trained for deployment. It is a cost saving measure; rather than keep Reg Force units fully manned, and the associated costs especially wages for that, gaps or holes are left that are to be filled by reservists as needed. 

Reg Force Artillery Regt's have two gun batteries, with three troops in each battery, the third troop is supposed to be largely covered off by Reservists. In theory, if a Reg Force Regt had to deploy a gun Bty, for the first roto the third troop would most likely come from the 2nd Gun Bty's Reg Force personnel. Reserve units would then be tasked to find volunteers to flesh out the second gun battery for subsequent roto's.

There is a valid point being made here, that the skill those Reservists are showing up with is too limited. More to the point, in a worst case scenario where there are significant losses experienced overseas, there's no real depth to the Reserves to quickly be mobilized, with relevant equipment to fill in. I would say the reason this isn't addressed in regards to equipping the reserves for operational deployment, largely goes to the limited risk and size of deployments our government tends to accept. It is also a cost saving measure. Consequently the role seen for the Reserves remains limited to only filling in spots in one of those gun Troops on an individual basis, rather than a Reserve unit stand up say an entire Troop itself with its own equipment and deploy (which by the way many other nations do operate that way)

Reserve units are hamstrung by the number of days their personnel can parade, and adding additional training, say to learn how to operate a digital gun aiming system, can exceed the time given right now to pay reservists. I think the problem could be addressed by cyclic training, that is one year you start with the basics, the subsequent year the more advance training with say the digital stuff. For now it appears the pattern will be to limit training to IBTS (basic soldier skills), and very limited basic trade training.

So with such a limited requirement, to permit basic artillery training, it looks like the C3 gets the job done, and it doesn't cost much to sustain. Where the risk is, is that with such an old gun if a significant problem occurs then even the basic training is next to impossible to achieve.

In the spring of 2011, a W Bty C3 in Gagetown literally snapped in two, and nobody knew why. About the same time, significant corrosion issues were identified in the trail legs of some guns. All training with the gun had to stop, and at the time not all Reserve units had mortars to fall back on. For a short while it did look like a capitol project would be needed to replace the C3. The cause of the gun snapping in two was resolved, and so was the matter of corrosion. Some consideration was given to continue with a project to replace the C3, but it would take time to get going, as a stop gap measure all reserve units were given 81mm mortars.

As time went on it seemed like the need wasn't that urgent, and I'm not sure what the timeline is to replace the C3 is. but I would hazard a guess it is more than decade away because it appears everything is ok to some. I would argue things have changed to the point that thinking should be challenged

Mortars are going back to infantry units, and I think that's a good thing, but that now means we're back to the risk of no back up if the whole C3 fleet is grounded again. The more recent problem is C3 barrel cracking near the muzzle, and I don't know if they've solved it. Oddly enough the problem could be easily solved by replacing the barrels used on the M119, but I'm not involved with that kind of thing anymore so I don't know if it's being pursued or not. I think they should mount the M119's ordnance on the C3 carriage, and the LINAPS used on the M777. The training time that used to be given for the mortar in Reserve units could be used towards learning how to use digital gun aiming. The occupation drills alone are so significantly different, that it really should be part of basic training, and the old optic sight method only retained for emergency all fails purposes.

Better yet, I wish we'd see Reserve artillery units not at a saluting base (Ottawa and provincial capitals), get towed 120mm mortars with digital aiming systems. Their back up would be 81mm mortars. These units would be tasked to Force Generate individuals, and if need be complete Troops, to Reg Force infantry Battalions. The C3's withdrawn from those units equipped with 120 mortars can be used to sustain the remaining C3's. Replace the C3 barrels with those from the M119 for the units at the saluting bases, fit them with LINAPS, and they would be the ones tasked to Force generate individuals to the Reg Force gun troops. They would then show up with more relavent skills, and the army would have more depth to deal with the unknowns especially for the PBI

But if wished were horses..

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 05, 2019, 19:50:20
There are a lot of truth in much of what you say. Quite frankly I can't argue with the truth of those things, I can only argue that I wish they weren't true. Let me touch on a couple of things you mention.

Reserve units are hamstrung by the number of days their personnel can parade, and adding additional training, say to learn how to operate a digital gun aiming system, can exceed the time given right now to pay reservists. I think the problem could be addressed by cyclic training, that is one year you start with the basics, the subsequent year the more advance training with say the digital stuff. For now it appears the pattern will be to limit training to IBTS (basic soldier skills), and very limited basic trade training.

It's true that budgets are limited but that doesn't mean units can't use our budgets better or more selectively. I spent two years in RSS and can attest to the fact that a good 1/3 of our budget was blown on useless activities. Just as an example, a half day training is anything under six hours. Weekday sessions are usually three hours but usually only about two spent training actively. That's wasted money. Weekends are much more productive and we should end mid week parading completely.

The youngsters reaching us as recruits these days live in a digital world. Learning to use digital equipment is not that difficult for them if taught right.

The big issue that I have, however, is cyclical training as you propose. I fully agree with cyclical training for team skills. Learn to be a troop one year, a battery the next. For individual training, however, we should condense all the skills to be a gun number into one phase so that all gun numbers are trained to service the piece fully from square one.

I do note that in the US artillery these days the MOS 13B teaches the soldier as a crewmember with all skills except the digital data system whereas the operation of the automated data systems are specialists designated MOS 13D. This is similar to the US Infantry's division of infantryman and mortarman as two separate MOSs. Maybe that could be the idea; divide your recruit intake class into two groups train 3 out of 4 recruits as crewmembers and 1 out of 4 as digital specialists. I'm not too fond of this for the obvious battle casualty reasons.

As time went on it seemed like the need wasn't that urgent, and I'm not sure what the timeline is to replace the C3 is. but I would hazard a guess it is more than decade away because it appears everything is ok to some. I would argue things have changed to the point that thinking should be challenged

This, unfortunately, is typical of our leadership; to think reactively rather than proactively. We wait until the problem gob-smacks us. We really do need to get ahead of the curve and decide how to make our force more lethal and then move in that direction by deciding what weapons we need and how to properly train our people on it.

Mortars are going back to infantry units, and I think that's a good thing, but that now means we're back to the risk of no back up if the whole C3 fleet is grounded again. The more recent problem is C3 barrel cracking near the muzzle, and I don't know if they've solved it. Oddly enough the problem could be easily solved by replacing the barrels used on the M119, but I'm not involved with that kind of thing anymore so I don't know if it's being pursued or not. I think they should mount the M119's ordnance on the C3 carriage, and the LINAPS used on the M777. The training time that used to be given for the mortar in Reserve units could be used towards learning how to use digital gun aiming. The occupation drills alone are so significantly different, that it really should be part of basic training, and the old optic sight method only retained for emergency all fails purposes.

We should not try McGyver a roughly seventy-five year-old weapon system. (that's right, the first M1 variant was developed at Rock Island in the early 1920s and was fielded as the redesignated M2 in 1934 and entered service as the M2A1 in 1940)

Better yet, I wish we'd see Reserve artillery units not at a saluting base (Ottawa and provincial capitals), get towed 120mm mortars with digital aiming systems. Their back up would be 81mm mortars. These units would be tasked to Force Generate individuals, and if need be complete Troops, to Reg Force infantry Battalions. The C3's withdrawn from those units equipped with 120 mortars can be used to sustain the remaining C3's. Replace the C3 barrels with those from the M119 for the units at the saluting bases, fit them with LINAPS, and they would be the ones tasked to Force generate individuals to the Reg Force gun troops. They would then show up with more relavent skills, and the army would have more depth to deal with the unknowns especially for the PBI

Sorry. I'm dead against 120mm mortars (especially with 81mm backups) It's not that I don't think we should have 120s (I do think we should) nor that I think that mortars are somehow beneath the artillery (they aren't - Russians who in my view are the unrivalled experts in artillery have 120mm as an artillery weapon system)

My reasoning is that we have already emasculated the regular force artillery by limiting how few firing units we have. Before we start handing 120s to reserve gunner units we should first ensure that there are sufficient reservists allocated and trained to fully man properly organized reg force regiments (and 2 batteries of six guns is NOT enough for a three manoeuvre battalion brigade) and that we provide a proper long range artillery capability with rockets.

I saw the artillery locating and missile skills disappear in the 1960s. If we continue to have gunners man what are basically battalion weapons we will never achieve the firepower we need on the battlefield. By all means buy 120s for the infantry but not the artillery. We'll never get the skills back.

