C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Furniture]

In the air to ground role; it’s only been employed direct fire role by the parent company in the sales pitch videos.

well APKWS direct fire launchers are neither. They aren’t in use anywhere; the system was built for air to ground. We shoot TOW annually ish; I’d assume we’d do the javeline similarly and frankly the trigger pulling part is much less important than acquiring a lock.

Fair, but at $150-250K a pop Javelin will be less used, and less used means less "cool" which means a bunch of people will get tired of "notional" shoots, and garrison BS.

Again, I'm not arguing that APKWS is the right solution, I'm more arguing that top end systems are not the best solution for the CAF. We look at America, and dream about having their kit/budget, but we don't/won't. We should be looking at what systems produced and supported in America, or that can be licensed for production in Canada, are more price suited to us.

Maybe it's 120mm mortars with a DGMS (or whatever the new version is called), maybe it's "cheap" rocket artillery, regardless of the system chosen, it needs to be cheap enough for the GoC/CAF to buy enough to place in the hands of reservists(users of the C3), and cheap enough that those reservists get to actually shoot/use it.

 

[markppcli]

Fair, but at $150-250K a pop Javelin will be less used, and less used means less "cool" which means a bunch of people will get tired of "notional" shoots, and garrison BS.

Didn’t happen in my tow det, despite only getting a couple missiles. It’s all about how you actually run it. The sim can actually be challenging and interesting if ran correctly; and having the ability to shoot on ex and actually using skills with a relevent system would be huge. TOW already costs 80k-90k per.

Again, I'm not arguing that APKWS is the right solution, I'm more arguing that top end systems are not the best solution for the CAF. We look at America, and dream about having their kit/budget, but we don't/won't. We should be looking at what systems produced and supported in America, or that can be licensed for production in Canada, are more price suited to us.

The cost difference between ATGM varients is marginal; you aren’t going to find much savings looking for the “Canadian budget friendly” solution. Javelin is used by a lot of of allies who have similar budget issues and they seem to manage; I fail to see why we can’t. For the record Javelin is US produced so where would the other options exist.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can stand 10m from to 2 kg of naked "potential energy" with ear pro and stroll away. Hell, even with the Army's safety regs I could detonate 1kg 50m from unprotected troops, 100 from civilians.

All of those things you are dismissing are what makes it a weapon system rather than a neat chemical reaction.

OK

The argument I was trying to counter is that the 70mm weapon system is not an effective weapon system due to its size. The point I was trying to make is that it carries more than a lot of smaller systems that are considered effective.

So let me try another tack.

Its less about the warhead and more about commonality - or multi-purpose systems.

53 foot trailer mounted VLS - compatible with Tomahawk, SM6 and ESSMs with various warheads

10 tonne truck mounted - HIMARS, NSMs, NASAMs

JLTV mounted - HERO LAM, ROGUE NSM, Stingers, Hellfires

And then there is this

The point is that a common launcher can deliver a wide range of effects. The 70mm class can deliver area saturation ballistic attacks, APKWS precision attacks, and Stinger class SAMs (Diameter 70mm). It can attack Air, Ground and Marine targets. It can be launched from Air, Ground or Marine platforms. One missile can be employed against a variety of targets. A 70mm loitering munition similar to the Switchblade 300 (Diameter 76mm) should not be inconceivable. Nor should longer range motors such as that being developed by NAMMO.


A 53foot trailer is not going to accompany a light battalion (although a light battalion may accompany a 53 foot trailer for security) but a UGV with 70mm missiles may accompany a light battalion anywhere it travels. And carries more stowed kills than larger caliber systems.

APKWS® laser-guidance kit

Combat-proven for over 5 years, BAE Systems' APKWS® laser-guidance kit redefines precision by hitting targets with pinpoint accuracy and minimal collateral damage – critical for air-to-ground missions when you only have one shot.

www.baesystems.com

Broad spectrum, cheap and 93% accurate with the APKWS II system.

The BQM-167 target drone that represented a cruise missile was intercepted over the Gulf of Mexico water range using cueing from the targeting pod carried by the F-16. On that mission, the aircraft was loaded with two pods each carrying seven 2.75″ (70 mm) guided rockets, plus four AIM-120 AMRAAM air/air missiles. The test successfully demonstrated shooting a small drone at low altitudes. A single APKWS was required to down the target.

