Author Topic: C3 Howitzer Replacement  (Read 149649 times)

FJAG, Colin P, Chris Pook (+ 1 Hidden) and 11 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 180,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,637
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #625 on: September 28, 2020, 00:24:42 »

The budget is available right now to deliver better defence outputs. The high cost of full-time personnel is the anchor which is dragging down the force. It's up to DND/CAF to make internal changes before seeking more cash. Once DND/CAF has shed its bureaucratic deadwood and all other unnecessary full-time positions and determines a better way to make use of reserve personnel it will have sufficient incremental funds to acquire essential equipment.

 :cheers:

I believe the Czarist and Ottoman Armies have almost achieved the removal of their bureaucratic deadwood and all other unnecessary full-time positions.  8)

Offline Ralph

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 220
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #626 on: September 29, 2020, 07:19:35 »
The budget is available right now to deliver better defence outputs. The high cost of full-time personnel is the anchor which is dragging down the force. It's up to DND/CAF to make internal changes before seeking more cash. Once DND/CAF has shed its bureaucratic deadwood and all other unnecessary full-time positions and determines a better way to make use of reserve personnel it will have sufficient incremental funds to acquire essential equipment.

Do you have a working list of the bureaucratic deadwood?

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 299,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,641
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #627 on: September 29, 2020, 07:37:20 »
Do you have a working list of the bureaucratic deadwood?

 FJAG has written lots of papers, and I do believe a book a
listing such things....
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 323,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,439
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #628 on: September 29, 2020, 09:26:10 »
FJAG has written lots of papers, and I do believe a book a
listing such things....

Yes. Please don't get him started again. I find the truth far too depressing  :)  :salute:
“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 —

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 309,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,725
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #629 on: September 29, 2020, 13:14:10 »
Do you have a working list of the bureaucratic deadwood?

Not itemized, no. Gen Leslie had a fairly extensive summation in his Transformation Report of 2011. And that was without being allowed to look into the civilian side of NDHQ.

Quote
By almost any standard and like almost all of our friends and allies, we have too many headquarters, too much cumbersome process, too much overhead, too much tail. We are going to have to reallocate a significant number of people from within to meet the demands of the future, and we have to do all that we can to protect and invest in the equipment, training and infrastructure needs of the front line and deployable units.
Transformation Report p. 79

Just for starters, I'll offer up one half of the Legal Branch and the National Defence and Canadian Forces Legal Advisor.

Re-read Leslie's Report and you'll understand the problem and see some of the solutions.

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 MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,375
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #630 on: September 29, 2020, 14:17:16 »
Not itemized, no. Gen Leslie had a fairly extensive summation in his Transformation Report of 2011. And that was without being allowed to look into the civilian side of NDHQ.

Just for starters, I'll offer up one half of the Legal Branch and the National Defence and Canadian Forces Legal Advisor.

Re-read Leslie's Report and you'll understand the problem and see some of the solutions.

And also see why it wasn't implemented, gotta protect those empires after all.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Ralph

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 220
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #631 on: September 29, 2020, 14:51:02 »
Well, it's not all bad. We did come out of the last reorg with a Joint Lvl 1 HQ (manned at 97%). Also, claims processing, described as "onerous and technical, requiring user time to prepare, and specialist clerk services to administer and oversee" is easy enough for me to have 32/34'd a hundred of them at my last job...baby steps...

Offline suffolkowner

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 516

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,078
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #633 on: October 08, 2020, 17:10:51 »
Or, on the other hand, a shorter route from Warehouse to Target.

You can fly rounds to theater and load them into launchers, OR, you can launch them from the shipping pallet when the transport is 1000 km from the theater.

C-17 Launches Pallet of Mock Missiles During Arsenal Plane Test

https://www.realcleardefense.com/2020/10/05/c-17_launches_pallet_of_mock_missiles_during_arsenal_plane_test_579605.html
"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 Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,078
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #634 on: October 18, 2020, 00:55:35 »
150 km Ramjet 155mm L52  from Nammo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vIPNElDkns

Also from Nammo a Ramjet Anti-Air Missile - 500 km Air to Air?

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

And from SAAB - the 93 kg GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb mounted on an MRLS rocket = 16 kg AFX to 150 km with 5 to 8 m CEP

https://www.saab.com/products/ground-launched-small-diameter-bomb-glsdb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmUU1SUDeAo
http://www.dmitryshulgin.com/2015/03/14/its-not-powerpoint/

"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 FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 309,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,725
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #635 on: October 18, 2020, 12:08:56 »
One sometimes forgets that in large part wars, and preparing for them, is an economic exercise.