More to the point, in a worst case scenario where there are significant losses experienced overseas, there's no real depth to the Reserves to quickly be mobilized, with relevant equipment to fill in. I would say the reason this isn't addressed in regards to equipping the reserves for operational deployment, largely goes to the limited risk and size of deployments our government tends to accept.

I've moved this comment out of order and saved it for last because I think that while the statement is mostly true it's the crux of our problem as a force. I've said this before and believe it to be the God's honest truth. It's not the politicians that are behind our low risk limited operational deployments, it's our military leadership who is telling them that is all we are capable of doing.

Look at Strong, Secure and Engaged. While it recognizes the fact that Russia and China are our biggest potential "near peer" enemies (and "near peer" gives us much more credibility and lethality than we deserve) it nonetheless envisions missions which in essence are a single battle group in size. Yet we maintain a regular force army of three mechanized brigades, a half a$$ed Combat Support Brigade and a divisional headquarters which is tasked to generate nothing more than two battle groups simultaneously.

That is fundamentally ridiculous. I see nothing wrong with the idea of having a mission to supply such limited forces from time to time as may be needed, but if we identify two major and sophisticated enemies as our biggest threat then surely to God we should have an ultimate role to generate the full force and have a capability to support it and replace battle casualties. If all we're prepared to send is a battle group or two then why have 22,000 regulars and 20,000 reservists in the first place? The government has allocated the manpower and enough serious equipment to field a division (although some essential pieces are missing). It's the military's job to make it a viable fighting force. We are failing our government every day.

 :cheers:




Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: dapaterson on January 05, 2019, 20:22:49
Canada's problems lie in both personnel and equipment.  We lack modern equipment for more than a reinforced battlegroup.

Thus, any solution space requires equipment for training, equipment for operations, and soldiers to train and operate them.

My 30 second assessment:

1. The Army needs an inexpensive indirect fire platform that is common to both components that can be used both for training and deployed - a towed 105mm meets that need;
2. That platform needs to be integrated into the fire control system so there is common training on necessary supporting tools;
3. The Army Reserve needs to revisit its structures and construct viable units, even if that means a loss of command positions (this is not a problem unique to the Artillery).  This may also mean a need to invest more Regular Force positions into units to enable an increased force output - whether at the individual, sub-sub or sub-unit or unit level;
4. Long, hard thought is needed to decide what is wanted out of a part-time force, and what level of time and commitment is viable to require; and
5. A commitment to modernizing indirect fire in the CAF (regardless of component) is needed - now.  With the current fleet of 105mm guns nearing collapse, and the 155mm fleet being well below the critical size to sustain anything beyond two batteries deployed, there needs to be a dedicated effort to modernize and expand the Army's capabilities (HIMARS anybody?)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FormerHorseGuard on January 05, 2019, 21:57:45
I spoke with a now retired RSM about the lack of replacement parts and spare parts for the C3 105mm gun.
I did not understand everything he told me but here was the basics of the conversation

I said to him with life span of the 105mm running out and lack of spare guns  I thought the Res units who did the salutes and other special events would end up with the best of the guns available, so they could retain the taskings and the skill sets to do those events as required. Meaning 7 Toronto and 30 RCA would get the guns in Ontario. Everyone else would be doing dry training and very little live fires to extend gun life. That was my opinion.

He replied in a typical  RSM  fashion and a quick education and lesson on the guns and replacement programs.

Another country ( not naming it, it was from  South America) was going thru the process of  manufacturing a new version of the 105mm , very close if not exact copy of the C3 used by the Canadian Forces. He said there was talk at higher levels of command about purchasing some guns from that country's manufacturer but then the Treasury Board and others got involved,  no Canadian content,  no deal would be made.

just a chat over a drink in the mess.
just some thoughts and opinions

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 05, 2019, 22:21:37
We used to parade 1.5 days a week plus a variety of exercises and a gun camp. The evening parade was mostly administrative with some training. The full days were normally devoted to training course, such as gunnery, sigs, tech and drivers. We were supported by generally excellent RSS staff (1 officer, 1 WO and one M/BDR) and about 3 Class B (office staff, vehicle tech and QM). This ensured a lot of the admin tasks were done, kit was procured, repaired and readied for the Saturday courses or exercises. I remember on Class B, exercising the recoil systems of the C2's as per the manual with the supplied kit on a regular basis.

Somehow we managed to maintain a 6 gun battery, tractors, 2x ammo trucks, 2x CP's, 2x FOO parties, Flying kitchen, ambulance, REME truck. (We did a lot of our own vehicle repairs as well). 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: quadrapiper on January 06, 2019, 01:35:17
(We did a lot of our own vehicle repairs as well).
Wonder, on a tangent, if the loss of that sort of low-level "real" activity might have something to do with retention issues?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 06, 2019, 13:37:01
There was real satisfaction in resolving issues and we kept our 3 tonner stake truck running for several more years, when the powers above us would have taken her away and not replaced her. Considering we used the Stake truck for administrative truck every week instead of driving the Deuces, getting rid of it and wearing out the hard to replace trucks just shows the stupidity that went on. In general there was a lot of "ownership" of kit and responsibility to maintain it. The various local units QM's and RSS staff helped each other out and loaned equipment, on the expectation that it was taken care of. The steady reduction in vehicles and kit really hurt, basically ever new vehicle was issued on a scale of 3 or 2 old for 1 new. So vehicle wear goes up, there is no slack for making sure you have enough working vehicles, no ability to support other units on a combined exercise.

The only plan is that there is no plan, it's all reaction and bandaid applying.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 06, 2019, 17:00:51
I spoke with a now retired RSM about the lack of replacement parts and spare parts for the C3 105mm gun.
I did not understand everything he told me but here was the basics of the conversation

He replied in a typical  RSM  fashion and a quick education and lesson on the guns and replacement programs.

Another country ( not naming it, it was from  South America) was going thru the process of  manufacturing a new version of the 105mm , very close if not exact copy of the C3 used by the Canadian Forces. He said there was talk at higher levels of command about purchasing some guns from that country's manufacturer but then the Treasury Board and others got involved,  no Canadian content,  no deal would be made.

just a chat over a drink in the mess.
just some thoughts and opinions

The gun he was probably talking about is the Chilean version of the C3, which they call the M101/33. It might have been an option awhile ago, but I think they've done away with them a few years ago. I don't think the Canadian content was the main factor it was avoided, more likely it was that no one saw the urgency of the need anymore. Besides which, there are other options besides more of the same, which I suppose is what this thread is supposed to be about

Something to keep in mind too, is that Reg Force Arty Regt's now have to cover off a considerable number of STA tasks, certainly more than they did pre-Afghanistan, but with no increase in personnel. So it does make sense to have a viable plan for Reservists to fill in the gaps in the gun Bty's. As has been mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a plan to do that, other than the catch as catch can one 2 RCHA has improvised

Perhaps it's worth looking at a 10/90 type of solution again, and posting the personnel that are supposed to be in the leadership positions of the hollow gun Troops in each Reg Force Regt, to the Primary Reserve units that are supposed to FG the remainder. When it comes time to support their nearest Reg Force Regt those Reg Force members and Reservists stand up the Troop as a whole from that region (much as JeffB seen during the collective training event in 2015). I know from my experience with it the early 90's the results, especially in turn out/availability of Class A pers, was impressive.  The example of the arty units in 31 and 32 Bde forming a Bty, and 33 Bde for the other one, and actually deploy with 2 RCHA for 2 weeks, I think is a good start point (4 Div and Army G3 should try to nudge 2 RCHA's training schedule a bit to line up better with end of RST to support this), but I'm talking more along the lines of being more involved with work up training, including Maple Resolve type Ex's and actually deploying as well, as formed Troops from a given region.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: jeffb on January 08, 2019, 01:45:57
It would be hard to nudge 2 RCHA's training schedule much. July and August are spent supporting national tasks and leave. The first two weeks are a write off for collective training with support to Ex Collaborative Spirit, Terry Fox Run and Ironwarrior (Ironman). There's a right shoulder as well of supporting RCR and RCD exercises. Therefore, there's really only a 2-3 week period at the end of September to Thanksgiving where 2 RCHA can run Regimental training. Batteries need some time shakeout at well. After APS, that usually means that Bty training events are running in August and around the other events in September.

