Author Topic: C3 Howitzer Replacement  (Read 148530 times)

jeffb and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 308,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #550 on: August 13, 2020, 23:10:14 »
Well given the toys the kids down south are coming up with we've got to find something for you to shoot at.  Your 14 km M109A1 and 11 km C3 seem to be a bit behind the curve. :)

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/03/army-will-field-100-km-cannon-500-km-missiles-lrpf-cft/

Chris. The key word there is "will" as in down the road some time. The M109A5/6/7 all do 22km with standard ammo and 30 with RAP. The current barrel is 39 calibres for both the M109 and M777. Yup. They'll both shoot further with the 58 calibres barrel when it comes out. (The C3 incidentally has a range of 18.5 km.)

The point that you are missing here is that the M109 is simply a carriage that has been modified continuously since day one and continues to be modified into the future with longer barrels, more efficient rounds, autoloader systems and automated positioning and directing systems. The current prototype which comes from BAE, the manufacturer of the M109, is called the XM1299 prototype zero. Whether or not that indicates a designation change for the future or not makes little difference as it will be a BAE-built M109 variant. Not bad for a piece of kit that's been around doing yeoman service since Vietnam.

There's not much percentage in comparing missile systems with cannon launched systems. They are complementary systems for very good reasons. Unfortunately we have neither the M109 nor the missile so its all academic anyway :'( At some point we'll buy something which may be state-of-the-art at the time but because we won't upgrade for decades will probably fall by the wayside like the C3.

 :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
  • *
  • 218,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,074
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #551 on: August 14, 2020, 12:13:28 »
Chris. The key word there is "will" as in down the road some time. The M109A5/6/7 all do 22km with standard ammo and 30 with RAP. The current barrel is 39 calibres for both the M109 and M777. Yup. They'll both shoot further with the 58 calibres barrel when it comes out. (The C3 incidentally has a range of 18.5 km.)

The point that you are missing here is that the M109 is simply a carriage that has been modified continuously since day one and continues to be modified into the future with longer barrels, more efficient rounds, autoloader systems and automated positioning and directing systems. The current prototype which comes from BAE, the manufacturer of the M109, is called the XM1299 prototype zero. Whether or not that indicates a designation change for the future or not makes little difference as it will be a BAE-built M109 variant. Not bad for a piece of kit that's been around doing yeoman service since Vietnam.

There's not much percentage in comparing missile systems with cannon launched systems. They are complementary systems for very good reasons. Unfortunately we have neither the M109 nor the missile so its all academic anyway :'( At some point we'll buy something which may be state-of-the-art at the time but because we won't upgrade for decades will probably fall by the wayside like the C3.

 :cheers:


 :cheers:

And cheers to you as well.

Indeed. The key word is
Quote
will
.  As in 'lack of'.

I won't argue ranges.  You are correct.

My point is that any Defence programme for Canada should start with the Defence of Canada.  And, in my mind, the Defence of Canada starts with being able to react to any breach of Canadian sovereignty with Bombs and Boots.   Where those Bombs and Boots are deployed and when, well that is a function of Eyeballs, or sensors if you prefer.  Bombs, Boots and Eyeballs require Bucks.  Curiously, again in my view, it is now relatively inexpensive to drop 'Bombs' (rocket powered) in this case, anywhere in Canada's Areas of Interest.  For a country with the Scottish inheritance this one has that is a great thing.  We may not need to blow things up regularly but it is nice to have that capability in hand at a low cost.

Recognizing that no system is perfect and that there will be gaps then we can start considering the gaps and how to fill them - again, cheaply.

Eyeballs (sensors), are coming down in costs but the upscale ones are still eye-watering and the shear number that are needed means that providing that uniform picture and the necessary ISTAR assets (like Satellites, UAVs, P8s and F35s) are going to suck up a lot of Bucks, even if they are supplemented by civilian assets like Rangers, Mounties, Citizens, NavCan radars etc.

Reacting with Boots, and maintaining Boots to react with is without doubt the most expensive, both financially and politically, form of defence.  And it remains to be determined how often and what capabilities.

One of the Army's, and by extension the Artillery's, great problems is convincing people how a small number of boots can effectively defend Canada.  The usual answer is by allying with others and taking the fight overseas.  Unfortunately to many people that doesn't seem like a prescription for National Defence but rather National Offence.

