Author Topic: C3 Howitzer Replacement  (Read 159923 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #325 on: April 26, 2020, 14:22:32 »
You wouldn't get that argument from me, the RCN standard is outdated, likely because our own ships, training and doctrine is outdated as well. Ships like this that are mostly empty space would be cheaper to build, and I'd argue such a simple ship could probably be built in South Korea for pennies compared to Irving. Plus all that empty space could be utilized in other ways if needed, I am sure it could be turned into a hospital ship if need be.


Sorry. I get tetchy on that point.   :whistle:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #326 on: April 26, 2020, 14:25:06 »
Wouldn't these pre-positioned vehicles be a primary target for Russia should they ever decide to invade the Baltic States?  They would also be based on an assumption about where they would be needed.  If Russia makes noise somewhere else, then the vehicles aren't in the right place.  Maybe the'll instead be needed in Georgia, or North Korea, or Venezuela.

And thus the reason for keeping your equipment reserve mobile on floating warehouses.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,439
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #327 on: April 26, 2020, 14:46:06 »
And thus the reason for keeping your equipment reserve mobile on floating warehouses.

As long as you can protect them in time of conflict
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 184,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,705
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #328 on: April 26, 2020, 15:22:12 »
The ships I am talking about are not manned to RCN standards, and would not be manned by RCN crews.  They would be civvy mariners in the RCNR - about 23 to the vessel while in transit.  Crew further reduced while in port.

And please don't try and argue that any vessel in Canadian Government service must be manned to RCN standards when, as you rightly point out, it is hard to find bodies to fill existing berths.  The requirement for hulls is there even when the bodies are absent so we must learn to figure out how to manage with a whole lot fewer bodies.  And fortunately that is regularly demonstrated as being possible.  We must stop thinking of HMS Victory, with its 850 gunners stuck inside it 3500 ton hull and its 254 years of service as some kind of model.  She was laid down 3 years before Wolfe beat Montcalm.

To be honest I would welcome a Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary with vessels like this. Two problems come to mind, one is that finding ticketed crews will be difficult as the marine industry as it is, is facing the same problems as the military and to be frank, sitting in port watching the coffee pot does not appeal to most people. If the ship is needed for another task, then that stowed equipment must be moved off, breaking seals on wheeled and tracked vehicles and requiring storage for the duration of the vessel mission, then restowing and resealing. I like having a Federally owned RO/RO that can quickly load up vehicles and a Mistral style vessel manned by the Navy to do landings that may not be welcomed.

As for the Russian threat, there is only so many places that Russia could quickly make a geo-political military move and having that equipment in several depots in Germany/western Poland makes sense as it speed up deployment and reaction times. The two vessels above allow more flexibity to respond to non-Eastern European threats.

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,795
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #329 on: April 26, 2020, 15:39:22 »
A lot of talk in this thread about giving HIMARS to PRes. Seriously, what gives?

GMLRS has been used extensively by our allies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously also has relevance in a peer or near-peer fight. Not to mention that there is often a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to employ such systems. Capabilities that in our military, reside in the RegF.

Reserve augmentation? Absolutely.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,439
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #330 on: April 26, 2020, 16:04:01 »
A lot of talk in this thread about giving HIMARS to PRes. Seriously, what gives?

GMLRS has been used extensively by our allies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously also has relevance in a peer or near-peer fight. Not to mention that there is often a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to employ such systems. Capabilities that in our military, reside in the RegF.

Reserve augmentation? Absolutely.

Our augmentation system is broken and barely useful. As is our system as a whole for a long time, you cant buy training systems for an entire component, it's a waste of money and acknowledges that you do not see them as a useful force multiplier. Give HIMARS to the refs? Absolutely but there needs to be reserve units given it as well. Before anyone says we cant maintain it, I am not talking HIMARS sittimg at an armoury, keep them at Wainwright, Shilo, gagetown for example and the reserves sign them out when needed. We can make it happen, we just need to be willing to make it happen.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,795
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #331 on: April 26, 2020, 16:13:51 »
Before anyone says we cant maintain it, I am not talking HIMARS sittimg at an armoury, keep them at Wainwright, Shilo, gagetown for example and the reserves sign them out when needed

Who's keeping them going? RegF? Class B? Who's paying for that? What other organizations are losing six or seven figures from their budget so that a PRes unit can fire off some rockets for a weekend and then go home?


Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 319,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,838
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #332 on: April 26, 2020, 16:28:44 »
The ships I am talking about are not manned to RCN standards, and would not be manned by RCN crews.  They would be civvy mariners in the RCNR - about 23 to the vessel while in transit.  Crew further reduced while in port.