It all comes down to priorities and where you accept risk. I for one would not want to accept risk supporting live fire CT with maneuver arms in late Oct/Nov over PRes artillery training. I'd argue that a better time if someone is looking to carve out some ammo and resources would be at the start of the fiscal year in that period just after University exams finish. It would exactly be progressive from RST but it could serve as the PRes final CT event. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 08, 2019, 03:03:37
I'd argue that a better time if someone is looking to carve out some ammo and resources would be at the start of the fiscal year in that period just after University exams finish. It would exactly be progressive from RST but it could serve as the PRes final CT event.

The whole Army should do that.  Perfect timing. :nod:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 08, 2019, 04:46:46
It would be hard to nudge 2 RCHA's training schedule much. July and August are spent supporting national tasks and leave.
It all comes down to priorities and where you accept risk. I for one would not want to accept risk supporting live fire CT with maneuver arms in late Oct/Nov over PRes artillery training. I'd argue that a better time if someone is looking to carve out some ammo and resources would be at the start of the fiscal year in that period just after University exams finish. It would exactly be progressive from RST but it could serve as the PRes final CT event.


April might be a bit too soon, IIRC, I think mid May at the earliest is about when most of the P Res Bde's are typically ready for a CT event (but transition to RST instead)

The RST training cycle could probably start about mid June, then ending just before labour day, without a CT event at the end of the summer, which would be a good thing IMO. First it would line up better with the PLQ courses, and more importantly it address a deficiency in essential P Res Arty training. The way it stands right now, almost all of the local defence training has been made supplemental, so isn't covered during RST.  DP 1s don't get trained on any support weapons other than C9 (not even C6 or hand grenades, never mind anti-armour), and the DP 2 Det 2 IC and the DP 3 Det Comd courses don't really cover local defence either. So by allowing them to to return to unit and develop those skills, as well as the normal progressive BTS training, possibly doing training with their nearest Reg Force Regt as well, it'll allow them to confirm it hopefully with live fire during a major CT event in May (prior to the long weekend).

I'm not sure why this hasn't been attempted, since over the past few years there have been some bizarre CT event dates, I think in 2017 some Bde's even had their own dates separate from the others, right in the middle of RST. The only push back I can remember from when it was suggested before, is because of the availability of those attending high school
 FWIW, I agree, it should be tried, better yet with digitized guns in the P Res.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 08, 2019, 11:38:06
The Reserves schedules are locked into the civilian world and it's just a reality that's not going to change. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: jeffb on January 08, 2019, 18:44:19
The Reserves schedules are locked into the civilian world and it's just a reality that's not going to change.

Tracking and I totally get it. And thus we come back full circle to the problem of what exactly is the role of the PRes? Is it there primarily for individual augmentation on deployments, DomOps and to provide a presence across Canada or is it there to force generate sub or sub-sub units (or higher)? If the answer is that it is the first than having a mechanism such as Op REINFORCEMENT that 4 Div had going on a few years ago (Class B funding for PRes individual augmentation of Reg Force units during CT events) is likely the way to go in my view. That way, individuals are able to slot into Reg Force training events as it suits their personal lives while getting literally the same training as their Reg Force counterparts instead of some sort of half-baked Level 5 training. I'm a firm believer that that solution was on the right path but that it needed to be extended slightly to allow PRes members who were slotted to attend CT events (Unit Level up to MAPLE RESOLVE) to arrive a few weeks before said event to participate in the garrison work-up training, IBTS, etc. If institutionalized then it could become just another step within a unit's/Bde's Battle Procedure that PRes augmentees have to do the gateway training and deliver said training accordingly.

(Straying off topic here I know).
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: quadrapiper on January 08, 2019, 21:34:25
Tracking and I totally get it. And thus we come back full circle to the problem of what exactly is the role of the PRes? Is it there primarily for individual augmentation on deployments, DomOps and to provide a presence across Canada or is it there to force generate sub or sub-sub units (or higher)? If the answer is that it is the first than having a mechanism such as Op REINFORCEMENT that 4 Div had going on a few years ago (Class B funding for PRes individual augmentation of Reg Force units during CT events) is likely the way to go in my view. That way, individuals are able to slot into Reg Force training events as it suits their personal lives while getting literally the same training as their Reg Force counterparts instead of some sort of half-baked Level 5 training. I'm a firm believer that that solution was on the right path but that it needed to be extended slightly to allow PRes members who were slotted to attend CT events (Unit Level up to MAPLE RESOLVE) to arrive a few weeks before said event to participate in the garrison work-up training, IBTS, etc. If institutionalized then it could become just another step within a unit's/Bde's Battle Procedure that PRes augmentees have to do the gateway training and deliver said training accordingly.

(Straying off topic here I know).
Addressing the same points: might be some benefit from running the numbers as far as "personal commitments at X years in the PRes:" years one through four-six are full of students, so an attenuated winter and loaded summer training scheme is probably ideal. After that, it might switch: might have a better chance of your now-employed Reservist getting time off for a course if it's not during school breaks.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 08, 2019, 22:18:17
The Reserves schedules are locked into the civilian world and it's just a reality that's not going to change.

May to August is a pretty good time frame annually to provide some good training for reservists.

I went through Phase II and III Infantry over the course of two summers and emerged a qualified Pl Comd, with the rank of Lt, at the tender age of 20. Some years later I did a pretty good 2 week ACT course and was promoted to Major. During various summer collective training events I commanded platoons and companies in the field to build up my OJT.

There's no reason why we can't churn out qualified NCMs/NCOs during those same two, or maybe three, summers, including the intervening 'inter-summer' training back at the units, especially if Reg F collective training events are scheduled so trainees can get some solid OJT.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on January 08, 2019, 22:35:19
In the mid-seventies the army developed and introduced a three phase programme called the Reserve Officer University Training Programme. We managed to cover all the important POs of the regular training system in three phases while the regulars needed four by careful design. In fact I know that in gunner land we produced some very capable individuals including a certain officer cadet Leslie. (He may have gone regular some time during his three years, so don't bet the bank on this.)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 09, 2019, 16:45:53
I don't think JeffB's points are off topic at all

Surely some better method can be implemented than the "half baked" method being used (as he rightly describes it), and better equipment is needed to support that.
I get the bulk of a Reserve unit availability is tied to the rhythms of work and school, but at some point units will need to be able to FG individuals at least, if not a (sub-) sub unit, or there really is no purpose to having Reserves at all. If we can assume that's valid, then anything that minimizes the training delta between Reg Force and Primary Reservists is a step in the right direction, since the methods artillery use now are getting more complex compared to legacy methods Reservists are currently limited to
 
One of these changes relates to deploying guns with an (automatic) Azimuth Pointing System (APS)
It drives me nuts when I hear someone say "a gun is a gun", as a means to justifying the C3 as good enough. That's as idiotic as saying "a plane is a plane". The difference between a gun with say LINAPS deploying and one using legacy optic sights and survey instruments is enormous. The speed of occupation alone is significant, especially at night, but it takes a lot of practice to learn those differences for Recce and occupation drills, as well as safety. So much so I believe it's worth mounting some kind of APS on the C3 and LG1's, so those Reservists available to take on a task with a Reg unit at least have the basics worked out.

It would be best if all the Reserve units could be equipped with guns that had APS, but if that's not possible at least do some kind of whole fleet management approach then. I worked with a US National Guard Stryker Bn that was going into the equivalent of high readiness status, after which the majority of their high speed equipment would go to another unit as they went into a reconstitution phase. Maybe something similar could be adopted by Cdn units. For example, 7 Tor, 11 Fd and 56 Fd are tasked for two years to provide a complete Gun Tp, a dismounted ATG and an LCMR Det. During that time for the first year they go from legacy occupation drills with C3 to learning how to do it with APS. At least one LCMR to a unit with that task (think that's 7 Tor). Year two those Reservists who are available fill in Class B with the Reg Force Regt they're supporting, the remainder of the unit continues training with legacy equipment while the APS and LCMR go to the next units. The following units would be 30 Fd, 42nd, and the 49th. This way 2 RCHA always has, as a minimum, another Troop that can deploy as needed

The ROTP method for officer training OS describes, somewhat still goes on with officer candidates attending DP 1.1, but that only covers the legacy methods of occupation; they need additional training too once back with their units.

Something needs to give here, because it sure sounds like what's going on is not guaranteeing the availability of FG individuals, with some kind of current skill set, never mind sub-sub units
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 09, 2019, 18:15:24
At each unit there will be individuals who will be free to deploy at various times with the Regular Force. Reserve units should have an electronic list of members willing to deploy and for how long. To get on that list member agrees to be ready to deploy within 2 weeks notification and for the time period they have indicated. Member responsible for advising unit if temporarily medically unfit or unavailable.