The structure needs to be built so that every element has as its primary mission something that contributes directly and materially to the defence of Canada, its people, lands, lakes, seas, EEZs and Continental Shelf (Edit - and Airspace over them).  Then those capabilities can be put at the use of our allies for their benefit and for our instruction.

It is obvious to me, after watching the efforts of soldiers and the DND for the best part of 40 years, that Canadians have difficulty coming to terms with an army that only seems to operate in foreign lands.  Despite breaking out the snowshovels at home between infrequent deployments.

As you say, the question is one of 'will'.

 :cheers: Your health.

 

« Last Edit: August 14, 2020, 12:24:35 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

Online GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 765
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #552 on: August 14, 2020, 14:36:25 »
Assuming the will (and the cash) can be found there are some not too radical and complementary HE/Precision platforms that could be a huge improvement for the CF.

Leaving out the man-portable weapons (like Carl-G, Javelin, 60mm & 81mm Mortars) which should stay with the Infantry, I think the indirect fire platforms could be split into roughly three range bands:

Band 1:
HE Platform = 120mm Mortar (LAV mounted for Heavy/Medium Brigades, Light Tactical Vehicle mounted or towed for Light Brigades)
Precision Platform = Hellfire Missile (LAV mounted for Heavy/Medium Brigades, Light Tactical Vehicle mounted for Light Brigades)

Band 2:
HE Platform = 105mm Howitzer (LAV mounted for Heavy/Medium Brigades, Light Tactical Vehicle mounted - Hawkeye - or towed for Light Brigades)
Precision Platform = Spike-NLOS Missile (LAV mounted for Heavy/Medium Brigades, Light Tactical Vehicle mounted for Light Brigades)

Band 3:
HE Platform = 155mm Howitzer (M109 or Truck mounted for Heavy/Medium Brigades, Truck mounted or towed/portee for Light Brigades)
Precision Platform = HIMARS

I guess the question is what would the best way to organize these platforms.  Units comprised of all the same platform?  Group together both HE and Precision platforms from the same range band?  Separate units for HE and Precision platforms?  Which units should be Reg Force and which should be Reserve units? 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,074
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #553 on: August 29, 2020, 01:58:04 »
“We’re going to have Marines out there sinking ships,” said Maj. Gen. Tracy W. King, director, Expeditionary Warfare, speaking Aug. 27 in the Surface Navy Association’s First Waterfront Symposium webinar. 

A focus on AV-35Bs, Helicopters and 200 km Naval Strike Missiles launched from autonomous platforms deployed from 30x 14-kt ships the size of a fishing trawler or Offshore Supply Vessel, manned with 45 sailors and 70 marines (with the marines helping with ship duties while living aboard)


https://seapowermagazine.org/expeditionary-warfare-director-marines-will-be-sinking-ships-in-future-war/
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/33299/navy-wants-to-buy-30-new-light-amphibious-warships-to-support-radical-shift-in-marine-ops
https://news.usni.org/2020/06/08/marines-look-to-two-new-ship-classes-to-define-future-of-amphibious-operations
https://militaryleak.com/2020/05/17/us-marines-will-field-jltv-rogue-fires-vehicle-with-naval-strike-missile/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile


Personally I think, given that Canada doesn't do everything, it decides what, how much, where and when - forces that could defend coasts make a lot more sense than adding another under-strength brigade to someone else's army.

C3 Gunners converted to Anti-Shp and Anti-Air Missileers.



« Last Edit: August 29, 2020, 02:02:49 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 MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,372
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #554 on: September 06, 2020, 19:17:27 »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/09/06/sci-fi-awesome-a-us-army-howitzer-just-shot-down-a-cruise-missile/amp/

Here's a new reason to invest in arty, missile defense. Successfully deployed from a M109 and intercepted a target missile. Very interesting concept to make a m109 into a Swiss army knife.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 323,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,432
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #555 on: September 07, 2020, 17:09:04 »
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2020/09/06/sci-fi-awesome-a-us-army-howitzer-just-shot-down-a-cruise-missile/amp/

Here's a new reason to invest in arty, missile defense. Successfully deployed from a M109 and intercepted a target missile. Very interesting concept to make a m109 into a Swiss army knife.

If only we had M109s (still)  ::)
“To stand on the firing parapet and expose yourself to danger; to stand and fight a thousand miles from home when you're all alone and outnumbered and probably beaten; to spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary.”
— Jerry Pournelle —

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 511
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #556 on: September 11, 2020, 17:22:52 »
https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/analysis_top_most_modern_8x8_wheeled_self-propelled_howitzers.html

lots of choices out there for a wheeled sph.