• April 2013: A UH-1Y Venom fired 10 APKWS rockets at stationary and moving small boat targets, scoring 100 percent accurate hits on single and multiple targets over water. The engagement ranged from 2–4 km using inert Mk152 high explosive and MK149 flechette warheads. The UH-1Y had the boats designated by an MH-60S.[32]

• December 2019: US Air Force demonstrates air-to-air capability of AGR-20A to cue off Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod and intercept low-flying cruise missiles.[44]

In December 2019, the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, conducted a test using APKWS rocket against a drone representing a cruise missile. By adapting the rocket for cruise missile defense, it can serve the same role as the much more expensive AIM-120 missile, according to an Air Force release. "The test was unprecedented and will shape the future of how the Air Force executes CMD," Col. Ryan Messer, commander of the 53d Wing at Eglin, said in a release. "This is a prime example of how the 53d Wing is using resources readily available to establish innovative ways that enhance combat capabilities for our combat units."[45]

In June 2020, BAE announced they had completed test firings of the APKWS from a ground launcher for the first time. Several rockets were fired from an Arnold Defense-built launcher called the Fletcher designed specifically for ground vehicles, demonstrating the weapon's ability to address a demand for standoff ground-to-ground precision munitions for small ground units.[46][47]

One word - versatility.

 

[markppcli]

OK

The argument I was trying to counter is that the 70mm weapon system is not an effective weapon system due to its size. The point I was trying to make is that it carries more than a lot of smaller systems that are considered effective.

So let me try another tack.

Its less about the warhead and more about commonality - or multi-purpose systems.

53 foot trailer mounted VLS - compatible with Tomahawk, SM6 and ESSMs with various warheads

10 tonne truck mounted - HIMARS, NSMs, NASAMs

JLTV mounted - HERO LAM, ROGUE NSM, Stingers, Hellfires

View attachment 75525

And then there is this

The point is that a common launcher can deliver a wide range of effects. The 70mm class can deliver area saturation ballistic attacks, APKWS precision attacks, and Stinger class SAMs (Diameter 70mm). It can attack Air, Ground and Marine targets. It can be launched from Air, Ground or Marine platforms. One missile can be employed against a variety of targets. A 70mm loitering munition similar to the Switchblade 300 (Diameter 76mm) should not be inconceivable. Nor should longer range motors such as that being developed by NAMMO.


A 53foot trailer is not going to accompany a light battalion (although a light battalion may accompany a 53 foot trailer for security) but a UGV with 70mm missiles may accompany a light battalion anywhere it travels. And carries more stowed kills than larger caliber systems.

APKWS® laser-guidance kit

Combat-proven for over 5 years, BAE Systems' APKWS® laser-guidance kit redefines precision by hitting targets with pinpoint accuracy and minimal collateral damage – critical for air-to-ground missions when you only have one shot.

www.baesystems.com

Broad spectrum, cheap and 93% accurate with the APKWS II system.








One word - versatility.

Thank you for that BAE brochure.

My point is generally in a couple directions:

1. 70mm APKWS in direct fire is something only BAE has used and I see minimal benefit.

2. Laser Designation has a whole swack of criteria that requires some battle space coordination to work that would severely limit your ability to say, employ multiple launchers firing into a KZ or across KZs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps more importantly, it reports current and planned production figures for this weapon, that clearly show it to be common, proven, and widely available.

“… the U.S. military has a lot of 70mm rockets and buys thousands more every year. The Army alone plans to buy 60,000 unguided rockets in fiscal 2023 alone. BAE Systems, which builds the APKWS II seeker kit, is tooled to build 25,000 of them per year and is expanding production, according to its website. It has already delivered 37,000 units in six years of production.”

More on Surface Launch Application of APKWS

The Drive/The Warzone has a post “What Will Fire The Laser-Guided Rockets Donated To Ukraine Is Still A Mystery,” discussing how Advance Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) laser guide…

chuckhillscgblog.net

 

[FJAG]

I'm interested. DLR isn't.

 

[markppcli]

More on Surface Launch Application of APKWS

The Drive/The Warzone has a post “What Will Fire The Laser-Guided Rockets Donated To Ukraine Is Still A Mystery,” discussing how Advance Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) laser guide…

chuckhillscgblog.net

That article says nothing about planned launchers; just that the US is buying lots of rockets which should seem obviously as they can be fired off AH-64s.

 

[Kirkhill]

That article says nothing about planned launchers; just that the US is buying lots of rockets which should seem obviously as they can be fired off AH-64s.

