C3 Howitzer Replacement

[TangoTwoBravo]

Excalibur is expensive and can’t track something that moves. PGK is cheaper but still can’t track a moving target.



If they have Javelin probably there’s not much need for anything beyond that in the Bn, at least in the direct fire role. Javelin is out ranging TOW now so there’s not much value in having multiple systems. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen us employ tanks in a defensive AT roll but who knows, maybe that’s a fine thing somewhere else, I’m sure there’s a couple Maj’s here who can speak to that.

I’d prefer to see us maintain a Div level GS Regiment with HIMARS and Brimstone. They become the missile regiment and handle those depth strike tasks. I got back from Florida a month ago, the HIMARS we worked with were manned by the Florida NG, and the SSgt who was essentially their RSS said “honestly the hard part is getting the truck to the range, the system is really simple.” Ie perfect for reservists to man.

The Direct Fire Plan in the defence should focus first on anti-armour weapons. Battle Group COs have to use what they have available. Ideally, ATGMs are the framework of the anti-armour plan, with shorter-ranged hand-held weapons layered over that along with 25mm cannons etc. The Barrier Plan and Fire Support Plan are also integrated into this. So obstacles are used to shape the enemy armour into kill-zones, disrupt their cohesion and possibly block them to enable direct and indirect fires against enemy armour in an advantageous manner. Then there is the Counter-Moves plan which is used to either reinforce, block or counter-attack.

An infantry battalion that has Javelin in each Platoon and Coy HQ would likely base its anti-armour plan on those Javelin with the 25mm cannons and 84mm worked in to deal with lighter AFVs. If they also had a platoon of NLOS missiles those could be held centrally. I support they would be part of the Fire Support Plan since they rely on someone else to sense the target. Who crews them would be largely irrelevant.

Tanks can certainly be part of the Direct Fire Plan. Its not ideal to have them sited up front, though, since it forfeits their mobility somewhat and they have a higher signature that can reveal the defence. Ideally, tanks are kept in the counter-moves forces where the CO (and/or Bde Comd) can employ them in a concentrated manner at a decisive point. Still, sometimes the estimate of the situation will determine that you need some tanks worked into the defensive position where their rate of fire can be important. Let's say you have a Block position and based on the enemy assessment the CO determines that he needs a Troop of Leopards there in a Combat Team with an infantry company. When I was on the US Army course for tank company commanders circa 1998 they certainly dug tanks into fighting positions in addition to using them for counter-moves.

AHs and CAS can also be layered over the anti-armour plan, but those are controlled at higher levels and it is hard to base a plan on them.

 

[FJAG]

I think there needs to be distinct boundaries on what are organic assets to a unit/sub unit and what a supporting assets from higher. Flexible for some will be inflexible for others.

The three CS Bty for a Bde makes sense when you have 3 maneuver elements. They can be allocated as needed, but generally that was the reason the BC’s were out with the Bn’s so they could have ‘their’ battery if needed, but the Mortar Platoon was the the only true organic IDF asset the Bn has.

A lot of that had to do with the range of the weapon systems involved. When the system was first developed you were dealing with the limited range of 25lbs and 105mm which basically gave you around 6,000 - 7,000 m in front of the lead companies (leaving some 3-5,000 metres behind the lines for the AMAs)

I am a big fan of 3x 8 gun Bty’s for the CS Reg’t mainly as it can allow for a troop to over watch while another moves, but also it gives the Bde 24 tubes which I think is the bare min to cover the needs of the commander*

Me too. And not just because I grew up that way. It had to do with the terminal spread of the fall of shot for 105mm troops. The "one foot on the ground" is a viable tactic but can be done with a 6 gun battery moving three tubes at a time as well.

The GS unit from higher supplied the CB fire. For that I think HIMARS and MLRS check the box. I like the additional rocket ability of MLRS but given the range, the tracks don’t provide any more needed mobility, as it’s not up crossing with the A vehicles.

Back in the sixties several of the brigades had regiments which had 3 x 8 gun 105mm CS batteries and an 1 x 8 gun 155mm GS battery. It allowed reaching forward to the screen and beefing up fire across the front. We lost those in the big artillery slaughter of the beginning of the Trudeau I era.

I always liked the idea of the 120mm Mortar (preferably vehicle mounted) for Mech units. As it can put significantly more weight of fires than the 81mm.
The 81mm I would limit to Light (Airmobile/Para) units.

Now why I like the Spike NLOS ER, and putting them under the Bde Cav, I subscribe to the US style Cav setup, and it provides a precision strike capability to support their actions, to which I’d also have the 120mm Mortar support there as well.
With the ABCT or Armored Div’s the CAV are a sense and strike unit that can also screen as needed, in the Lighter Units they have enough firepower to extract under contact from heavier units.


