• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Fair point.

The Ukrainians are actually using unguided surplus rifle grenades reconfigured with 3D printed plastic fins to replicate mortar bombs that are then released from UAVs while hovering over the target.

The UAV is a $3000 recoverable consummable - the bomb is pretty close to the Buck and a half solution.
UAVs in Ukraine are lasting 3 days.
Elbit-Systems-innovative-AFV-a-look-from-the-cockpit-Credit-Israeli-MOD.jpg

Israeli AFV Helmet


RAFAEL-CONCEPT-1024x575.jpg


Israeli AFV crew station

CAE_Predator_Mission_Trainer_Pilot_Sensor_Station1200x800.jpg

Predator Flying Station

picture-3-fdc-inne.jpg

NASAMs FDC

View attachment 76185
Spanish F110 CIC - 26 Stations when fully manned - are they all fully manned all the time?


View attachment 76186View attachment 76187View attachment 76188

Three ships - 78 Stations when fully manned - again, are they all fully manned all the time?


Task Group of F110 CICs - weapons and sensors to co-ordinate


Sensors and
processing systems
3x AN/SPY-7(V)1 Derivative Radar[3]
Armament
Aircraft carried3 × SH-60 Seahawk or NH-90 or UAVs

Skyshield_AA.jpg
Looks like our ICGS rooms

And the term in modern usage is Gunner, even the trade is renamed to it.
 
Yes. You need some of Column A and some of Column B. As always it the ratio between the Columns that causes the debates.

If we go off the assumption that at minimum Canada should be able to field a Brigade Group then as a start I think you need to focus first on the following:

  • Enough artillery to provide direct fire support for the Brigade.
  • Enough mobile SHORAD to provide air defence for the Brigade
  • Enough MRAD to provide air defence for the port/airport the Brigade is deploying/being supported from

You'll need enough depth of Reserves to sustain those capabilities in combat.

If there are still Artillerists available after those requirements are filled then I think you can start looking at what additional capabilities you can add. (General Support Artillery/Rockets/Long Range Precision Fires, Loitering Munitions, etc.).

The first three priorities I think are the absolute MINIMUM the RRCA needs to be able to provide. The question is how many of the additional capabilities can you afford to add within the available personnel/equipment budgets without impacting the minimum requirements of the other branches?

When you say direct fire support do you mean close fire support?

My understanding is that DFS requires Line of Sight between operator and the target. Indirect Fire puts a dogleg in the system by having an observer off the line between the launcher and the target.

Closes support, I believe, has more to do with the command arrangements in that a Battery is tied to a Battalion or a Cavalry Regiment to give support on call.
 
When you say direct fire support do you mean close fire support?

My understanding is that DFS requires Line of Sight between operator and the target. Indirect Fire puts a dogleg in the system by having an observer off the line between the launcher and the target.

Closes support, I believe, has more to do with the command arrangements in that a Battery is tied to a Battalion or a Cavalry Regiment to give support on call.
Yes...Close Support is what my brain meant but my fingers didn't get the message! LOL
 
For the cost effective solutions to our IDF modernization, I quite like what the Norwegians just posted.



I think this is the same system being test fired - not much transmitted recoil?


The Hungarians have apparently tested it mounted in a light 4x4 apc - similar concept to the Danes' Cardom in a Piranha


 
I think this is the same system being test fired - not much transmitted recoil?


The Hungarians have apparently tested it mounted in a light 4x4 apc - similar concept to the Danes' Cardom in a Piranha


Unfortunately with the rear mounted engine on the TAPV I doubt there would be enough room to mount the Ragnarok in the middle of the hull. The roof mounted spare would definitely need to go as well. Not sure it would even work with the rear-mounted fold-down mortar system that I've seen pictures of.
RearMortar.jpg
So far as making use of the TAPV as a weapons carrier I think you're either looking at a upgraded RWS (on an already top heavy vehicle) or a towed system.
 
Unfortunately with the rear mounted engine on the TAPV I doubt there would be enough room to mount the Ragnarok in the middle of the hull. The roof mounted spare would definitely need to go as well. Not sure it would even work with the rear-mounted fold-down mortar system that I've seen pictures of.
View attachment 76201
So far as making use of the TAPV as a weapons carrier I think you're either looking at a upgraded RWS (on an already top heavy vehicle) or a towed system.

Check out the Infantry Vehicles thread

Something in the 1500-5500 range of PickUps, skeletal, highway or uparmoured, seems to be a very popular solution these days. Roshel's Senator is not an innovation. It is following a market trend.
 