The point is that in a world where there are 7,000 Javelins produced a year there are 60,000 Hydra 70s and 25,000 APKWS kits produced annually. That suggests to me that with the right launchers there are 25,000 targets that could be served without eating into the Javelin stocks.

Apparently, in the absence of useful targets the Ukrainians are using $200,000 Javelins they way they were used in Afghanistan and the Brits used the Milans in the Falklands - for blowing holes in concrete and mud.

 

[Furniture]

Didn’t happen in my tow det, despite only getting a couple missiles. It’s all about how you actually run it. The sim can actually be challenging and interesting if ran correctly; and having the ability to shoot on ex and actually using skills with a relevent system would be huge. TOW already costs 80k-90k per.

That means TOW is 2-3 less expensive than a Javelin, meaning your det would shoot 2-3x less missiles. Simulators only go so far, there is nothing that replaces the feeling of doing the thing. I'm not arguing that simulators are useless, or bad, just that doing the thing is always better than simulating it.

The cost difference between ATGM varients is marginal; you aren’t going to find much savings looking for the “Canadian budget friendly” solution. Javelin is used by a lot of of allies who have similar budget issues and they seem to manage; I fail to see why we can’t. For the record Javelin is US produced so where would the other options exist.

Fair enough for ATGMs, but ATGMs don't replace C3s. Though I question that, is Spike LR/ER not cheaper than Javelin?

The whole point of this thread is a discussing systems to replace the clapped out C3s, and I'm simply suggesting we should be looking beyond what boutique systems the USA, or other countries are using for their high-speed-low-drag units.

 

[KevinB]

That means TOW is 2-3 less expensive than a Javelin, meaning your det would shoot 2-3x less missiles. Simulators only go so far, there is nothing that replaces the feeling of doing the thing. I'm not arguing that simulators are useless, or bad, just that doing the thing is always better than simulating it.

Due to Javelin’s Fire and Forget system firing a missile offers nothing really better than what can be done with using a training CLU to lock targets.
It’s not the Dragon, TOW or Eryx etc that needs user control to steer in on a target.

Fair enough for ATGMs, but ATGMs don't replace C3s. Though I question that, is Spike LR/ER not cheaper than Javelin?

Spike isn’t a great system.
Spike NLOS isn’t Spike.

The whole point of this thread is a discussing systems to replace the clapped out C3s, and I'm simply suggesting we should be looking beyond what boutique systems the USA, or other countries are using for their high-speed-low-drag units.

You don’t have a lot of reasonable options.
1) M119A3 105mm Light Gun
2) M109A7 /ERCA 155mm SPA
3) used M777 155mm
4) HIMARS

I’d argue it’s probably best with a mix of those 4/5

 

[markppcli]

The point is that in a world where there are 7,000 Javelins produced a year there are 60,000 Hydra 70s and 25,000 APKWS kits produced annually. That suggests to me that with the right launchers there are 25,000 targets that could be served without eating into the Javelin stocks.

Apparently, in the absence of useful targets the Ukrainians are using $200,000 Javelins they way they were used in Afghanistan and the Brits used the Milans in the Falklands - for blowing holes in concrete and mud.

Blowing holes it hard points is probably pretty useful to those Ukrainians being shot at from them. Even better if they don’t have to expose the whole time.

That means TOW is 2-3 less expensive than a Javelin, meaning your det would shoot 2-3x less missiles. Simulators only go so far, there is nothing that replaces the feeling of doing the thing. I'm not arguing that simulators are useless, or bad, just that doing the thing is always better than simulating it.

Having had this discussion with a bunch of guys, firing 1 TOW missile was extremely valuable. The actual launch, obscuration, and time delay till you have control is slightly different than the sim. But frankly beyond the one it’s not different and the sim set up offers a fairly good variety; we’d record scores and compete. What Would have been better would have been tactical training with an actual acquire of a target which you can do better with the Javeline.

Fair enough for ATGMs, but ATGMs don't replace C3s. Though I question that, is Spike LR/ER not cheaper than Javelin?

The whole point of this thread is a discussing systems to replace the clapped out C3s, and I'm simply suggesting we should be looking beyond what boutique systems the USA, or other countries are using for their high-speed-low-drag units.

C3 replacement yes, sorry I jumped in simply because of really bad understanding of munition guidance and how it actually works. I echo KevinB, just buy surplus M109s off the US.