There was a time when smart weapon systems were an improvement because they destroyed a target at a fraction of the commitment (and cost) of the conventional munitions needed to produce the same effect.

Unfortunately, we have reached an age where the costs of the super-smart technology munitions we hurl at the enemy is more expensive then the target it destroys (vis the ATACMS for MLRS and HIMARS at $800,000 per pop or a Harpoon at $1.5 million.)

It's gotten to the point where the launch platform is the cheapest part of the system to acquire and maintain.

Three cheers for the military-industrial complex. I'm more-and-more of the view that it is becoming essential that we acquire and control the means of production of weapon systems and ammunition into a form of national arsenals so as to control it's costs. (Yup. I know we've been there and done that and divested ourselves of the capabilities)

:worms:
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 dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 546,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,551
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #636 on: October 18, 2020, 13:13:06 »
Three cheers for the military-industrial complex. I'm more-and-more of the view that it is becoming essential that we acquire and control the means of production of weapon systems and ammunition into a form of national arsenals so as to control it's costs. (Yup. I know we've been there and done that and divested ourselves of the capabilities)

:worms:

Despite bureaucratic appreciation of that approach, it tends to increase costs, decrease flexibility, and erode interoperability.

For dissenting views, however, you can look at https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/samd-dps/eam-lmp-eng.html

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/munitions-eng.html
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 767
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #637 on: October 18, 2020, 16:17:44 »
There seem to be plenty of countries that produce weapons at the lower end of the tech scale in volume without bankrupting their economies.

Perhaps those are the areas where we should focus to produce for our Reserves.  Weapons that we will need en masse in a "break glass in case of emergency" scenario and save the extra high-tech (and expensive) toys for the smaller Regular Force.

Things that should be well within our capability to produce domestically in militarily meaningful numbers would be something like a light-weight 105mm howitzer in towed and self-propelled (by light, domestically produced vehicles) versions, mortars (again towed and self-propelled), MLRS launchers, etc. 


Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 74,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,787
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #638 on: October 18, 2020, 16:55:32 »
There's also the opportunity cost...

Having systems that can deliver desired effects, with reduced risk of collateral damage or danger to blue forces, is worth something. The alternative is you may not be allowed to engage at all, or the precision/effect will not be up to par. I'd rather have something that I'm allowed to employ, and delivers the desired effect on the first shot.

If we have to cut people, tear down empires, or divest some legacy equipment to do so, so be it.

 :2c:


Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 767
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #639 on: October 18, 2020, 17:09:09 »
There's also the opportunity cost...

Having systems that can deliver desired effects, with reduced risk of collateral damage or danger to blue forces, is worth something. The alternative is you may not be allowed to engage at all, or the precision/effect will not be up to par. I'd rather have something that I'm allowed to employ, and delivers the desired effect on the first shot.

If we have to cut people, tear down empires, or divest some legacy equipment to do so, so be it.

 :2c:

That's why I suggested keeping the high-tech toys for the Reg Force.  Honestly, if we ever get to the point where we are mobilizing Reserve units for combat rather than as augmentation for Reg Force units then we'll likely be at a point where the ROE's are pretty damned loose.

Offline reveng

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 74,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,787
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #640 on: October 18, 2020, 17:23:03 »
That's why I suggested keeping the high-tech toys for the Reg Force.  Honestly, if we ever get to the point where we are mobilizing Reserve units for combat rather than as augmentation for Reg Force units then we'll likely be at a point where the ROE's are pretty damned loose.

Sure, but if the legacy system can't be deployed when/where needed, or doesn't match adversary capabilities, what's the point?

I'd rather provide the best systems to the best people, be they Reg or Res. Plenty of empires and deadwood to cut on both sides of the force to make it happen. There's going to be a time for a scalpel, and a time for a hammer. A properly envisioned, selected, trained, and equipped force should be able to integrate these different functions and transition between them as needed.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,078
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #641 on: October 18, 2020, 17:43:35 »
There seem to be plenty of countries that produce weapons at the lower end of the tech scale in volume without bankrupting their economies.

Perhaps those are the areas where we should focus to produce for our Reserves.  Weapons that we will need en masse in a "break glass in case of emergency" scenario and save the extra high-tech (and expensive) toys for the smaller Regular Force.

Things that should be well within our capability to produce domestically in militarily meaningful numbers would be something like a light-weight 105mm howitzer in towed and self-propelled (by light, domestically produced vehicles) versions, mortars (again towed and self-propelled), MLRS launchers, etc.