*24 155mm is on top of Bn and CAV Mortars, as well as AH and CAS etc.
Frankly in the CA context, I think a CS Reg’t probably needs a lot more due to the lack of those support systems.

There's a big change that we have to come to grips with. Our standard organization saw artillery indirect fire as basically an area neutralization system and, because of range, anti-armour weapons were relegated to the front lines (anything from the PIAT to the 17 pounder). We can argue ourselves silly about what weapon goes where, but the increased range of both guns and anti-armour weapons and the ability of the latter to be employed NLOS requires a rethink. IMHO, the more that a weapon can be fired from a position to the rear where it is easily resupplied and less susceptible to direct engagement, the better. The technology is expanding by leaps and bounds. The problem isn't so much which weapon to buy as there are several which fit the bill, but how to allocate a suite of them in layers so as to maximize their benefit.

 

[FJAG]

Not a picture of my battery but that's the 3 RCHA that I remember.

 

[GR66]

To my mind as far as IDF goes I think the split should be something like:

Integral IDF for the Battalion - 120mm Mortar
CS Regiment - 3 x 155mm Batteries and 1 x NLOS missile battery for precision targets (targeting provided by FOs/JTACS)
General Support - Rocket Artillery for counter battery/CS for primary axis of attack/defence/deep strike tactical missiles
CAV - Loitering Munitions that can search on their own and attack targets of opportunity
Intel - Armed UAVs that can strike high value targets when required.

 

[KevinB]

To my mind as far as IDF goes I think the split should be something like:

Integral IDF for the Battalion - 120mm Mortar
CS Regiment - 3 x 155mm Batteries and 1 x NLOS missile battery for precision targets (targeting provided by FOs/JTACS)
General Support - Rocket Artillery for counter battery/CS for primary axis of attack/defence/deep strike tactical missiles
CAV - Loitering Munitions that can search on their own and attack targets of opportunity
Intel - Armed UAVs that can strike high value targets when required.

I put the Intel Cell linked with the CAV, as it’s the sense and screen - which is why I put the NLOS Strike in there.
I see the Cav/Recce as having several distinct echelons and a Bde/Div HQ foot print.

I would give the Loitering Munitions to the Arty, as they are generally setup best to deconfliction the airspace with the Air Force (or for Armies that have integrated aviation that too), in the same way that I think any significant UAS also needs to be controlled by the Artillery/Air Force.

@FJAG all the longer ranges and air space enablers really gets me thinking that even below the Bde level there needs to be some degree of ADA link.
I know the CAF is loathe to delegate MANPADS to the Inf and Armor but I think that is going to be and end result with most NATO armies anyway - combined with organic CUAS, there really needs to be a solid linkage in place to align that.

I only rarely peak over the curtain to conventional stuff down here, and my view is likely colored heavily by hanging out on the SOF side, but even the conventional side is getting more and more UAS and CUAS systems as well as longer and longer range systems at lower and lower levels.

Stuff that a SOF team had access to 10 years ago is now common in conventional forces, and the trickle down and other growth is a major forcing function to dealing with the deconfliction of all the ‘enablers’. The sky and is getting smaller and smaller…

 

[GR66]

I put the Intel Cell linked with the CAV, as it’s the sense and screen - which is why I put the NLOS Strike in there.
I see the Cav/Recce as having several distinct echelons and a Bde/Div HQ foot print.

I would give the Loitering Munitions to the Arty, as they are generally setup best to deconfliction the airspace with the Air Force (or for Armies that have integrated aviation that too), in the same way that I think any significant UAS also needs to be controlled by the Artillery/Air Force.

@FJAG all the longer ranges and air space enablers really gets me thinking that even below the Bde level there needs to be some degree of ADA link.
I know the CAF is loathe to delegate MANPADS to the Inf and Armor but I think that is going to be and end result with most NATO armies anyway - combined with organic CUAS, there really needs to be a solid linkage in place to align that.

I only rarely peak over the curtain to conventional stuff down here, and my view is likely colored heavily by hanging out on the SOF side, but even the conventional side is getting more and more UAS and CUAS systems as well as longer and longer range systems at lower and lower levels.

Stuff that a SOF team had access to 10 years ago is now common in conventional forces, and the trickle down and other growth is a major forcing function to dealing with the deconfliction of all the ‘enablers’. The sky and is getting smaller and smaller…

To my mind the Artillery should focus on striking targets identified by the maneuver elements....effects can be area (HE from tube artillery) or precision munitions (precision rounds like Excalibur or NLOS missiles).