Have the list based on a shared excel spreadsheet, the member lists qualifications they have (vehicles, tracks, gun, tech, sigs, etc) , rank into fields. . 1 RCHA wants a troop of gunners, they select desired qualifications, input into the shared excel sheet, up pops qualified members, invites for those members sent to them and their unit. Invites expire in X time, acceptance starts the ball rolling. Have some preapproved requirements done (extra kit could be already drawn, but stored at the unit to reduce wear) medical, dental checks, etc. Member is on their way in short order.     
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 09, 2019, 19:50:06
At each unit there will be individuals who will be free to deploy at various times with the Regular Force...Member is on their way in short order.     

I think that's they way it's supposed to work, but..
Right now they'll show up completely unfamiliar with the main way the howitzer they're going to work on operates, even the general sequence of activities for occupation will be foreign to most of them. Save for the few that might of been on a M777 conversion course, improvised by the nearest Reg Force unit, but have had no practice on since
Trying to synchronize an Op plan to take into account that kind of training delta, and variations, is not going to be easy in the best of circumstances. Something more deliberate than a "just in case" self identification list is needed IMO; I've seen how hit or miss that actually works in practice. Typically the number of pers that self ID can grow significantly if they know it is for an actual task and not a maybe. I believe what is needed is equipment among the Reserves that supports building up a common experience level among them as much as possible, and a routine of deploying with the nearest Reg Force unit to develop that skill     

If replacing the C3 is unrealistic, at least make it more suitable for the task; a digital fire control system on the C3 would at least help towards building a more relevant baseline of training
(Just trying to keep this relevant to the thread)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 09, 2019, 20:09:25
. . .
I get the bulk of a Reserve unit availability is tied to the rhythms of work and school, but at some point units will need to be able to FG individuals at least, if not a (sub-) sub unit, or there really is no purpose to having Reserves at all. If we can assume that's valid, then anything that minimizes the training delta between Reg Force and Primary Reservists is a step in the right direction, since the methods artillery use now are getting more complex compared to legacy methods Reservists are currently limited to
. . .

My point exactly. We always have a fall-back in that we can call individuals to active service, but we never do that.

I disagree with the band-aid ideas of units having lists of ready volunteers. Our system shouldn't be run in a haphazard manner that depends on the whims of what are now dysfunctional "regiments" and "battalions". The whole system is more than ripe for a major and radical revision.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 09, 2019, 22:16:21
The problem is that people who join want to have some identity within a community, the regular army has already pretty divorced itself from the public, cutting the remaining links with communities might have unintended consequence. The Reserves also have to market themselves to the public to get people to give up their free time willingly. What does the reg force have to offer that's better than the Reserves with their antique regiments that offers community links, history, comradery, funky hats, cap badges and buddies to work and drink with?
perhaps the regs need to take a hard look also at how they run courses and ask why you can't teach some basic repetitive skillsets on an artillery piece to someone who already is familiar with a simpler one. They used to take people from C2's to tracked SPG's which is quite the leap.   
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GnyHwy on January 10, 2019, 00:12:21
The youngsters reaching us as recruits these days live in a digital world. Learning to use digital equipment is not that difficult for them if taught right.

By all means buy 120s for the infantry but not the artillery. We'll never get the skills back.

The newer generation catching on to digital easily is very true, probably teaching the instructors a thing or two on some occasions. Good thing our current AIGs aren't as crusty and resistant to change as the old guard.

I don't have much concerns with not getting our skills back or changing systems. We are used to being "adaptive" and gunnery is gunnery, regardless of platform IMO. We transitioned to the 777 very quickly, with Res F included.     

Canada's problems lie in both personnel and equipment.  We lack modern equipment for more than a reinforced battlegroup.

My 30 second assessment:

1. The Army needs an inexpensive indirect fire platform that is common to both components that can be used both for training and deployed - a towed 105mm meets that need;
2. That platform needs to be integrated into the fire control system so there is common training on necessary supporting tools;

I don't believe the 105mm even comes close to meeting our need, especially in the growth potential category where is gets extremely low marks, essentially 0. The only reason they'll even exist 50 years from now is because there is a lot of them.

If we talk digital FCS, a proper 120 is arguably closer to the 777 than any 105, solely because of guided extended range ammo. Having your systems in place for this is probably the largest training gap, for Arty, Sigs and EME.

Cheers! 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on January 10, 2019, 00:54:11
If 105 continues to exist, it will be because it is being repurposed and taking on other roles.

A few possibilities:

Using a wheeled platform (like some of the ones showcased upthread) and a magazine autoloader similar to the Swedish FH77, the 105 becomes an air defence platform. This is especially true using the hypervelocity rounds similar to those already being created for the 155 (adapted from the research done for electromagnetic railguns). High speed, flat trajectories, greater range and large explosive payload compared to 25mm automatic cannon and similar weapons will make this another layer in an air defence shield needing to deal with high speed missiles, attack helicopters and other threats.

Through tube missile launcher. The 105mm artillery shell is replaced by some form of guided missile or even drone. This exchanges weight of fire with long range, accurate fire. As a variation, the 105mm rounds are not explosive payloads at all, but some form of sensor which can be lofted quickly and at great ranges. The 105 becomes a sort of spotting platform.

Once again using the hypervelocity rounds, the 105 is able to engage targets at double the range current 105mm cannon can. Guided "Excalibur light" rounds allow accurate fire even at extreme ranges.

While you can always argue a 155 can do the same jobs better (and it is true), there may be cost advantages for giving roles like this to a 105mm, and any platform can physically carry more individual 105mm rounds than 155mm rounds.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 10, 2019, 11:36:27
Since it's clear we are not going to 120mm mortars, it makes sense to stick to the 105mm and buy the upgraded M119's and perhaps do it in batches. With modern ammunition you are looking at ranges of 17-19km, the digitization will make training more useful and fires quicker and more accurate. We are painfully short on indirect fire weapons. Having the Reserves equipped with a modern 105mm means having some ability to quickly surge more tubes into a conflict. It's also my understanding that in the recent conflicts there has been global shortages of 155mm shells. Having the 105mm means that you are likely to have stocks of 105mm if there is a 155 shortage again.
The other advantage of 105mm is that your live fire training costs are less, the safety areas are smaller and we could actually use a smaller gun tractor, which would be good for some Reserve units, who can't get the new vehicles into their armouries anymore. Logistically, the 105mm makes good sense for the Reserves. A surge of new and reliable equipment won't hurt recruiting either.   
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 10, 2019, 13:09:38
I'm skeptical there'll be a lot of money going to the Reserves to replace the C3 anytime soon, but the barrels will need to be replaced in the near future as a few have developed cracks near the muzzle. Canada has long since lost the capacity to punch out barrels of that calibre, and very unlikely anyone is interested in starting it up. The best choice would be to get some additional LG1 barrels from Nexter or the M119's from BAE, and fit them to the C3 carriage, something that could be done at 202 Workshop or (Esquimalt's) Fleet Maintenance Facility

As for potential, they could fire the Rheinmetal-Denel's 105mm Igala ammunition, and the LAHAT can be fired out of it as well. But I think in the end the decision won't be made on developing it's  Operational potential, although robust the C3 is just too heavy, rather it'll be about just sustaining a limited training system (and being able to do gun salutes).

Not that there's a hope in hell of Canada procuring the gun in the attachment, it seems to of been an unfortunate failed experiment by GDLS Canada, it does include a description of RDM ammunition compared to legacy 105 ammo (not that Canada would buy the newer type of 105 ammo either). The attachment is pretty much just for ref for what's out there.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 10, 2019, 16:39:11
Sadly we need a bunch of Reservists killed by a barrel rupture, a Royal Commission and public embarrassment to get the money to replace them. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on January 10, 2019, 16:58:18
Sadly we need a bunch of Reservists killed by a barrel rupture, a Royal Commission and public embarrassment to get the money to replace them.

The odds of all three, or even one occurring, are pretty slim.

In May 1963 I was associated with a premature (a round detonating 15m outside the barrel of a 105 in Gagetown. Six members of the detachment were wounded and the gun ended up in second line repair. Despite having just left the gun line, I was detailed as a member of the SI. We triangulated the location of the burst by sticking straws in the holes in the ammunition boxes and used the firing table MV to determine the fuze functioned .05 seconds after firing. This indicated the delay element had set off the burst.

