C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

T

On the other hand the skeleton of three Iron Domes over the Greater Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver Areas, (7,000 + 4,000 + 2,000 = 13,000 km2 vs Israel's 22,000 km2) should not be an impractical task.

For what purpose?
You seem to be inventing things to spend money on as opposed to looking at the actual holes the CAF has.

After all, you lot not only have ICBM interceptors and SM6s you also have Patriots and Avengers, many of which are manned by your Reserves. Just in case. I am merely suggesting the same capabilities for Canada. As a priority. And the stuff we don't use. The FDCs and Radars and EOs and missiles in storage - that can always be made available to friends in need, with or without Canadian soldiers attached. Just like we can make a Mech Brigade available to a friend in need if we don't need it at home.

You are a G7 Nation, a Mech Div shouldn't be hard for you to have sitting around -- but you don't.

The goal of the Expeditionary Force is to ensure the war doesn't come home. But sometimes strategies fail. Sometimes the forwards can't keep the ball in the other guy's end. And then it falls to the defence and the goal keeper and the midfield has to come home.

If the war comes to North America, BOKYAGB, as that means the US Military has failed as well.

You know Kevin, sometimes I feel that you are so focused on finding auxiliaries for Uncle Sam's expeditions that you forget that Canada has needs of its own. Just like the US has needs of its own and which it attends to with the Coast Guard, the National Guard and the Air National Guard.

No I'm just sick of Canadians being sent off to fight with garbage gear.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

No I'm just sick of Canadians being sent off to fight with garbage gear.

But that is our historical standard, take that away and what do we have left......

 

[KevinB]

But that is our historical standard, take that away and what do we have left......

I had to laugh at that, otherwise I'd be crying...

 

[KevinB]

This thread has significantly veered off the original discussion of the C3 105mm Replacement.

 

[Kirkhill]

This thread has significantly veered off the original discussion of the C3 105mm Replacement.

No it hasnt.

What are we replacing the C3 with?

More of the same or something different?

 

[KevinB]

No it hasnt.

What are we replacing the C3 with?

More of the same or something different?

Well it needs to be something that the Reserves can both crew and master, as well as provides a credible Artillery segment to the CAF.

 

[IKnowNothing]

This thread has significantly veered off the original discussion of the C3 105mm Replacement.

I tried.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well it needs to be something that the Reserves can both crew and master, as well as provides a credible Artillery segment to the CAF.

So we are agreed then. Air Defence.

 

[KevinB]

So we are agreed then. Air Defence.

Do I think the Reserve Arty can do some AD, yes, but that is a significantly more technical and demanding role than Field Artillery.
Currently the Regular Force Artillery is really light on firing batteries - so the it would make sense to push PRes gun batteries toward that task.

However the M777 isn't the ideal gun for a CMBG, and is better for a Light entity.
So the question remains what system should replace the C3, is it an Archer type wheeled system, or a M109A7 type tracked?

Or should Canada decide that the PRes isn't viable at this point and shut down the reserves?

 

[Prairie canuck]

GDLS LAV6M (based on Saudi export LAV700 ) 120mm turreted mortar. Approx 9200m max range.

Although it's about 2000m less than a C1 or C2 105mm and half of the LG1 C3 it would be much more mobile and quicker to move and/or respond. Replacing M777s is a whole other discussion.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Concrete examples? You mean other than the threats that the US, NorthCom, Norad and our NATO and Arctic allies are asking for us to cover? Everything from little green men to locally launched drone swarms to cruise missiles launched from Q-Ships?


And nobody is arguing that or demanding that.



Again, nobody is arguing that. My problem is that we spend an awful lot of time worrying about the structure and requirements of the Mech Brigade which ultimately will only manage an Area of Ops and Interest of 5000 km2 (50x100) and will likely only survive in battle for three days, a week at most.

Ukraine started its war with 24 Reg Brigades and 24 Reserve Brigades and added volunteer brigades, police brigades, assault brigades.....