And please don't try and argue that any vessel in Canadian Government service must be manned to RCN standards when, as you rightly point out, it is hard to find bodies to fill existing berths.  The requirement for hulls is there even when the bodies are absent so we must learn to figure out how to manage with a whole lot fewer bodies.  And fortunately that is regularly demonstrated as being possible.  We must stop thinking of HMS Victory, with its 850 gunners stuck inside it 3500 ton hull and its 254 years of service as some kind of model.  She was laid down 3 years before Wolfe beat Montcalm.

Boy are we ever  :off topic: from the C3 replacement but since we're all heading down this rabbit hole for the time being I'll add this.

I agree absolutely that if the requirement for hulls is there then we need to learn to manage to do with fewer bodies. Hulls take a long time to build; sailors are faster if you strike a proper balance between those that need to be experts/supervisors and those that perform single role tasks.

I quite frankly have no idea what the criteria are that drives the issue of how many frigates we actually need. I presume that there is a certain number to do patrol duties; another number to fill training requirements; and yet another number to ramp up when an emergency/conflict arises. Trouble is I don't know what those numbers are.

The crew number issue is also a bit of a mystery. Our Halifax class apparently crew at 225. The type 26 is described as 157 (with room for up to 206) That's already a big saving. According to the latest records available to me the Navy has a total of 8,125 PYs and 5,720 reserve positions (not all presently funded). The frigates are established at 217 PY each, The subs around 60PYs, the MCDVs at around 40 mixed crews. If all 12 frigates were manned fully, it would only eat up 2,604 PYs. With type 26s: the anticipated 15 vessels need 2,355 PYs a saving of 249. The point though is that do we really need to crew fully all at the same time or can several of the ships be largely crewed by reservists and only put to sea for limited training exercises and in the event of a crisis.

Long story short, I think that there are more than enough sailors available (both some key Reg F ones, and mostly Res F) to man a transport vessel or two on limited summer training events and emergency deployments IF the Navy in its infinite wisdom saw the desirability of owning such vessels (and training for sea lane protection) and IF the Army hierarchy decided that there would be utility in properly deploying and sustaining its land elements in Europe by sea. I despair that this is even remotely on the radar of either the Navy or the Army. They very quickly pulled back from that concept after the CAST CG failures of Ex BRAVE LION.

I expect if you allocated a dozen Reg F and a couple of hundred reservists to a couple of RORO hulls you'd be able to generate the 30 to 50 crew that each ship needs when exercising or operational.

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,439
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #333 on: April 26, 2020, 16:39:52 »
Who's keeping them going? RegF? Class B? Who's paying for that? What other organizations are losing six or seven figures from their budget so that a PRes unit can fire off some rockets for a weekend and then go home?

Maintenance? Reg force, which is why I said prepositioning at major training bases. Make it the same group of vehicles the reg force units use. Budget for munitions would have to come from what ever the reserve unit is allocated.

If you want a useable reserve force you have to be willing to invest in them. That means training and equipping them the same as the reg force. Other countries around the world do it easily, we don't. Why because we are institutionally in the dark ages and haven't evolved our forces to get maximum capabilities from the forces we have. This is a political, and leadership failure. The reserves could be valuable but assuming the cant do it, or somehow there is no value in putting resources into the reserves is admitting we do not have a plan, which explains why the department seems to care more about figures on paper and wastes money on concessions rather then actual capability.  The reg force and reserve need to work complimentary to each other, we need to get out of the us vs them fighting over budget, etc...
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 184,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,705
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #334 on: April 26, 2020, 16:41:00 »
The Mistrals have a base crew smaller than the 280's had. that crew goes up depending on what your doing (helicopters, medical, landing craft)

Dragging this ever so slightly back to the topic, we could do fire support from the ships. Actually this would be an interesting exercise to do for both reg and reserve force members. 


Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,439
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #335 on: April 26, 2020, 16:48:16 »
The Mistrals have a base crew smaller than the 280's had. that crew goes up depending on what your doing (helicopters, medical, landing craft)

Dragging this ever so slightly back to the topic, we could do fire support from the ships. Actually this would be an interesting exercise to do for both reg and reserve force members. 