What is the reason for the firing ranges being different though? Just the length of the barrel ie 39 vs 52?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #557 on: September 18, 2020, 15:03:14 »
I have to wonder to the value of jamming a 155mm gun into an existing 8x8 LAV style hull vs a large armoured 8x8 logistics truck. Really artillery is a logistical issue. How to move, store, protect and deliver the artillery round.

Online Ralph

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 218
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #558 on: September 20, 2020, 09:55:08 »
I have to wonder to the value of jamming a 155mm gun into an existing 8x8 LAV style hull vs a large armoured 8x8 logistics truck. Really artillery is a logistical issue. How to move, store, protect and deliver the artillery round.

Crew protection and off-road mobility, I'm guessing, although any 30-40-tonne wheeled vehicle can have issues in the winter and spring...

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #559 on: September 20, 2020, 12:34:06 »
I was impressed with the off road ability of the 8x8 MAN trucks we had in Germany, I suspect the trucks even armoured have better mobility than a LAV 6 with 155mm turret stuck on it. The LAV will be somewhat more survivable.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 308,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #560 on: September 20, 2020, 18:21:24 »
I don't have any dogs in the hunt on the issue of logistics vehicle with gun turret or LAV with gun turret. As long as either chassis provides protection for the crew, has reasonable manoeuvrability and is compatible mechanically to other vehicle chassis already in the inventory then the only questions that remain are the efficiency and ammo capacity of the turret and self-locating/siting systems (which is independent of the chassis itself) and the overall weight and dimensions of the vehicle for air transportability.

 :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 suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 511
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #561 on: September 20, 2020, 18:24:02 »
I was impressed with the off road ability of the 8x8 MAN trucks we had in Germany, I suspect the trucks even armoured have better mobility than a LAV 6 with 155mm turret stuck on it. The LAV will be somewhat more survivable.

A 155mm has got to rock a LAV hard does it not?

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 308,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #562 on: September 20, 2020, 18:40:30 »
A 155mm has got to rock a LAV hard does it not?

A 155 rocks everything pretty hard. Even the M109 (which only weighs in at 27 tonnes and has a wide wheelbase) rocked hard at full charge with the 39 calibre barrel. That's why it had ground spades at the back. With the proposed 58 calibre barrel it will rock even more. That's the trouble with these extended ranges - there's much greater strain on everything.

Surprisingly, many of the wheeled options discussed here (including logistic trucks, LAV and Boxer) weigh more than the M109 in part from the armour and autoload mechanisms they have.

 :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 suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 20,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 511
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #563 on: September 20, 2020, 18:46:53 »
Thanks FJAG

That's what I figured, I just wondered how practical a LAV 155 would be

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 308,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #564 on: September 20, 2020, 19:16:03 »
Thanks FJAG

That's what I figured, I just wondered how practical a LAV 155 would be

The LAV6.0 took the basic LAVIII from some 17 tons to around 32 tons with full armament and armour so the chassis and motor has already been beefed up. Kraus-Maffei's 155/52 Artillery Gun Module (AGM - basically the Panzerhaubitze 2000 turret) with autoloader etc comes in at around 12.5 tons. I can't see why the LAV 6.0 chassis couldn't handle that load (once you remove the existing 30mm turret system and much of the armour on the back half of the vehicle (and maybe add some stabilizers)

 :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 LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,915
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 221
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #565 on: September 21, 2020, 00:20:17 »
I remember doing some research into the US Army concept for an air-deployable LAV3 SPH with a turret from Denal (of S.Africa) which was not pursued. It makes sence to LAV-ify as much as possible but the whole idea of it is to reduce maintenance and increase commonality. In this, we'd be doing R & D on a 20 year old concept on an older (basic LAV3) chasis/drivetrain/etc... to save money, but yet spend loads just to make it production-ready. At that, we'd be the only customer for it.

TLDR; spending lots of $$$ on our own on something too old and that nobody else would buy - just to save $$$? Doesn't make sense.