Cav/Recce units would have loitering munitions that are used primarily as part of their recce role with the added ability to to strike targets of opportunity that they locate during their flight.

GS units would support the CS units as required and engage in counter-battery fire and strikes on depth targets identified by other sources.

Intel Cel units to my mind would focus on identifying the strategic moves of the enemy and finding targets for the GS regiments. They would limit their strike capabilities to key strategic targets they identify (enemy HQs, radars, etc.)

 

[KevinB]

GeoSpacial and High Alt low vis ISR assets will provide a great deal of target data for the Div plus assets.

One other dislike loitering munitions for Recce/CAV/SOF, they are generally visible- while medium range NLOS systems can be used without needing to disclose the entity.

 

[FJAG]

@FJAG all the longer ranges and air space enablers really gets me thinking that even below the Bde level there needs to be some degree of ADA link.
I know the CAF is loathe to delegate MANPADS to the Inf and Armor but I think that is going to be and end result with most NATO armies anyway - combined with organic CUAS, there really needs to be a solid linkage in place to align that.

There's no doubt in my mind that battalions could probably manage CUAS and possibly Manpads adequately but I see that they would always be a niche skill similar to mortars and pioneers that would ebb and flow as battalion commanders vacillate between strengthened rifle companies and support companies whenever manpower becomes tight.

Similarly, an ADA branch consisting of just one or two RegF AD batteries would struggle as a career field.

For me, the question of whether manpads and CUAV should be deployed with the battalion, isn't the question. They definitely should be. The question is, like it is for many support systems, should these teams come from a trade specific organization which can coordinate resources, can deploy them to the greatest threat sector and offer them a large enough career structure to allow development of senior NCOs and officers. If we had the scale of resources of the US then it wouldn't be a big issue. For a tiny organization like ours. It matters.

I also factor in that in large part this can be a ResF field in the same way that the US ARNG field 7 Avenger battalions. In peacetime only a limited number of these systems are needed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Aerovironment Awarded US Army Contract for Switchblade 300 Loitering Missile Systems

AeroVironment, Inc. received additional funding of $64,565,126 on March 24 from the U.S. Army Tactical Aviation and Ground Munitions (TAGM) ...

militaryleak.com

The U.S. Army Won't Buy Any More Switchblade 300 Kamikaze Drones

The Army acquired 900 Switchblade 300s in the 2022 budget and 525 in 2023. They were bought at a similar rate in previous years.

www.19fortyfive.com

 

[GR66]

GeoSpacial and High Alt low vis ISR assets will provide a great deal of target data for the Div plus assets.

One other dislike loitering munitions for Recce/CAV/SOF, they are generally visible- while medium range NLOS systems can be used without needing to disclose the entity.

The only reason I envisioned loitering munitions vs NLOS missiles for the Recce/CAV is that a recoverable UAV can perform a primary recce function and the strike role as secondary if required. Perhaps both are needed?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I also factor in that in large part this can be a ResF field in the same way that the US ARNG field 7 Avenger battalions. In peacetime only a limited number of these systems are needed.

We seen how a "limited number of AD systems" works out. It's a bad idea. You need a big stockpile of systems, both gun and missile. You may not need that many in active service, but you need to be able to ramp up rapidly. Building modern Geapard's on some of those Leopard 1 chassis would be very useful thing to do right now.

 

[KevinB]

The only reason I envisioned loitering munitions vs NLOS missiles for the Recce/CAV is that a recoverable UAV can perform a primary recce function and the strike role as secondary if required. Perhaps both are needed?

I don’t disagree with both being needed, but I would prefer smaller low signature systems without payload for the Recce Shorter Range ISR tasks.

Loitering munitions get ‘stale’ so there is a limit to their endurance before they become a Kamikaze drone like it or not. I think any UAS with a significant payload (ie something than can take out a tank) belongs to the Arty/Air Force (and SOF) doubly so when it is flying around for a bit first.

 

[Furniture]

The only reason I envisioned loitering munitions vs NLOS missiles for the Recce/CAV is that a recoverable UAV can perform a primary recce function and the strike role as secondary if required. Perhaps both are needed?

I'm under the impression that loitering munitions aren't recoverable, they just happen to have a longer flight time than a mortar round.

 

[Kirkhill]

We seen how a "limited number of AD systems" works out. It's a bad idea. You need a big stockpile of systems, both gun and missile. You may not need that many in active service, but you need to be able to ramp up rapidly. Building modern Geapard's on some of those Leopard 1 chassis would be very useful thing to do right now.