Well, obviously the finely tuned artillery world kicked into action, not. The incident was blamed by those who were not there, but knew better, on a cracked round and incompetent troops failing to inspect the ammunition. I can tell you that was crap as the round made the characteristic wham and smoke cloud of an airburst and any splinters we picked up were characteristically small. It took three more prematures over the summer, the last of which killed a recruit in the RCA Depot, for the army to freeze the fuze and initiate procurement of an improved model. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 10, 2019, 17:52:23
Different age now, video will be on social media before the army can react and parents will be after the Minister in a flash, along with a baying pack of media. There is a enough written material on Army.ca on the subject for the educated media type to slice and dice the Minister with. Toss in disgruntled vets (shocking I know, who could possibly be disgruntled ;)  ) speaking to same media.

We had a similar thing here with the CCG dive team, someone was feeding the media detailed information, the Minister got caught out in a lie pushed onto him by the senior managers and the fecal matter hit the rotary device in a big way. Money was quickly found.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on January 10, 2019, 18:48:33
Judging by how the condition is of the ones recently to come through my shop, I'd say we are going to be loosing guns fairly quickly over the next few years due to corrosion, barrel inspections we stay on top of so if one does crack, chances are it was just the barrels time. The problem there is we have no spares, so at some point cannibalization (such an evil word for the LCMM) is going to happen to keep what C3's we do have going. The giving of 81mm mortors to the arty as a stop gap of some kind isn't really a stop gap when we do not have a replacement program seriously being worked out. I'd say there is more an urgent need and capability gap in the arty world then we do anywhere else in the army other then recovery vehicles.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 10, 2019, 18:51:56
I hope you're wrong Colin, but unfortunately I'd have to say there is some possibility an accident could occur, again, as some already have happened including one that had a fatality.

In Nov 2008, Gunner Keyes-Oliver was killed, and 4 other soldiers injured in a roll over accident involving the C3 and the old MLVW Gun Tractor. The C3 is particularly prone to trailer sway as it doesn't have active brakes, and this most likely contributed to the cause of the accident.  It is far less likely that a similar accident will occur now, as the MSVS is much heavier, but the gun is still prone to trailer sway and roll over itself, as a young soldier from 7 Tor found out recently while towing a C3 on Highway 400 North in Ontario. It is pure luck the gun didn't strike any other vehicle in what is usually a very busy highway. There are speed restrictions for towing the C3, and drivers are supposed to be taught how to deal with trailer sway (gradually slow down), to help mitigate this, but roll overs have happened even at relatively low speed going cross country

Then there's the gun snapping in two in Gagetown in April 2011, which turned out to be one of but the subsequent inspections uncovered worrisome corrosion issues

Now add barrel cracking at the muzzle end, near the machined surfaces on top of the barrel. The barrels were mistakenly manufactured with those surfaces, no one seems to know why. Typically those surfaces are used to measure quadrant error and barrel droop, but actually are not part of C3 Gun Det duties or Tech inspections. New barrels are not supposed to have them, but FAIK the new barrels haven't been purchased either

Like I said earlier, there is some risk in using a gun this old, and maybe some see those risks as nothing more than peccadilloes, but there doesn't seem to be any urgency to deal with them. Perhaps part of the reason is the very mindset Old sweat is referring to, that if something goes wrong the default is to blame the operator, is still around
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 10, 2019, 22:15:30
I don't quite understand the mind set in the branch's officer corps anymore.

I couldn't understand M109s being cut up for scrap rather than being put into storage, and I can't understand the current paucity of armaments we have now.

I know it's a money thing but let's get it straight. Guns are (or were) our business. What's the use of having a branch if it can't deliver fires. We currently have 37 systems of M777 (assuming Wikipedia has it right) that's six batteries and one spare not counting the school. Effectively we can probably field one effective regiment of 3 six-gun batteries.

I guess the good news is that the three reg force brigades that we have can probably only field one effective brigade between them. That's effectively one colonel's command. How many generals does the army have?

 :brickwall:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2019, 00:02:56
I hope you're wrong Colin, but unfortunately I'd have to say there is some possibility an accident could occur, again, as some already have happened including one that had a fatality.

In Nov 2008, Gunner Keyes-Oliver was killed, and 4 other soldiers injured in a roll over accident involving the C3 and the old MLVW Gun Tractor. The C3 is particularly prone to trailer sway as it doesn't have active brakes, and this most likely contributed to the cause of the accident.  It is far less likely that a similar accident will occur now, as the MSVS is much heavier, but the gun is still prone to trailer sway and roll over itself, as a young soldier from 7 Tor found out recently while towing a C3 on Highway 400 North in Ontario. It is pure luck the gun didn't strike any other vehicle in what is usually a very busy highway. There are speed restrictions for towing the C3, and drivers are supposed to be taught how to deal with trailer sway (gradually slow down), to help mitigate this, but roll overs have happened even at relatively low speed going cross country

Then there's the gun snapping in two in Gagetown in April 2011, which turned out to be one of but the subsequent inspections uncovered worrisome corrosion issues

Now add barrel cracking at the muzzle end, near the machined surfaces on top of the barrel. The barrels were mistakenly manufactured with those surfaces, no one seems to know why. Typically those surfaces are used to measure quadrant error and barrel droop, but actually are not part of C3 Gun Det duties or Tech inspections. New barrels are not supposed to have them, but FAIK the new barrels haven't been purchased either

Like I said earlier, there is some risk in using a gun this old, and maybe some see those risks as nothing more than peccadilloes, but there doesn't seem to be any urgency to deal with them. Perhaps part of the reason is the very mindset Old sweat is referring to, that if something goes wrong the default is to blame the operator, is still around

Interesting I was looking at the muzzle of one with the brake removed and noted a square cut where the barrel was milled for the threading. I surmised that the cracking I had heard about likely took place there as square cuts are a bad idea, adding in the stress of barrel whip, pressure changes and muzzle brake wanting to fly off. Really the barrel should have been made with a swell, which would then be milled down for the threading, not actually reducing the thickness of the muzzle. I guess they forgot the lesson of the M101, vs the C1 in regards to the muzzle swell.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on January 11, 2019, 00:27:24
Interesting. We had a lecture of muzzle swell on my IG course. Is there a common thread with our three post war 105mm howitzers that experienced barrel cracking: the L5, the LG1, and now perhaps the C3?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 11, 2019, 00:57:18
Interesting. We had a lecture of muzzle swell on my IG course. Is there a common thread with our three post war 105mm howitzers that experienced barrel cracking: the L5, the LG1, and now perhaps the C3?

IG course hell. We learned that on our basic gun layer's course back in 1966. It came during the nomenclature lecture when our bombardier instructor told us what it was called and why it was there.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2019, 01:08:30
The guns were almost new back then, but then so was dirt  ;D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 11, 2019, 01:13:59
It does seem to be a notorious tradition Old Sweat!

By muzzle swell, or lack of one, I think you're referring to the original C2's with the M2A1 barrel, which lacked a counter bore, and developed radial cracking at the muzzle. The counterbore (muzzle swell) is supposedly a Canadian idea, which is probably legit, since the Canadian C1's made later by Sorel did have them, and the Americans adopted it shortly after. The C2s bought before the C1 went into production were actually US Made M2A1's, that were then later converted to M2A2 with the counterbore mod

I'm not sure about the L5's cause for barrel cracking, but recall that even after they were replaced had a charge 6 firing restriction until late 1989 when they went through a short rebuild program that also gave them a better muzzle brake.

The LG1's developed their barrel cracking problem due to a bad design for the muzzle brake key, with cracks radiating out from the notch or slot in the barrel for the key. It took awhile to determine that, and then get all barrels replaced

I'm not sure how many C3's have been found with cracked barrels, last i heard it was only two (2016), but there might well be more. This one is quite serious since there are no spares as noted by MILEME09, and I'm not sure the cause has been determined. It might be related to the very short while some C3 did fire the long range C132 round, at chg 1 only, when the restriction was briefly lifted to deal with a shortage of HE M1.  The restriction on firing the C132 from the C3 is back in place. The gun has another flaw in that it tends to twist the right trail leg out of shape, most likely due to it being the one that has the draw bar and lunette to connect it to the prime mover. All these things, as already pointed out, are being sustained by cannibalization; a practice of diminishing returns!