Be an interesting exercise, just put then on a barge, take them out to a random part of ocean. Send out a target bouy, tell them to put rounds within 10 meters.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 319,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,838
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #336 on: April 26, 2020, 16:51:54 »
Our augmentation system is broken and barely useful. As is our system as a whole for a long time, you cant buy training systems for an entire component, it's a waste of money and acknowledges that you do not see them as a useful force multiplier. Give HIMARS to the refs? Absolutely but there needs to be reserve units given it as well. Before anyone says we cant maintain it, I am not talking HIMARS sittimg at an armoury, keep them at Wainwright, Shilo, gagetown for example and the reserves sign them out when needed. We can make it happen, we just need to be willing to make it happen.

Anything is doable if there is a will.

Quote
A High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) vehicle is loaded into one of four C-130 aircraft from the 118th Airlift Wing June 4th, as the Tennessee Army National Guard's 1-181st Field Artillery Battalion headed to Fort Chaffee, AR for two weeks of annual training. (Photo by Tech. Sgt. Robin Olsen, Tenn. National Guard Joint Force Headquarters, Public Affairs.)



Stop telling yourself what can't be done and spend your efforts working on a way to make it happen. The only real question is: why should it happen?

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #337 on: April 26, 2020, 18:50:26 »
 Some of the reasons I am a fan of the missile based systems:

The missiles are considered "wooden" - meaning they have a long shelf life and don't require much maintenance
The missiles are containerized and easily transported to and from Dundurn by road, rail, sea and air to wherever the launcher is located-they wouldn't be located at the armouries
The missiles can be launched from their containers mounted on either tracked vehicles or trucks (or perhaps a ground or deck mount).
The crew requirements seem to consist of a driver, a gunner and a det commander.
The fire control  system is small enough to fit inside the cab of the truck with the three man crew. - Presumably a desk-top training device netted into a simulation system is already available.

The Reservists could spend their Wednesday nights practicing fire support with the same buttons and screens they would be called on to work with in the field.  The trucks for the launcher and the reloads would be be the same as those available at the armouries for civil support duties.

I wonder if it isn't easier to train and retain missile gunners than it is cannon gunners.

And, if you want a smaller calibre "training" system, there are always the 70mm rockets and missiles (which we make in Canada)









Note that the Unmanned unit is sold by Rheinmetall (which has a plant in Quebec) and fires missiles (70mm CRV-7s) manufactured by Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg.

 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 19:02:20 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 331,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,651
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #338 on: April 26, 2020, 19:05:37 »
Some of the reasons I am a fan of the missile based systems:

The missiles are considered "wooden" - meaning they have a long shelf life and don't require much maintenance
The missiles are containerized and easily transported to and from Dundurn by road, rail, sea and air to wherever the launcher is located-they wouldn't be located at the armouries
The missiles can be launched from their containers mounted on either tracked vehicles or trucks (or perhaps a ground or deck mount).
The crew requirements seem to consist of a driver, a gunner and a det commander.
The fire control  system is small enough to fit inside the cab of the truck with the three man crew. - Presumably a desk-top training device netted into a simulation system is already available.

The Reservists could spend their Wednesday nights practicing fire support with the same buttons and screens they would be called on to work with in the field.  The trucks for the launcher and the reloads would be be the same as those available at the armouries for civil support duties.

I wonder if it isn't easier to train and retain missile gunners than it is cannon gunners.

And, if you want a smaller calibre "training" system, there are always the 70mm rockets and missiles (which we make in Canada)









Note that the Unmanned unit is sold by Rheinmetall (which has a plant in Quebec) and fires missiles (70mm CRV-7s) manufactured by Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg.

The right missile based system is, of course, MLRS. Anything else is likley just dancing around the edges...
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 331,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,651
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #339 on: April 26, 2020, 19:06:09 »
The right missile based system is, of course, MLRS. Anything else is likely just dancing around the edges...
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #340 on: April 26, 2020, 19:06:30 »
Upgrade systems

NASAMs



HIMARS

« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 19:12:24 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #341 on: April 26, 2020, 19:11:37 »
D&B

I get the MRLS preference - and I agree the need.

But are you honestly saying that you would turn your nose up at a couple of hundred 70mm rounds launched from the back of a couple of trucks or a re-purposed C1 mount?

Keep in mind the people talking about buying 120mm mortars to replace the 105s not on tactical grounds but because of their training value.

And the Rheinmetall UGV product is a Rheinmetall Canada product being developed in Quebec and presumably based on the Argo vehicle - also made in Canada. 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 19:18:00 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 331,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,651
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #342 on: April 26, 2020, 19:22:25 »
D&B

I get the MRLS preference - and I agree the need.

But are you honestly saying that you would turn your nose up at a couple of hundred 70mm rounds launched from the back of a couple of trucks or a re-purposed C1 mount?