Check out the Infantry Vehicles thread

Something in the 1500-5500 range of PickUps, skeletal, highway or uparmoured, seems to be a very popular solution these days. Roshel's Senator is not an innovation. It is following a market trend.
Saw that...but TAPV is what we currently have so simply looking at options for it. As @FJAG has mentioned it could perhaps use a SHORAD turret as an AD Artillery vehicle for a portion of the Reserves (or an ATGM turret for Reserve Armoured), but it might be too much weight up top for the design.
 
Saw that...but TAPV is what we currently have so simply looking at options for it. As @FJAG has mentioned it could perhaps use a SHORAD turret as an AD Artillery vehicle for a portion of the Reserves (or an ATGM turret for Reserve Armoured), but it might be too much weight up top for the design.

COMMANDO%20Select%20Four-Wheeled%20Armoured%20Vehicles.jpg
1675393362037.jpeg


If I'm not mistook there is a circular penetration in the roof of the Commando/TAPV that is big enough to accommodate a turret ring. I there are Commandos with turrets that aren't flipping over then the TAVP needs to be rethought to return it to the Commando standard. Even if that means removing "capabilities" that are rendering the TAPV incapable.

And there have been mortars mounted in Commandos.

As I said before my first moves would be to drop the ride height by 6 inches, return the 16 in tires to the original 14 in ones (both use the same 20" rim) and clear all the rest of the top hamper from the roof. I note that the turret and mortar, as depicted, are located right dead center of the wheel base. Not hanging off the corners.
 
Just a thought

Why izzit that people who spend so much time extolling the virtues of the Combined Arms approach are so quick to see new solutions as attempts at providing magic bullets?

I tend to see any new technology as an additional tool for the kit. An additional layer on the onion. Something that can enhance a Combined Arms approach.
I don't think that those of us who extoll combined arms as rejecting 'magic bullets". We extoll combined arms because its still the only way to win ground. Magic bullets don't do that. All of us are looking for the next magic bullet. In the mean time there's a whole lot of flim flam men out there trying to sell you a seventy-six trombone band. There are some weapon systems that show advantages and improvements but physics will only let you go so far. There's a vast gap between being the perfect anti-armour projectile and the perfect anti-personnel projectile and the perfect anti-materiel projectile. I have yet to see the perfect and affordable all-purpose projectile.

At the risk of trying to get back to the origins of the thread.

What really needs to happen is a restructure of the RCA.
Part of that needs to wait for determination of what the SSE replacement is.
You're absolutely bang on there. SSE talks battle groups which equates to a composite battery here and there which means we're good to go as far as SSE in concerned. Unless the defence objectives change there is no necessity to change things, just an overarching desire to.
I’d suggest 2x18 M109A7 Reg’ts, and at least 12 spares, and 6 for training.
1 for 1 RCHA and the supporting PRes units. Given the fact it’s tracked and large i don’t see local armory storage being viable. So Shilo, Wx or Suffield as options for Battery/Troop equipment.
Assuming their is a brigade mission then 1 18-gun battalion for sure (I favour the M107A7 but would be happy with K9 or even Krab). Shilo for two reasons - one is it has the ranges and infrastructure there already to support it; - two between Regina and Brandon and IMHO (Winnipeg should have an arty battery - move 13 Bty from Portage La Prairie to Winnipeg) there are enough reservists available (if done right) that could round out a 30/70 regiment. And yes, all the guns are centralized in Shilo.
2nd for 5 GangaBanga in Valcatraz, and I’m unsure of other locations for Res Troops that could work.
Your right that Valcartier has enough reservists around it to round out another regiment in Valcartier but I'm not so sure it should be M109s. I'd prefer to see something better able to support a medium brigade with a better degree of air portability. Keeping the fleet restricted is preferable but I think you need to look closely at 5 CMBG's future role to see what fits best.
6 for W Bty in Gagetown (if it’s still a thing?)
It's still a thing. I sometimes wonder about W Bty and the equipment it should have. My biggest thing is that I think that all basic arty gun number skills should be taught at the regiment. I'm kind of a one station guy. Send a civvy to a regiment and let them turn the guy out. Let the school deal with the esoteric individual skills like officer and SNCO training. Much of that is gun generic. (No, I'm not part of the a gun is a gun is a gun crowd), but I'd really like to simplify the maintenance structure by locating a type into a place that's fully set up with the right logistics chain to keep it perking. Regardless of solutions there is a compromise, my preference is to centralize equipment in centres of excellence and let the training be done there. The Schools need to loosen their grips a bit for that.
That should take care of at least 6 PRes Arty units.
It's a bit tight when you add in STA and observers but with revised objectives and methods, 6 should be doable.
Moving the M777’s to Pet for a 18 gun Reg’t with 2RCHA Using 30 RCA ...
2 RCHA is the unit I'd leave as 70/30 for higher readiness. 30 Fd, and 49 Fd should be sufficient to round out a third battery and augment STA and observers.
... and the other Ont Arty units (7Tor, 49, 56 and 11th Field still around?) to fill in bodies as needed.
I'd keep 7 Tor, 56 Fd and 11 Fd in my hip pocket for a GS regiment.
I’m not sure what that leaves for ADA rolls, or support for a GS Reg’t
42 Fd (Aka 1 AD R), 20 Fd Bty (aka 18 AD R), 58 Fd Bty (6 RAC) formed 5 Low Level AD batteries and should again.