Edit to add picture of where cracks appeared on at least one of the C3's; IIRC it was a longitudinal crack propagating from the area forward of the of machined area on the top of barrel, towards the muzzle
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on January 11, 2019, 11:21:55
Thanks for that, Petard. It got me thinking about the mid-seventies when we found that our autofrettaged barrels on our C1s had a lot less barrel life then we thought. Like instead of 20,000 EFCs, the life was only a tiny fraction of that, and our C1s at the school were running out of rounds. WO Jack Vann, who ran the gun park, spotted it as he maintained the daily record of rounds fired and called me. I phoned DLR2, who were not amused. However, we had spare barrels in the system so we dodged the bullet that time.

Given the amount of money the government is willing to spend, and the general indifference to things artillery, I don't see an early or easy resolution. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but I am working on a history of past disappointments.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2019, 14:32:52
I wish I had taken more detailed pictures
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GnyHwy on January 11, 2019, 17:38:00
If 105 continues to exist, it will be because it is being repurposed and taking on other roles.

Those are some interesting ideas, I know you are biggest contributor to future tech thread. If we are just talking about increasing range, 105 ammo seems to be near an end, it is tough to guide, but smaller calibers with a sabot is doable for sure. Not much punch, but if you're very accurate you could be successful. Would you suggest a GS 105 bty?

Since it's clear we are not going to 120mm mortars, it makes sense to stick to the 105mm...

Maybe for the short term it's clear, but a new investment could bring 120s. It is a popular solution and provides many advantages for flex, cost and growth. Don't get me wrong, if I could, it would be A7s for everyone!

...so at some point cannibalization (such an evil word for the LCMM) is going to happen...

Yep



 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: MilEME09 on January 12, 2019, 19:23:58
Those are some interesting ideas, I know you are biggest contributor to future tech thread. If we are just talking about increasing range, 105 ammo seems to be near an end, it is tough to guide, but smaller calibers with a sabot is doable for sure. Not much punch, but if you're very accurate you could be successful. Would you suggest a GS 105 bty?

IF we had replacements on the way I'd say give the remaining C3's to parks Canada, use them as spares for avalanche control.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Petard on January 12, 2019, 22:10:41
Probably not a bad idea to give the C3’s to Parks Canada; besides Rogers pass, where the CA supports the task, the Parks operate 2 C1’s in Stewart BC themselves

I’d hazard a guess they’d like to use them elsewhere too.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: dapaterson on January 12, 2019, 23:44:50
Probably not a bad idea to give the C3’s to Parks Canada; besides Rogers pass, where the CA supports the task, the Parks operate 2 C1’s in Stewart BC themselves

I’d hazard a guess they’d like to use them elsewhere too.
If that happens, I will be much more careful about not feeding the wildlife in Banff.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: GR66 on January 17, 2019, 02:47:45
Two of the consistent topics in this thread seem to be that the 105's we have aren't serviceable and that the Reservists aren't trained adequately for the M777s. 

It would seem obvious that a replacement for the C3's/LG1's is required, but I'm curious about the focus on training the Reserves on the M777.  We only have 37 of the 155's and we have 3 x Regular Artillery Regiments.  Is our manning so low on these Regiments that we can't manage to man 37 x guns with the gunners we have?  Or is there another issue causing the problem?

Is having a large pool of Reservists trained on the M777 a realistic priority or is there some wishful thinking going on that we will magically get more guns if/when we ever have to deploy a real military force?

To my novice mind it would be highly unlikely that Canada could realistically deploy and sustain more than a Brigade Group in a near-peer conflict.  If that's the case then what would a realistic and affordable Artillery force for Canada look like?

Hypothetically would it make sense to build toward something like this:

- 1 x Regular Artillery Regiment equipped with the M777's with 4 x 6 Gun Batteries with the remaining 13 x Guns for training and replacements.
- The other 2 x Reg Force Artillery Regiments get equipped with LAV-based 120mm Mortar vehicles.  The Reg Force Gunners in these two Regiments would also be cross-trained on the M777.
- The 19 x Reserve Regiments each get issued 1 x Towed 120mm Mortar

The M777 equipped Regiment would in effect act as a Divisional Artillery asset for the Army and could focus on deep strike and counter-battery missions.
One LAV-120mm Mortar Regiment would be the integral Artillery Regiment to the Brigade Group giving the BG mounted indirect fire support that can keep up with the BG and the Infantry Battalions would have their 81mm Mortar Platoons for intimate indirect fire support.

In case of a major conflict the 3rd Reg Force (LAV-120mm Mortar Equipped) Regiment could with refresher training provide individual replacements for the M777 regiment and their LAV-120mm Mortar vehicles could replace losses in the BG Regiment.  Individual augmentees for the BG LAV-120mm regiment could come from the Reserve Regiments (training on their own towed 120mm mortars).

In wartime the Reg Force recruits could focus on M777 training at the Artillery School while recruits to the Reserve units could focus on training Gunners on mortars.  If  required, the Reserve Regiments could group together to generate 3 x 6-tube 120mm mortar batteries to deploy.

From what I understand 120mm mortars are cheaper to acquire and have a smaller logistical footprint than 105mm guns and LAV-based 120mm mortar vehicles already exist so this solution would be less costly than many other options.

Personally I'd much rather see the Artillery branch equipped with HIMARS and M109's or even the mounted 105's that have been mentioned, but with the major expenses coming to rebuild the RCN and the RCAF I don't see that being possible.  Something like the above however would at least provide the Canadian Army with a credible and useful indirect fire capability that could be developed at a reasonable cost.

My inexperienced  :2c: worth anyway.



Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 17, 2019, 12:36:24
If that happens, I will be much more careful about not feeding the wildlife in Banff.

I've come across Grizzlies in the back country there, from time to time, on my way through the sub-alpine to various peaks.

I'd totally pay a premium on my Parks Canada pass to have some indirect fire support, as required, in an emergency :)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: dapaterson on January 17, 2019, 13:20:28
I've come across Grizzlies in the back country there, from time to time, on my way through the sub-alpine to various peaks.

I'd totally pay a premium on my Parks Canada pass to have some indirect fire support, as required, in an emergency :)

Were I running Parks Canada, the indirect fire would be to suppress those hassling the wildlife, and not the other way around  :nod:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 17, 2019, 16:18:48
Two of the consistent topics in this thread seem to be that the 105's we have aren't serviceable and that the Reservists aren't trained adequately for the M777s. 

It would seem obvious that a replacement for the C3's/LG1's is required, but I'm curious about the focus on training the Reserves on the M777.  We only have 37 of the 155's and we have 3 x Regular Artillery Regiments.  Is our manning so low on these Regiments that we can't manage to man 37 x guns with the gunners we have?  Or is there another issue causing the problem?

Is having a large pool of Reservists trained on the M777 a realistic priority or is there some wishful thinking going on that we will magically get more guns if/when we ever have to deploy a real military force?

To my novice mind it would be highly unlikely that Canada could realistically deploy and sustain more than a Brigade Group in a near-peer conflict.  If that's the case then what would a realistic and affordable Artillery force for Canada look like?

You raise some interesting questions and put forward some practical answers which I think are what I call "band-aid" solutions to a critical problem.

The highlited words are very much the issue. For all intents and purposes we have three brigades (and a div headquarters) and a special operations force. Strong, Secure and Engaged (SSE) does not posit a need to ever deploy a brigade group but only battle groups of various sizes and duration. While we do have three brigade groups, they are woefully short of elements needed to give them a role in a "near peer" conflict. Adequate artillery, mortars, air defence, anti armour defence are just the more obvious shortfalls. Having a brigade with two LAV battalions and a light battalion is another (it's just a convenient way of distributing the LAVs - if we really were thinking of deploying a brigade, we'd form one light brigade and two medium brigades.)

Do I think that SSE is correct. Hell, no. SSE talks about offering a credible deterrent to "near peer" adversaries but then structures a force that is anything but credible. Quite frankly I'm not sure whether our defense structure is based on SSE's limited objectives or whether the objectives are limited because we've created a structure that's incapable of doing more than that. It's a bit chicken and eggish. Either way, our military leadership has a documented authority from the government that limits its requirements to deploy nothing more formidable than a battle group.

Hypothetically would it make sense to build toward something like this:

- 1 x Regular Artillery Regiment equipped with the M777's with 4 x 6 Gun Batteries with the remaining 13 x Guns for training and replacements.
- The other 2 x Reg Force Artillery Regiments get equipped with LAV-based 120mm Mortar vehicles.  The Reg Force Gunners in these two Regiments would also be cross-trained on the M777.
- The 19 x Reserve Regiments each get issued 1 x Towed 120mm Mortar

The M777 equipped Regiment would in effect act as a Divisional Artillery asset for the Army and could focus on deep strike and counter-battery missions.
One LAV-120mm Mortar Regiment would be the integral Artillery Regiment to the Brigade Group giving the BG mounted indirect fire support that can keep up with the BG and the Infantry Battalions would have their 81mm Mortar Platoons for intimate indirect fire support.