Keep in mind the people talking about buying 120mm mortars to replace the 105s not on tactical grounds but because of their training value.

And the Rheinmetall UGV product is a Rheinmetall Canada product being developed in Quebec and presumably based on the Argo vehicle - also made in Canada.

I like the idea of having 155mm available 24/7 for HE (PD-VT), Smk, Illum, Sub-munitions etc out to wonderfully long ranges, accurately (well, for a gunner that is :) ) and reliably.

105mm too because 'Danger Close' is closer, but I could live with mortars for that.
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #343 on: April 26, 2020, 19:58:00 »
I like the idea of having 155mm available 24/7 for HE (PD-VT), Smk, Illum, Sub-munitions etc out to wonderfully long ranges, accurately (well, for a gunner that is :) ) and reliably.

105mm too because 'Danger Close' is closer, but I could live with mortars for that.

And why couldn't containers of missiles be on-call 24/7? 

As to Danger Close - 70mm APKWS - Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System - https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/09/26/bae-apkws-guided-rocket-contract/  - Range equivalent to the 81mm, HE load equivalent to the 105mm and CEP <0.5m.  And the variety of warheads available is greater than that of mortars and almost as varied as tube launched bullets.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 54,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,439
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #344 on: April 26, 2020, 20:16:39 »
Thanks for bringing up the CRV-7,  We do make it here already. What is stopping us from truck mounting it? I imagine going Russian rocket party doctrine and having a truck or track mounted launcher with a few dozen tubes would be cheap. They apparently also make a laser guided version, so you could have an infantry section mark the target for a few rockets to come crashing down.

It is a organic, domestic system with a small supply chain. Could work to our benefit.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 20:27:12 by MilEME09 »
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 331,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,651
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #345 on: April 26, 2020, 20:35:03 »
And why couldn't containers of missiles be on-call 24/7? 

As to Danger Close - 70mm APKWS - Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System - https://www.thedefensepost.com/2019/09/26/bae-apkws-guided-rocket-contract/  - Range equivalent to the 81mm, HE load equivalent to the 105mm and CEP <0.5m.  And the variety of warheads available is greater than that of mortars and almost as varied as tube launched bullets.

Totally possible of course, I'm just so old school .... plus being almost completely unaware of the capabilities of modern missile systems :)
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 75,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,795
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #346 on: April 26, 2020, 20:38:16 »
So it says per-unit cost of APKWS is over 20K USD. GMLRS and Excalibur are even pricier (I don't have current figures)

I think precision fires are great...but I'm not sure Canadian taxpayers will share my enthusiasm in the coming months and years. Yes, you will hit your target and probably save money in the long-term, but I just think it's going to be a hard sell after a pandemic and the resulting economic fallout. I can maybe see a small number being procured for use in Europe or perhaps if we find ourselves in another Afghanistan, that's about it.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 20:42:22 by reverse_engineer »

Offline Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 36,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,310
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #347 on: April 26, 2020, 20:40:55 »
And why couldn't containers of missiles be on-call 24/7? 


Because rockets/missiles are not really designed for Direct Fire (DS) support, but more for the deep fires of General Support (typically counter battery). To that end, their fires are controlled well above combat team level where DS fire support is more vital. The other reason they're not suitable, is their payloads are designed for lethal effects only, and they do not have sustained fire capability. So not much good if you want Illum, IR Illum, Smoke, multi-spectral smoke, or sustained neutralizing fire over a large area or target area with minimal definition that precludes the effectiveness of precision fires.

The health of the C3 and LG1 fleet doesn't seem to be very good, right now, and this most likely warrants more urgent attention than deep fire capabilities.

 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2020, 23:39:35 by Petard »

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 319,650
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,838
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #348 on: April 26, 2020, 20:43:24 »
This is why I'm also a fan of the Avenger SHORAD system for use by reservists.

- Small wheeled vehicle easy to maintain and move around.

- Easily stored in an armory and taken to a parking lot for training.

- Sufficiently complex skills needed to make it an interesting system for a soldier.

- We desperately need something quick and dirty and relatively low cost.

- I already mentioned that the US Army National Guard has five brigades and two separate battalions of Avengers so it's easily doable.



 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 62,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,724
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #349 on: April 26, 2020, 22:00:41 »
The beauty of NASAM is that it is land launched derivative of the ESSM ER, a missile compatible with the Mk 41 VLS. And it can be networked into an AEGIS system. Think of the possibilities there ... in fact, does naval rocketry then fall under RCA along with NGS fires (lol!).

Edit: I believe the Aussies are looking to fit that system onto the Hawkei.
... Move!! ...