5000 km2 / 10,000,000 km2 is 0.05% of Canada's land mass or a bit less than the area of Greater Toronto (7,124 km2).

Our Mech Brigades will not defend Canada or even part of Canada. That doesn't mean I don't think we should have them. Of course we should have them.

But to be blunt I am more inclined to rely on the Air Force, the Navy, the Mounties, the Rangers and the various technical services and specials to actually defend Canada. The Army has its place but I am not convinced of the validity of an infantry-centric Department of National Defence.

....

And as to my voice, I am just one voice in 40,000,000 with an interest in National Defence - whether all 40,000,000 of them know it or not.
I choose to raise my voice.

Canada's population reaches 40 million

As of June 16, 2023, there are now 40 million Canadians! This is a historic milestone for Canada and certainly cause for celebration.

www.statcan.gc.ca

So you want us to defend against locally launched drone swarms here in Canada? And apparently ground-based rockets? Do you think Canada would be helpless against "little green men?"

When you speak of wanting Iron Dome defending three major Canadian cities I have to wonder what you are defending against. Iron Dome makes sense to the Israelis because of their understanding of their security situation. They have faced tactical rocket launches on their urban centres from just across their borders (Gaza and Lebanon). I was there for the conclusion of the 2014 Gaza war. Its a real threat for them against which the commitment of resources makes sense.

We have a deployed battle group and we will soon be leading a Brigade. That is a fact. This force is part of a greater deterrence mission. When we look at risk we need to consider severity and likelihood. We are part of NORAD. So do we obtain AD for our deployed force or do we install Iron Domes here?

Now, there have been times when Canadian AD resources have been deployed to major events in Canada as part of the overall security arrangements. At the end of the day, though, the RCAF and USAF acting in concert through NORAD are what will defend North America against air attack.

Canadian VHSORAD and CUAS for our deployed elements is incoming, as is a more deliberate GBAD capability.

ps - For what its worth, our MRR is a component derived from Iron Dome.

 

[Maxman1]

Well it needs to be something that the Reserves can both crew and master, as well as provides a credible Artillery segment to the CAF.

Buy 500 to 1,000. Once the units are equipped, put the remainder in storage.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do I think the Reserve Arty can do some AD, yes, but that is a significantly more technical and demanding role than Field Artillery.

It is technical and demanding. But it is done by other reservists in other countries including the US.

Currently the Regular Force Artillery is really light on firing batteries - so the it would make sense to push PRes gun batteries toward that task.

Is it light on firing batteries or is it trying to do too much with what is available? It has six firing batteries. Enough for 1 Brigade of Close Support and a bit of General Support. That is enough if all we ever intend to do is deploy a Brigade.

However the M777 isn't the ideal gun for a CMBG, and is better for a Light entity.

Agreed. Is the CMBG a Mechanized Brigade or a Motorized Light Infantry Brigade with some Direct Fire Support?

So the question remains what system should replace the C3, is it an Archer type wheeled system, or a M109A7 type tracked?

Or the Caesar?

Or should Canada decide that the PRes isn't viable at this point and shut down the reserves?

Or accept that the Reserves should not be part of the plan for the Expeditionary Force at all and that the entire Expeditionary Force should be an all Regular affair?

If you want to go overseas to soldier then sign a Regular Force contract.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Do I think the Reserve Arty can do some AD, yes, but that is a significantly more technical and demanding role than Field Artillery.
Currently the Regular Force Artillery is really light on firing batteries - so the it would make sense to push PRes gun batteries toward that task.

However the M777 isn't the ideal gun for a CMBG, and is better for a Light entity.
So the question remains what system should replace the C3, is it an Archer type wheeled system, or a M109A7 type tracked?

Or should Canada decide that the PRes isn't viable at this point and shut down the reserves?

Reserves were quite capable of manning 90mm AA guns, radars and directors back in the day.

 

[KevinB]

It is technical and demanding. But it is done by other reservists in other countries including the US.

Who have significantly better Reserve programs than the CAF. While actual mandate summer training and government support and mandates towards that training time.