There is a practical and seductive reasoning in your solution but, just because M777s are the largest guns we have, they do not make a div arty resource. Just because it's easier to buy and man 120mm mortars does not mean they should become the brigades close support regiment. Guns and mortars are complimentary for several reasons and neither one or the other should be abandoned because of cost considerations. If you look at what we jokingly call "near peers" (but in reality are our superiors in all ways), you will see that every one of those organizations has a mix of guns and mortars in support of a brigade (A US SBCT [the nearest equivalent to our LAVIII brigade] with three Stryker bns (each bn with 10 x 120mm mortars [30 total] as well as 6 x 60mm and 6 x 81mm in a "swap out wps locker concept) and integral 105mm mobile gun systems direct fire vehicles) has 18 x M777s, while a Russian restructured motorized rifle brigade with three infantry battalions (24 x 120 mm mortars total) and one tank battalion has two battalions of self propelled (36 x 152 mm), 1 x bn MLRS (18 x 122mm and up launchers), 1 x anti-tank bn (6 x 100mm guns and 12 x ATGM), and an antiair battalion with a variety of weapons.

Both the US and Russia consider their brigades as deployable, self contained entities but part of a modular force that can add resources for smaller campaigns or deploy as part of divisional organizations with additional artillery brigades to beef up the support.

In case of a major conflict the 3rd Reg Force (LAV-120mm Mortar Equipped) Regiment could with refresher training provide individual replacements for the M777 regiment and their LAV-120mm Mortar vehicles could replace losses in the BG Regiment.  Individual augmentees for the BG LAV-120mm regiment could come from the Reserve Regiments (training on their own towed 120mm mortars).

In wartime the Reg Force recruits could focus on M777 training at the Artillery School while recruits to the Reserve units could focus on training Gunners on mortars.  If  required, the Reserve Regiments could group together to generate 3 x 6-tube 120mm mortar batteries to deploy.

I don't want to seem cynical, but in the event of war time with a "near peer", we are screwed because we are cobbling things together. If we were truly intent on supplying one brigade to a "real peer" war, then we should form one fully equipped LAV brigade with three LAV and one tank battalion, with each battalion having 6-8 x 120mm mortars (preferably in a mortar carrier vehicle) an 18 x M777 regiment. (that still leaves us short proper anti-armor and anti-air). We could probably also have one light brigade supported by another 18 x M777 regiment and a mix of 81/120 mm mortars and a stock of personnel and weapon systems for battle loss replacement but along the way we would need to ditch the third brigade because we just can't properly equip or man it. Quite frankly, I think we could do much better than that if we relied more on a largely reserve force manned and equipped medium to heavy force. Based on our current authorization of around 21,000 reservists (and an ideal size of 29,000) we should be capable manning between 4 and 6 manoeuvre or support brigades if properly organized, trained and equipped. There are numerous reasons why we can't right now but this just has to change. We are missing out on a tremendous opportunity.

Where reservists and regulars fit in the establishment and training program is up for grabs. I don't object to artillerymen running mortars (the Russians do and the US has a separate MOS for mortar infantrymen) I just think it's better that they be infantrymen because that way they are more versatile within the battalion (I also see nothing wrong with converting reserve artillery regiments to Infantry mortar platoons if we want to give them 120mms)

Personally I would like to see a seriously revamped reserve system which would be able to provide both individuals and units/subunits for the deployable force because there are substantial cost savings in using reservists to man organizations that are designated for extreme situations. In my mind a the "medium" brigade(s) should have many reservists while the "light" brigade(s) and special forces would be almost entirely regular force because they are much more likely to be used on the day-to-day operations currently envisioned in the SSE.

From what I understand 120mm mortars are cheaper to acquire and have a smaller logistical footprint than 105mm guns and LAV-based 120mm mortar vehicles already exist so this solution would be less costly than many other options.

Personally I'd much rather see the Artillery branch equipped with HIMARS and M109's or even the mounted 105's that have been mentioned, but with the major expenses coming to rebuild the RCN and the RCAF I don't see that being possible.  Something like the above however would at least provide the Canadian Army with a credible and useful indirect fire capability that could be developed at a reasonable cost.

My inexperienced  :2c: worth anyway.

I too think that there is a role for reserve artillery with HIMARS and we could certainly use that capability within the brigade (the Russians certainly do and the US has numerous National Guard HIMARS battalions/brigades as well as M109 NG battalions and brigades. (maybe we shouldn't have cut up for scrap all the ones we had - which in my mind, still constitutes professional negligence within the leadership of the army and branch.)

Unfortunately with SSE there is little vision to deploy HIMARS with a battle group. And as I said before, the actual confronting of a "near peer" adversary is just smoke and mirrors with perhaps a very limited deployment within a multinational brigade. I think we are saddled with a leadership that is too "civil service" centric, has a high level of risk aversion and is not prepared to face the reality of fighting a superior foe.

 :2c:

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on January 18, 2019, 02:45:37
Near-peer for us means Croatia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Kenya
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 18, 2019, 12:34:27
Near-peer for us means Croatia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Kenya

And don't even attempt to compare us with organizations like Brazil's Army, which outnumbers ours by about 20 to 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Army
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on January 18, 2019, 13:08:14
And don't even attempt to compare us with organizations like Brazil's Army, which outnumbers ours by about 20 to 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Army

Outguns us too.

 ;D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2019, 16:12:54
Canada has a "raider" attitude.

Discuss.

Stand Fast. Stand Firm. Die Hard.  Regimental mottos and exhortations encouraging soldiers to hold to the last man.  Much like the French Foreign Legions Camerone stand.

The FFL is remarkable because it was a bunch of foreigners operating on foreign soil for a paycheque that held to their contract.  That and personal honour.

The other instances reflect groups of soldiers that not only held for honour but because they felt they had to defend their own people and their own turf.  Their options were fewer and limited.

Canada's army, by contrast, beyond the war of 1812, the Fenian Raids and the Riel Rebellions, has always had more in common with the French Foreign Legion than the Devons or the Middlesex.

It only exists because the Brits left and Gladstone told Sir John A. to get on with it.  The Brits weren't paying any more.

In 1885 the Mounties needed a few more hands and the Government summoned up a bunch of volunteers.
In 1900 a Brit businessman hired a bunch of cowboys to head off to South Africa and the Government organized a couple more groups of short timers to keep them out of political troubles
In 1914 another businessman hired a bunch of British ex-pats while the Government created an army out of similar "Canadians" for the duration.
In 1939 despite hoping that teaching people to fly and building Mosquitoes would be enough of a contribution the Government was cajoled into organizing an Army
In 1949 in order to maintain diplomatic recognition the Government hired another group of temporary special service men to fight the good fight in Korea.

Similar short term engagements in limited numbers have defined the actions of the Canadian Army to the present day - routinely with the Government relying on "volunteers" rather than regs and staying well away from anything that might suggest that the Government actually wants to commit Canadians to a fight.  They will only commit so long as the supply of volunteers continues.  No volunteers.  No fight.

The regs of today are a force in being of "volunteers".  They are few in number.  The Government would prefer that they not be seen in case a groundswell of new volunteers occurs creating pressure on the Government to use them and to finance them.

Consequently the forces are geared, and accustomed to, a life of short, sharp strikes out of sight of the public.

The definition of a raider force - more in common with Vikings and Sioux.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2019, 16:25:44
And meanwhile

Quote
Canadian Army gunners train Latvians on newly acquired M109A50 self-propelled howitzers

https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/canadian-army-gunners-train-latvians-on-newly-acquired-m109a50-self-propelled-ho/2007902305968404/

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on January 18, 2019, 19:26:22
Canada has a "raider" 'conflict tourism' attitude, at the political level.


FTFY :)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2019, 21:25:29
FTFY :)

Seen

 :cheers:
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2019, 12:45:18
Quote
Marine Corps Systems Command recently released a request for information on innovative ideas for equipping LAR battalions with a mounted indirect-fires capability, beginning in fiscal 2022, that could hit targets at ranges out to 100 kilometers, said Jeff Nebel, fire support coordination team lead for Program Manager Fires.