Oerlikon supplied 20mm systems to all sides that became the standard in light anti-aircraft artillery - mounted planes, ships, vehicles and in stationary positions.

They have the modern version - the Millenium 35mm with its own EO sights and its ability to be Netted to Command and Sensors.

Rheinmetall supplying international customer with Skynex air defence system - EDR Magazine

09 Dec 2022 – Rheinmetall is supplying an international customer with two Skynex air defence systems. The systems will enhance

www.edrmagazine.eu

And it is both a Canadian and a Quebec company.

Buy them for the expeditionary force, for the manoeuver force and for vital point defence (including airfields)

The same mount also is available with lasers for the Less Than Lethal scenarios domestically (don't want to scare the peasants).

 

[Kirkhill]

I think Rheinmetall Canada could make a killing if it got the licence to produce what is ultimately a Defensive System with none of that Attack connotation that seems to bother Canadian politicians.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think any UAS with a significant payload (ie something than can take out a tank) belongs to the Arty/Air Force (and SOF) doubly so when it is flying around for a bit first.

The SOF get all the cool toys....

I would say Arty rather than Air Force.

I think we should give the Air Force what it wants and keep it out of the Tactical Game. Leave them the long range, planned strikes.

Leave the intimate/close support work to the arty that shares the field with the front line. The Arty, with the right budget, now has the ability to deliver any size payload anywhere, anytime, by day or by night regardless of season or terrain., on time and on target.

In other words the Arty can finally do the job they have been promising since they introduced Forward Observers with Field Telephones and pigeons.

 

[KevinB]

The SOF get all the cool toys....

I would say Arty rather than Air Force.

I think we should give the Air Force what it wants and keep it out of the Tactical Game. Leave them the long range, planned strikes.

Leave the intimate/close support work to the arty that shares the field with the front line. The Arty, with the right budget, now has the ability to deliver any size payload anywhere, anytime, by day or by night regardless of season or terrain., on time and on target.

In other words the Arty can finally do the job they have been promising since they introduced Forward Observers with Field Telephones and pigeons.

I would delineate between Air Force, Arty and Int based on some criteria.

National Aviation Intelligence Integration Office (NAI2O) > Global Air Hub > Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) > UAS Categories

Group 4 and 5, belong to the Air Force (and National Intelligence entities)
Group 2-3 the Arty can have.
Group 1 is for everyone and their dog.

 

[FJAG]

We seen how a "limited number of AD systems" works out. It's a bad idea. You need a big stockpile of systems, both gun and missile. You may not need that many in active service, but you need to be able to ramp up rapidly. Building modern Geapard's on some of those Leopard 1 chassis would be very useful thing to do right now.

That's essentially what I meant. You only need a limited number of systems ready at any given time during peacetime service, but you need a much larger number to be readily available should the situation become active - hence the reference to much of the force being ResF. It's the same with field artillery. There's a different requirement such as FSCC, FOOs, JTACs etc (who are hard to train and who are needed to train as part of a combined arms team regularly) and gun and launcher lines and STA resources who are relatively simple to train and not as essential for combined arms training.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I suggested before, right now stand up a AD troop in every Reserve Battery. 2x 3-4 man detachments, Troop NCO and Officer. For now give them .50cals on high angle mounts, buy some Manpad simulators. Get them out in the field practising and learning the fieldcraft of AD (movement, hides, camouflage, sectors, resupply, self-defense). Troop officers focus on that for the first part, then they focus on the AD integration. You need 3 more Milcots for each troop.
Meanwhile the CAF gets motivated and buys a lightweight gun/missile system and individual Manpads. The gun/missile systems goes out to the Troops and they learn how to use them effectively.

 

[KevinB]

As I suggested before, right now stand up a AD troop in every Reserve Battery. 2x 3-4 man detachments, Troop NCO and Officer. For now give them .50cals on high angle mounts, buy some Manpad simulators. Get them out in the field practising and learning the fieldcraft of AD (movement, hides, camouflage, sectors, resupply, self-defense). Troop officers focus on that for the first part, then they focus on the AD integration. You need 3 more Milcots for each troop.
Meanwhile the CAF gets motivated and buys a lightweight gun/missile system and individual Manpads. The gun/missile systems goes out to the Troops and they learn how to use them effectively.

I'd avoid the .50's, they aren't worth anything for that role.
I'd look strongly at @Kirkhill 's 35mm, static, mounted on a LAV, and mounted on a Leo2 Chassis
Then get a bunch of NAMSAMS and MSHORAD LAV

Based on the expericen down here, I wouldn't waste ADA PY on MANPAD systems, they can be used by Inf/Arm/Eng etc with a short usage course - and a radio link to the ADA Cell.