That also leaves the the reserve regiments in Atlantic Canada and BC and in Alberta.

I'm of the view that restructuring the three RegF regiments and the 16 ResF regiments and 3 independent batteries should easily be transformable into 6 x total force field regiments, 1 x GS regiment, 1 x AD regiment and 2 x arty bde headquarters or a combination of basically 8 x moderate readiness level indirect fire units and two controlling formation headquarters (based solely on numbers and distribution rather than equipment or need)

The problem is that there is no appetite to equip that type of force even if it doesn't need one more PY.

🍻
 
@FJAG I agree in principle for a wheeled SPA for 5 Bde, but I would want to wait to see what comes of the trials down here for the Stryker Bde Arty. So I penciled in the A7 simply because it’s already in service here.
Also because I’d rather have 2 Armored Bde’s available in Canada, and gradually phase the LAV towards a Protected Mobility Vehicle out of the IFV Sphere.

L/MSHORAD should be agnostic to vehicle type from LUVW to Track

I’m at the point where I think the STA segment should be integrated with the FOO Parties. UAS have changed significantly since the inception, and a FOO Party should be able to provide its own UAS for CS work, and also be able to link with Bn Recce UAS and Higher UAS for feeds (growing the FOO Party in size beyond FOO, Tech, Sig, and vehicle crew as applicable).

The FSCC/FDC I want to link with Bde Recce and ISR assets including MALE so the RCAF and Int folks are also involved.


I’m also at the point where if Canada intends to keep the 1 Armor and 3 Inf maneuver units in the Bde’s then a 4th Gun battery should be added to the Reg’ts.

Admittedly until SSE is superseded, it’s like pissing into the wind as to what could even get supported beyond the current debacle.
 
Nexter is turning out CESARs at the rate of 6 per month for Ukraine.

Sous la pression du ministère des Armées, Nexter s’est mis en situation d’en sortir six par mois de ses chaînes​


90


 
@FJAG I agree in principle for a wheeled SPA for 5 Bde, but I would want to wait to see what comes of the trials down here for the Stryker Bde Arty. So I penciled in the A7 simply because it’s already in service here.
Also because I’d rather have 2 Armored Bde’s available in Canada, and gradually phase the LAV towards a Protected Mobility Vehicle out of the IFV Sphere.
(y)
L/MSHORAD should be agnostic to vehicle type from LUVW to Track
(y)
I’m at the point where I think the STA segment should be integrated with the FOO Parties. UAS have changed significantly since the inception, and a FOO Party should be able to provide its own UAS for CS work, and also be able to link with Bn Recce UAS and Higher UAS for feeds (growing the FOO Party in size beyond FOO, Tech, Sig, and vehicle crew as applicable).
Not LCMR. It should sit at Regt - it's a sensor in its own right and should communicate directly with the STACC/FSCC duo.

UAS needs a big rethink. There are basic reconnaissance which IMHO need to be with recce, either bn or bde. Then there's target acquisition and engagement UAVs.. I think they need to be more free-floaters than tied directly to a FOO. FOOs spend to much time manoeuvring at exactly the point in time where the UAV controllers need to be still and working their aircraft. You link them with Act resources through the FSCC. There are about a dozen viable solutions - we just need to pick one or two.
The FSCC/FDC I want to link with Bde Recce and ISR assets including MALE so the RCAF and Int folks are also involved.
(y)
I’m also at the point where if Canada intends to keep the 1 Armor and 3 Inf maneuver units in the Bde’s then a 4th Gun battery should be added to the Reg’ts.
I'm happy with three gun batteries but want a GS launcher bty per regt that can engage deeper individual targets with precision rockets
Admittedly until SSE is superseded, it’s like pissing into the wind as to what could even get supported beyond the current debacle.
I like heaping scorn on SSE as much as the next guy but the debacle started long before SSE. I think 90% of SSE is meaningless drivel. The only thing that needs changing is converting one or two of the battlegroup sized missions to a brigade one with a hint of a div hq.

🍻
 
Nexter is turning out CESARs at the rate of 6 per month for Ukraine.

Sous la pression du ministère des Armées, Nexter s’est mis en situation d’en sortir six par mois de ses chaînes​


90


Good time to buy them then, it is a good platform, and the fact not 1 has been lost yet in Ukraine also is a good sign. Maybe we should at least consider it?
 
Back
Top