"We have identified a gap in the ability for LAR to provide indirect fire that extends further than their current capability," he said. "What we are looking to do is provide them with an organic indirect-fire capability that can reach out to extended ranges."

The new capability would supplement the current 81mm mortars LAR companies use to support platoons operating forward, Nebel said.

"This would give them the ability to provide support to the platoon at ranges significantly greater than ... what they can currently do with the 81mm mortars," he said.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/06/marines-want-equip-armored-recon-units-long-range-fires.html

Let Cap Badge Battle Commence!   ;D

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 08, 2019, 01:03:58
And meanwhile

https://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/canadian-army-gunners-train-latvians-on-newly-acquired-m109a50-self-propelled-ho/2007902305968404/

WTF?? Ours are gate guards and tire rims.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Ralph on March 09, 2019, 13:26:54
WTF?? Ours are gate guards and tire rims.

Latvia got to create its artillery support overnight based on its internal national defence requirements and nothing else. We haven't had that option for a while...
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 09, 2019, 13:51:02
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/03/06/marines-want-equip-armored-recon-units-long-range-fires.html

Let Cap Badge Battle Commence!   ;D

This is a coincidence, right?

'Jeff Nebel, fire support coordination team lead for Program Manager Fires.'

Nebel... as in 'Nebelwerfer' (Smoke Thrower, in German). :)
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: FJAG on March 09, 2019, 15:12:01
This is a coincidence, right?

'Jeff Nebel, fire support coordination team lead for Program Manager Fires.'

Nebel... as in 'Nebelwerfer' (Smoke Thrower, in German). :)

More accurately--after all I am/was a lawyer--"Nebel" is fog; "Rauch" is smoke--so "Fog thrower".

 ;D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 09, 2019, 15:54:36
More accurately--after all I am/was a lawyer--"Nebel" is fog; "Rauch" is smoke--so "Fog thrower".

 ;D

Sooo..... He's a lawyer too?   ;D
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Old Sweat on March 09, 2019, 16:09:52
Sooo..... He's a lawyer too?   ;D

I don't think Moaning Minnie translates into German. Canadian francophone battalions called them La Vache, as the sound of the incoming rounds resembled the sound a distressed cow in need of milking made. 
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on March 10, 2019, 21:45:59
USMC wanting LAV mounted weapons capable of reaching 100 km, and the US Army is looking for some sort of cannon capable of firing a round 1000 miles, while we are still trying to figure out how to replace a 1950 era howitzer...
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Chris Pook on March 11, 2019, 14:02:45
USMC wanting LAV mounted weapons capable of reaching 100 km, and the US Army is looking for some sort of cannon capable of firing a round 1000 miles, while we are still trying to figure out how to replace a 1950 era howitzer...

Some combined thoughts

(https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2018/november/US_Army_tests_truck_mounted_low_recoil_105mm_and_155mm_howitzers.jpg)
Quote
U.S. Army tests truck-mounted, low-recoil 155mm howitzer called Brutus
weapons defence industry military technology UK
POSTED ON MONDAY, 12 NOVEMBER 2018 15:12
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/u.s._army_tests_truck-mounted_low-recoil_155mm_howitzer_called_brutus.html


(https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66960114/squared_medium_squared_original_127_155mm_IMG_7654_s.jpg)
Quote
VULCANO 155MM (80 km)

“VULCANO” is a family of  unguided (BER) and guided (GLR) ammunition  for the 76mm, 127mm naval guns and 155mm land artillery systems.

The VULCANO 155mm ammunition gives the 155/52 caliber and 155/39 caliber Howitzers the capability to extend their operative range and precision beyond the actual limits, minimizing engagement costs and collateral damages.

VULCANO 155mm projectile is a sub-caliber, fin stabilized airframe, compatible with the use of standard modular charges, with no need of additional propulsion; it is loaded with Insensitive Explosive and Patented tungsten rings; the mechanical interfaces are the same as in standard 155mm ammunition.

VULCANO 155mm available rounds are:

Ballistic Extended Range (BER) unguided multi-role ammunition with multi function (Altimetric, Impact, Delayed Impact, Time, Self-Destruction) programmable fuze;
Guided Long Range (GLR) with canard control actuated by IMU + GPS guidance system for navigation (gliding trajectory )and possibility of terminal guidance (pull down) with optional Semi-Active-Laser (SAL).
A Mission Planning Module allows exchanging data with the Fire Direction Centre for the management of the Firing Mission.
https://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/66960114/body_VULCANO_155MM_2013_1.pdf


(https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/12185277_627955717307543_3825706776823206111_o.jpg?w=624)
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTT0x8Micjf_2Nup3iq15WmPpXAW6QZkj3u1yb6OY7yCQDlKkAo)
(https://www.trucksplanet.com/photo/bae_systems_uk/m777-portee/m777-portee_28050.jpg)

Do I recall seeing a flatbed version of the LAV somewhere, sometime?
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on March 12, 2019, 19:32:42
We could work a deal to get these, about the right age for us.

https://china-defense.blogspot.com/2019/03/non-chinese-photos-of-day-105-cm-lefh.html?fbclid=IwAR0-u8W9pKG7V6Nq__f6PZkuUjh8_2hSfiUIlS1W_mZ4GVbtKLXQhouSRE8
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Loachman on March 12, 2019, 21:24:38
There may be a slight delay until they like us again.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on March 13, 2019, 21:05:49
At least then we would have a semi-legitimate excuse not to buy a replacement.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Thucydides on March 14, 2019, 20:34:58
"Vulcano" sounds suspiciously like the Peenemunde Arrow Shell of WWII fame, which allowed the 28cm Krupp K-5 railway cannon to fire at targets 100 km away. The US Army and Navy are also looking at shells using the same form factor as the ones used in the electromagnetic rail gun. The advantage there is a full calibre shell which has a range of over 70km, or which can be used as an anti aircraft or anti missile round due to the flat trajectory and Mach 3+ velocity of the shell.

Quote
Peenemünde Arrow Shells

The Peenemünde Arrow Shells were conceived and developed at the Aerodynamic Research Laboratories at Peenemünde from 1942 to 1945. The arrow shells were dart-like projectiles designed to be fired from special smooth-bore versions of standard German Army artillery pieces. The project was initially envisioned and designed as ultra-long-range shells using a 310mm smooth-bored version of the famed 280mm K5 railway gun (Anzio Annie). The arrow shell was 1.91m long and 120mm in caliber, with four fins at the tail 310mm across and a 310mm sabot or discarding ring around the middle of the shell (center of gravity). The ring was naturally discarded and would fell away outside the gun muzzle when fired, while the accelerating shell would reach a velocity of 1524m/sec and obtain a maximum range of 150km. Two guns were produced, and one of them fired in anger at the US 3rd Army located 125km away from the gun.

There was an anti-aircraft version of the Peenemünde Arrow Shells. The projectile was designed for the 105mm FLAK 39 AA gun, with the goal to reach extremely high velocity so as to shorten flying time and eliminate the need to calculate aiming errors. The AA gunners would be able to aim, fire, and hit without having to worry about the speed of the aircraft and its altitude. During tests and experiments the shells obtained a muzzle velocity of 1067m/sec, which was considered excellent. Nevertheless, development had to be canceled since mass-production for combat use was impossible with the available production and industrial capacity of Germany.

Of course to really take advantage of these capabilities would take an entirely new system, including a magazine feed (like the FH70 Archer), and a self propelled mounting with the ability to traverse and elevate the cannon at the sorts of speeds you get with a tank turret. A large on board ammunition stowage system would be nice as well. Since everyone will be shooting back at you the moment you unmask, a fully protected vehicle is really what is needed.

I've just described a modified Merkava chassis....

Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 15, 2019, 01:35:43
Some of the Israel systems

https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/elbit_systems_contracted_for_stylet_guided_mortar_by_undisclosed_asian_country.html

New SPG for Israel http://ir.elbitsystems.com/node/16041/pdf
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Cloud Cover on April 15, 2019, 19:35:12
Some of the Israel systems

https://www.armyrecognition.com/april_2019_global_defense_security_army_news_industry/elbit_systems_contracted_for_stylet_guided_mortar_by_undisclosed_asian_country.html

New SPG for Israel http://ir.elbitsystems.com/node/16041/pdf

Can you imagine if GDLS in London announced that it was selling LAV's to an "undisclosed Asian country."  Heads would explode.
Title: Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
Post by: Colin P on April 15, 2019, 23:31:18
This might be worth it just for the saving in back claims alone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9SQhKFhUfM