Nammo and Saab immediately come to mind.  They don't survive on their domestic markets.  And they take an incremental approach to high-tech wizardry - M4 Carl fires the same ammunition as the 1940s vintage M2.  Nammo tinkers with fuels, and engines and warheads and guidance but always within existing envelopes.

Small Diameter Bombs - 4 per 2000 lb wing station - 8-12 per F15-16-18
Plus the F15-16-18
Plus the Pilot
Plus the Maintenance Crew
Plus the Hangar
Plus the Runway
Plus the Hotel
Plus Blue Skies

Vice

2x HIMARS with 6 MRLS-SDB for a total of 12
2x Trucks
1x Sgt and 5 ORs
3x Tents.
"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 CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,320
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #642 on: October 18, 2020, 18:25:41 »
So I was completely unaware that we ALREADY HAD a HIMARS / MRLS type of system in the inventory, back in the day!!

I'm just posting this here, as it's been mentioned throughout this thread multiple times - the use of a HIMARS type system for long range fires.


I've quite enjoyed this lengthy series I found on Youtube about Army operations back in the early 90's... I was blown away to find out we already had this capability at one point   :o 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBc0uk_HpA
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 202,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,883
  • Freespeecher
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #643 on: October 18, 2020, 18:46:05 »
Given the ever evolving capabilities of UAVs, it may well be cheaper to focus on a LOCUST type swarm dispensing system to replace multiple artillery weapons, not to mention being able to use similar airframes to provide ISTAR coverage, and possibly use for things like comms and EW. Various devices existat different scales, like "Switchblade" which has a 10km range to "Skystriker" with a range of 200km.

While "artillery" vehicles may end up looking like that Chinese truck drone delivery system upthread, there is nothing inherent about using tubed artillery or rockets to deliver the effects we want downrange. Something like the BM-30 Smerch is good for overwhelming targets with high volumes of fire, but "we" seem to have moved away from volume a long time ago. At any rate, volume from UAVs is possible as well as precision strikes by single vehicles, so that provides the versatility that we would want, and using UAV airframes for other purposes allows volume production, economies of scale and so on.

As for the argument about expense and capabilities, since much of the "intelligence" of the systems can now be programmed into the vehicles, there is much less need to differentiate between regular and reserves in terms of capabilities. Much of the training on these systems can be done with simulators, so some of the ownership costs can also come down - we don't "need" to drive the trucks to Wainwright or Gagetown to practice shooting, and indeed we could park them there for reserve units to train when they need to practce "live" drills, like navigation, harbour drills, replenishing in the field and so on.
+300
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.

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 178,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,067
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #644 on: October 18, 2020, 19:09:45 »
So I was completely unaware that we ALREADY HAD a HIMARS / MRLS type of system in the inventory, back in the day!!

I'm just posting this here, as it's been mentioned throughout this thread multiple times - the use of a HIMARS type system for long range fires.


I've quite enjoyed this lengthy series I found on Youtube about Army operations back in the early 90's... I was blown away to find out we already had this capability at one point   :o 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBc0uk_HpA

Not sure if you are joking, but we did not have this capability in the 1990s. The training film was produced likely so that Army Officers would know how to employ US or British MLRS in General Support to a Canadian Formation.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,320
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #645 on: October 18, 2020, 19:38:48 »
Not sure if you are joking, but we did not have this capability in the 1990s. The training film was produced likely so that Army Officers would know how to employ US or British MLRS in General Support to a Canadian Formation.


Ah.  That makes more sense.

I saw the Canadian uniforms of the soldiers driving/operating this equipment, and assumed it was our capability. 
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 309,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,725
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #646 on: October 18, 2020, 20:44:03 »

Ah.  That makes more sense.

I saw the Canadian uniforms of the soldiers driving/operating this equipment, and assumed it was our capability.

There were some good editing cuts there to show Canadian soldiers including some gunners, however, the camouflage pattern of the MLRS itself is a camouflage pattern used by the US Army starting around 1975 until the NATO cam pattern took over.

I could vaguely make out the vehicle markings on the front of the vehicle and it looked like it started with a 2A which would have stood for US 2nd Army which from around 1983 on commanded numerous Guard and Reserve units in the SE US tasked with reinforcement to NATO. Starting in 1989, the National Guard received some 185 MLRS launcher systems.