 

[Furniture]

@KevinB I'm not doubting Spike is lesser than Javelin, perhaps NLAW, but my point is Spike is better than nothing... and the CAF tends to always go all-in for best, and ends up with nothing.

In my mind everything short of ceremonial/service uniforms should be as common with the US versions as we can go, and just have different patches/rank tabs. It puts us back to the Suez Crisis as far as being uniquely Canadian goes, but it would save us a boat load of time/frustration with simple things. I dislike Canada being beholden to the US for all things arms, but seeing how Germany and Switzerland have behaved WRT Ukraine, it's better than the alternatives.

@markppcli great insight. I'm a weather guy so I never actually shot a C6 until I was crew commanding a Bison with a C6 in Kandahar, which means my view of CAF "training" is a bit skewed toward it being useless. I'm aware I'm likely the outlier, but it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth all these years later.

 

[FJAG]

The whole point of this thread is a discussing systems to replace the clapped out C3s, and I'm simply suggesting we should be looking beyond what boutique systems the USA, or other countries are using for their high-speed-low-drag units.

That's definitely the question and unfortunately there is nothing on the go institutionally.

What infuriates me more than anything else is not that there isn't money in the kitty to deal with a project. With so many critical capability gaps its easy to see how it would be a low priority. What bugs me is that the Army, in general, and the artillery, in particular, still haven't really decided where the reserves fit in other than the vague concept of augmentation. As the equipment delta between RegF units and ResF units widens, having a credible augmentation role is less achievable.

Gunners at the regimental coal faces (both RegF and ResF) have been innovative and progressive to keep things moving. We've got reservists deploying to Latvia. That's a start but a low level and low impact activity as it only reaches a handful of ResF gunners. What's missing is top down leadership to map out the future.

You don’t have a lot of reasonable options.
1) M119A3 105mm Light Gun
2) M109A7 /ERCA 155mm SPA
3) used M777 155mm
4) HIMARS

I’d argue it’s probably best with a mix of those 4/5

None of those will be an option until the Army figures out what it wants to be when it grows up.

1) The M119A3 is a bit long in the tooth but more importantly is still in the active inventory of the IBCTs. Perhaps when the SBCTs get some version of a wheeled SP that will shake 150 or so M777s loose which will knock on to some of the M119A3s but that's an iffy plan.

2) We're too deeply mired in the medium force concept for the M109. I'm putting my money on us eventually getting some wheeled SPs - possibly in a hurry what with Latvia. I expect that will be in the nature of our first war-time M777 purchases where we just bought six (albeit availability had a lot to do with that). My guess is that we'd get away with ten. Four to deploy; four for road to high readiness training and two tech spares. We need more but - cheap.

3) M777s - we barely have enough to keep the RegF proficient with them. Even adding in wheeled SPs won't make enough available for repurposing. For the next few years used M777s will be at a premium around the world.

4) HIMARS. I wish but even if, how many would we buy 6? 12? Dispersing them at the platoon/troop level, that would equip only two to four units and my guess is the RegF being the RegF would hoard them in 4 RCA(GS) which could work if one integrated all the maritime ResF regiments with them. That could free up LG1s.

5) AD. I'm still betting on ResF AD troops because I can't help think that the solution will need to include a VLLAD component and it would make sense to reactivate the five ResF batteries that we had for that.

6) STA. It's boring as hell and I'm surprised the RegF hasn't divested it already to strengthen the FOO and gun batteries. I think the fear that it's technically too complex to maintain on the armory floor probably has something to do with that. (Which I'd dispute) I'll take that back a bit. STA was one of the reasons the RegF artillery was able to hold onto PYs during the Night of the Long Knives in 2005 and establish its "relevance" to an Army that was enraptured with ISTAR and bamboozled by fire support and air support coordination. If I was to guess (and that's all that I'm doing) then a transfer of STA to the ResF would put the RegF artillery's PYs in jeopardy.

That gets me back to 30/70 units. IMHO the sole good option is to take the people and equipment of the current four regiments and make them into eight 30/70 regiments which have the same number of RegF batteries and people and the ResF people and all their equipment but distributed in such a way that the ResF elements would have better access to the equipment and instructors and leadership needed to make them proficient and would be sufficient in number to fully round out the eight regiments with people if not equipment. That will at least give you something for the future to build on.

 

[Maxman1]

OK

The argument I was trying to counter is that the 70mm weapon system is not an effective weapon system due to its size. The point I was trying to make is that it carries more than a lot of smaller systems that are considered effective.