Invest in a SPH that our friends have. M109 clearly has some life left in it and a friend with some cheap ones available, or get some K9 Thunders like Australia just did. Either you want the capability or ya don't. Wouldn't be crazy to have a small fleet of K9s, capability is worth the issues of having only 30.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 201,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,876
  • Freespeecher
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #566 on: September 21, 2020, 15:16:08 »
I remember doing some research into the US Army concept for an air-deployable LAV3 SPH with a turret from Denal (of S.Africa) which was not pursued. It makes sence to LAV-ify as much as possible but the whole idea of it is to reduce maintenance and increase commonality. In this, we'd be doing R & D on a 20 year old concept on an older (basic LAV3) chasis/drivetrain/etc... to save money, but yet spend loads just to make it production-ready. At that, we'd be the only customer for it.

TLDR; spending lots of $$$ on our own on something too old and that nobody else would buy - just to save $$$? Doesn't make sense.

Invest in a SPH that our friends have. M109 clearly has some life left in it and a friend with some cheap ones available, or get some K9 Thunders like Australia just did. Either you want the capability or ya don't. Wouldn't be crazy to have a small fleet of K9s, capability is worth the issues of having only 30.

Maybe look at the US Army and USMC, since they also use LAV varients. It would be nice if everyone could be aligned and all use one basic hull (for argument, lets say the Stryker) - you could get lots of economies of scale with a long production run. Most modern 8X8 vehicles in service have lots of ability to be fitted with different turrets and systems, think of "Centurio" tank destroyers with actual tank cannon, or Finnish(?) 8X8s with a twin AMOS 120mm mortar turret as two examples. Even we could get in the game if the Army had pushed to replace all the older vehicles with one model - I believe the actual number was something like 1400 vehicles (TLAV's, Bisons, Coyotes and various other things) but the army ended up only buying 400 odd LAV 3's. Even doubling the number would have unburdened the Army of a lot of logistical headaches with a multitude of almost but not quite compatable LAV varients.

So many of our problems are self inflicted becasue so many things are "siloed" into cyliders of excelence - look at the threads about SHORAD, EW, ATGM and so on- all these programs should be or should have been built on a common chassis. Even if the LAV 6.0 might not be the "best" possible replacement for a Coyote or EW "boat", the logistical advantages likely overwhelm the disadvantages when played across the entire fleet.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #567 on: September 21, 2020, 16:03:35 »
The first SPG we should get are 120mm mortars in a modified LAV 6 chassis, have everything onboard to dismount the 120mm as required, have a MG mounted in a small RWS for self defense. This would be easily doable within the monies we return back yearly. Yes I know we will find a way to make it to difficult for ourselves, god forbid we just use what our allies are doing to inform us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfTFFzgXZkc

Call it an "interim capability" So we don't have to go through the full dog and pony show. The hulls are made in Canada and that is politically doable, the mortars and ammo can be sourced through NATO and is a capability we can use anyways in the Reserves, turning some Reserve units into heavy mortar batteries and consolidating the remaining C3 to other units.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 308,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #568 on: September 21, 2020, 16:11:36 »
Maybe look at the US Army and USMC, since they also use LAV varients. It would be nice if everyone could be aligned and all use one basic hull (for argument, lets say the Stryker) - you could get lots of economies of scale with a long production run. Most modern 8X8 vehicles in service have lots of ability to be fitted with different turrets and systems, think of "Centurio" tank destroyers with actual tank cannon, or Finnish(?) 8X8s with a twin AMOS 120mm mortar turret as two examples. Even we could get in the game if the Army had pushed to replace all the older vehicles with one model - I believe the actual number was something like 1400 vehicles (TLAV's, Bisons, Coyotes and various other things) but the army ended up only buying 400 odd LAV 3's. Even doubling the number would have unburdened the Army of a lot of logistical headaches with a multitude of almost but not quite compatable LAV varients.

So many of our problems are self inflicted becasue so many things are "siloed" into cyliders of excelence - look at the threads about SHORAD, EW, ATGM and so on- all these programs should be or should have been built on a common chassis. Even if the LAV 6.0 might not be the "best" possible replacement for a Coyote or EW "boat", the logistical advantages likely overwhelm the disadvantages when played across the entire fleet.

I've been a long-time fan of common fleets.

As to the US Army and Marines: In the Stryker BCT (the equivalent of our LAV6.0 manoeuvre units) and the Marine Corps the artillery weapon is the M777. (Marines also have HIMARS which in the US Army is part of the separate and divisional artillery brigades) The US Army started to look at replacing the M777 in it's SBCTs in 2018 and there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not it should be SP or towed. Key issues are that it needs to be transportable in the same way as the rest of the brigade (ie capable of air movement) and integrate modern self deployment, manoeuvrability and extended range capabilities. While there has been much press on the M109Paladin improvements, there has been little or no information as to anything separate for the SBCTs. That's probably because the M109 extended range cannon and the precision strike missile projects are the number 1 and 2 priorities.