I couldn't quite make out what regiment the vehicle belongs to but there are (and before 2000 were even more) ARNG MLRS battalions in the SE US. (I thought it might have said the 4th FA Regiment but that is an active army one whose 2nd Battalion at Fort Sill OK coincidentally is an MLRS battalion - but I don't think belonged to US 2nd Army back then - but am not sure)

Long story short; good editing of Canadian and US films to make a training film to teach divisional resources that we don't have.

We did used to have nuclear rocket batteries back in the 1960s though.  ;D

 :cheers:
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 21:41:13 by FJAG »
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 daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 323,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,439
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #647 on: October 18, 2020, 21:22:15 »
There were some good editing cuts there to show Canadian soldiers including some gunners, however, the camouflage pattern of the MLRS itself is a camouflage pattern used by the US Army starting around 1975 until the NATO cam pattern took over.

I could vaguely make out the vehicle markings on the front of the vehicle and it looked like it started with a 2A which would have stood for US 2nd Army which from around 1983 on commanded numerous Guard and Reserve units in the SE US tasked with reinforcement to NATO. Starting in 1989, the National Guard received some 185 MLRS launcher systems.

I couldn't quite make out what regiment the vehicle belongs to but there are (and before 2000 were even more) ARNG MLRS battalions in the SE US. (I thought it might have said the 4th FA Regiment but that is an active army one whose 2nd Battalion at Fort Sill OK coincidentally is an MLRS battalion - but I don't think belonged to US 2nd Army back then - but am not sure)

Long story short; good editing of Canadian and US films to make a training film to teach divisional resources that we don't have.

We sis used to have nuclear rocket batteries back in the 1960s though.  ;D

 :cheers:

Perhaps we can blame the ‘Corps 86’ policy for this fantasy ruse, amongst many others <cough> Chimera tank destroyer <cough> :)
“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 —

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 309,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,725
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #648 on: October 18, 2020, 22:01:18 »
Perhaps we can blame the ‘Corps 86’ policy for this fantasy ruse, amongst many others <cough> Chimera tank destroyer <cough> :)

Corps 86 was very useful. It had just been rolled out when I went to the Army's 6 month Command and Staff Course in Kingston and it proved a very helpful system to guide you in understanding concepts above the brigade which, quite frankly is all that any of us had experience with up to then.

General Starry, who was the commanding general of TRADOC was one of our guest speakers and gave us a bit of a briefing on the US Army's initiatives into the then ongoing "Army 86" studies and particularly the "Division 86" program which I understood was a very real initiative to develop the organization and doctrine for a Europe centric heavy division.

Starry impressed me. By the time he came we'd had about twenty guest lecturers each starting his lecture with a slideshow of their organization chart. Starry came and said: " I don't have an org chart with me and quite frankly I have no idea what the hell it looks like or how many people work for me." I'm pretty sure that he actually did but at the time he had staff in the tens of thousands and students numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Incidentally my syndicate discovered a serious deficiency in the establishment of Corps 86 as there was no provision for the Mobile Trollop Platoons which were meant to be collocated with the Mobile Bath and Laundry Platoons. We included it and designed a NATO standard military symbol for it. I'll let you guess what the symbol is. Let's just say that it wouldn't pass muster with today's Op Honour.

 ;D
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 GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 67,670
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 767
Re: C3 Howitzer Replacement
« Reply #649 on: October 19, 2020, 11:43:39 »
The problem with exclusively using expensive smart weapons is that we will be limited in the number of both launchers and munitions that we can afford.

That typically won't be a problem when dealing with most non-peer opponents (which to be fair accounts for the majority of the enemies we are likely to face) which is why it makes sense to equip our Regular Force with these weapons. 

However, if we're only planning on mobilizing our Reserve units in case of a full-scale war against a peer enemy (i.e. Russia or China...realistically Russia in a land warfare scenario) and in that scenario we are likely going to be facing a situation where the Russians have considerably more weapons platforms than us, then relying ONLY on a limited number of "smart" launchers will risk having those assets overwhelmed by the sheer volume of enemy fire. 

Having some "volume" of our own in the form of some less expensive platforms would not only increase the amount of steel we can put down range but it would also allow us to focus our smart weapons on higher value targets that will have a bigger impact.  It will also make the enemy's job harder because they will have more potential targets to deal with.

I guess it's like anything...you need a variety of different tools in the toolbox in order to get the job done efficiently.  You wouldn't use your fancy laser level to pound in a nail...you'd use a hammer.  So we should probably have both hammers (cheap but effective HE launchers in quantity) and laser levels (HIMARS, Excalibur rounds, etc.) in our toolbox.