So let me try another tack.

Its less about the warhead and more about commonality - or multi-purpose systems.

53 foot trailer mounted VLS - compatible with Tomahawk, SM6 and ESSMs with various warheads

10 tonne truck mounted - HIMARS, NSMs, NASAMs

JLTV mounted - HERO LAM, ROGUE NSM, Stingers, Hellfires

View attachment 75525

And then there is this

The point is that a common launcher can deliver a wide range of effects. The 70mm class can deliver area saturation ballistic attacks, APKWS precision attacks, and Stinger class SAMs (Diameter 70mm). It can attack Air, Ground and Marine targets. It can be launched from Air, Ground or Marine platforms. One missile can be employed against a variety of targets. A 70mm loitering munition similar to the Switchblade 300 (Diameter 76mm) should not be inconceivable. Nor should longer range motors such as that being developed by NAMMO.


A 53foot trailer is not going to accompany a light battalion (although a light battalion may accompany a 53 foot trailer for security) but a UGV with 70mm missiles may accompany a light battalion anywhere it travels. And carries more stowed kills than larger caliber systems.

APKWS® laser-guidance kit

Combat-proven for over 5 years, BAE Systems' APKWS® laser-guidance kit redefines precision by hitting targets with pinpoint accuracy and minimal collateral damage – critical for air-to-ground missions when you only have one shot.

www.baesystems.com

Broad spectrum, cheap and 93% accurate with the APKWS II system.








One word - versatility.

 

[Kirkhill]

In November 2011, the U.S. Army began ordering the M3 MAAWS for regular units deployed in Afghanistan. Soldiers were being engaged with RPGs at 900 meters, while their light weapons had effective ranges of 500–600 meters. The Gustaf allows airburst capability of troops in defilade out to 1,250 meters, and high explosive use out to 1,300 meters.[20]

In late 2012, the Army fielded 58 M3s and 1,500 rounds of ammunition to units deployed to Afghanistan to destroy enemy targets out to 1,000 meters. This was because RPG and machine gun teams could attack 900 meters away, while existing weaponry such as the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, M72 LAW, M136 AT4, and MK153 SMAW have effective ranges of only 500 meters. The AT4 is lighter and cheaper but is made of reinforced fiberglass, while the M3's rifled metal/carbon fiber launch tube allows for reloading. Employing the 22 lb M3 is easier than the 50 lb FGM-148 Javelin with its launcher with missile and reusable command launch unit, is faster than waiting on mortars, and is cheaper than the Javelin and artillery shells for engaging targets in hard cover.[18] Although Special Operations forces had been using the M3 since the early 1990s, light infantry unit commanders in Afghanistan had to submit operational needs statements to get the weapon. The M3 became an official Program of Record in the conventional Army in 2014, and a conditional materiel release was authorized in late 2015 to equip all brigade combat teams with one M3 launcher per infantry platoon.[21]

Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An example of a Special Ops solution generally adopted because it had greater range, was portable, faster into action and cheaper than alternatives.

The Javelin was the only existing solution in the arsenal but was too pricey and too heavy.

 

[KevinB]

Carl Gustaf 8.4 cm recoilless rifle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An example of a Special Ops solution generally adopted because it had greater range, was portable, faster into action and cheaper than alternatives.

The Javelin was the only existing solution in the arsenal but was too pricey and too heavy.

Faulty premise.
The RPG self detonates around 750m
Troops often didn’t have a clue as to ranges (and often didn’t have range finders at the Squad level).

Troops were shot at with PKM’s which is 7.62x54R and equivalent to 7.62x51mm NATO.

I can derail this thread for ages on the inconsistent and unreliable lessons ‘learned’ from Afghanistan about ranges and engagements - but none is Germane to the topic of C3 Replacement

 

[OldSolduer]

Are we still chatting about replacing a light howitzer?

 

[KevinB]

Are we still chatting about replacing a light howitzer?

Probably debatable at this point.

 

[Spencer100]

Probably debatable at this point.

I would like to debate that point.

monty python ....debate - Bing video

www.bing.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We could get 50+ refurbished M101's from SK which means you don't have to change your training, ammunition storage or safety traces. The gun plumbers know hoe to fix them. You can update the FCS to make the training more practical. Get 75+ and you can also use them at Battle school for basic gunnery and OP training.
This will solve the current crisis while our betters enjoy their circle jerk and allows us to still pretend we are a relevant army.