Quite frankly, the Stryker brigades have always been a bit of a step-child for the US Army designed to give mobility and protection to standard infantry brigade combat teams. The brigades already took a hit with the reduction in numbers of their ersatz-tank, the Mobile Gun System and the inability of the US Air Force to meet the deployment timing cycles for such a brigade (notionally set at deploying a full brigade by Hercules within 96 hours to anywhere in the world) Currently the US has 16 armourd BCTs, 9 Stryker BCTs and 23 infantry BCTs (including 5 airborne and 3 air assault). While there are ongoing upgrades to the Strykers themselves (including IM-SHORAD; better TOW and Javelin under armour; Dragoon turrets; V hulls; etc) there seems to be a dearth of information on an upgraded artillery system.

 :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 FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 308,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #569 on: September 21, 2020, 16:27:43 »
The first SPG we should get are 120mm mortars in a modified LAV 6 chassis, have everything onboard to dismount the 120mm as required, have a MG mounted in a small RWS for self defense. This would be easily doable within the monies we return back yearly. Yes I know we will find a way to make it to difficult for ourselves, god forbid we just use what our allies are doing to inform us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfTFFzgXZkc

Call it an "interim capability" So we don't have to go through the full dog and pony show. The hulls are made in Canada and that is politically doable, the mortars and ammo can be sourced through NATO and is a capability we can use anyways in the Reserves, turning some Reserve units into heavy mortar batteries and consolidating the remaining C3 to other units.

There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

 :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 GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 765
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #570 on: September 21, 2020, 16:51:55 »
There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

 :cheers:

Call me a dreamer, but the USMC is divesting itself of 16 Batteries of M777's.  If I were king for a day I'd buy the lot of them.  Three Batteries to top up the three Reg Force Regiments to 3 x 6-gun batteries each.  Twelve batteries to make up three complete Reserve Artillery Regiments (with 3 x 6-gun batteries each) and one Battery left over for the Artillery School/Training/Spares. 

While towed guns have disadvantages in range and increased vulnerability to counter-battery fire, it would at least get our Artillery units to a reasonable starting point.  Additional capabilities (SP Guns, HIMARS, etc.) could be added later. 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #571 on: September 21, 2020, 17:11:01 »
There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

 :cheers:

and I will have to disagree politely. The infantry should have 60 and 81mm mortars. The 120mm is to much to hump with a usable ammo load. So they go to the artillery. Currently the reg force has no SPG's and not enough tubes as it is. Dedicate a battery of LAV 120 to the tanks to provide mobile armoured indirect fire support. Another battery for LAV ops and another for the school. Dismounted or trailered 120's go to some Reserve arty units. This is all very doable in our current and foreseeable budgets. You have some great ideas, but currently they are made of unobtanium and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This would increase the number of useable tubes right now and give us something to helps fill the role of a SPG, even if it's not perfect.

cheers as well.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,074
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #572 on: September 21, 2020, 17:54:51 »
Quote
and equips and organizes its force properly.

What is properly?  To what end? What purpose? What problem does it solve?

A big chunk of our problem is that the Canadian Armed Force solves few, if any problems.  It only ever solves part of the problem. That is why we joined NATO.  The Greeks will defend Iqaluit.  If it needs defending.
"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 Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 252,877
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,141
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #573 on: September 21, 2020, 21:54:01 »
and I will have to disagree politely. The infantry should have 60 and 81mm mortars. The 120mm is to much to hump with a usable ammo load. cheers as well.

One of the characteristics of the 81 mm mortar is that it is man portable, for short distances. The ammunition for an 81 isn't light, and you need lots to be effective.

 :2c:
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 179,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,627
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #574 on: September 21, 2020, 22:11:18 »
Which is why the 81mm should the maximum size for the infantry, they also have to pack water, food, medical, small arms ammunition, batteries, LAW's, Carl G, HMG, GPMG's and some form of ATGM, along with all the other kit a Infantry Battalion needs day to day.

I would put 120mm mortars, Manpads and any ATGM bigger/heavier than a jeep mounted TOW with the artillery (or armour with a TOU)