Is it light on firing batteries or is it trying to do too much with what is available? It has six firing batteries. Enough for 1 Brigade of Close Support and a bit of General Support. That is enough if all we ever intend to do is deploy a Brigade.

It has no GS ability in realistic terms due to the fact the M777 doesn't have the range that is generally needed for GS this day and age.

With 3 "CMBG" Regular formations, one would expect that there should be the ability to provide 3 Regular Bde's - and the CSSB for an actual Canadian Division

Agreed. Is the CMBG a Mechanized Brigade or a Motorized Light Infantry Brigade with some Direct Fire Support?

CMBG's are supposed to be Mechanized - the fact that they really aren't should be telling.
My realistic view is that Canada has 1 Lt Bde, 1 Medium Bde and 1 Medium Bde with Tanks, the 777 is good for the Lt, but not really for the other two.

Or the Caesar?

I was meaning more wheeled or tracked and just using the names as generic placeholders.

Or accept that the Reserves should not be part of the plan for the Expeditionary Force at all and that the entire Expeditionary Force should be an all Regular affair?

If you want to go overseas to soldier then sign a Regular Force contract.

Then why have a PRes? You just basically suggested that there is no value from them. No I don't accept Defense of Canada to be a legitimate claim.

 

[GR66]

On the other hand the skeleton of three Iron Domes over the Greater Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver Areas, (7,000 + 4,000 + 2,000 = 13,000 km2 vs Israel's 22,000 km2) should not be an impractical task. We don't need as many launchers as the Israelis, at this time, nor as many missiles as the Israelis, at this time. But the sensors and Fire Direction Centres could be in place with a couple of Troops in each area to deal with the improbable, in my books, feels like a reasonable investment.

I know that this suggestion is meant to protect the greatest number of people with the least equipment/cost, but what kind of political message would that send to the rest of Canada? That they are not worth defending? There may be cold, hard logic behind your suggestion but you can't ignore the political impact of such a policy and its affect on the population outside these "valued" locations.

 

[Furniture]

You know Kevin, sometimes I feel that you are so focused on finding auxiliaries for Uncle Sam's expeditions that you forget that Canada has needs of its own. Just like the US has needs of its own and which it attends to with the Coast Guard, the National Guard and the Air National Guard.

I get the feeling you don't understand the actual threats to Canada, and our economic security.

We are a nation of traders, and importers. We need to reinforce, and occasionally enforce the "rules based order" our system depends on. We don't do that with SAM sites in Toronto.

 

[Kirkhill]

So you want us to defend against locally launched drone swarms here in Canada?

Yes

And apparently ground-based rockets?

Yes

Do you think Canada would be helpless against "little green men?"

No

When you speak of wanting Iron Dome defending three major Canadian cities I have to wonder what you are defending against. Iron Dome makes sense to the Israelis because of their understanding of their security situation. They have faced tactical rocket launches on their urban centres from just across their borders (Gaza and Lebanon). I was there for the conclusion of the 2014 Gaza war. Its a real threat for them against which the commitment of resources makes sense.

Agreed

We have a deployed battle group and we will soon be leading a Brigade. That is a fact.

Understood.

This force is part of a greater deterrence mission.

Again.

When we look at risk we need to consider severity and likelihood. We are part of NORAD.

And again.

So do we obtain AD for our deployed force or do we install Iron Domes here?

Yes. We obtain AD for our deployed force and to supply a domestic Iron Dome light capability.
I still struggle with the MSHORAD concept.
It is a Very Short Range System that needs to accompany the troops in the field. Effectively that means to me that every company and squadron and battery is going to need to be collocated with at least a pair of MSHORAD vehicles and perhaps a couple of MADIS type vehicles.
Does that mean that the Air Defence Artillery is going to be setting the template for the dispersion and movement of troops? Or should the MSHORAD be delegated downwards to a platoon of the Battalion, along with the Mortar Platoon like the Swedes and others are doing?

The Danes are looking at Patriot as their commitment for their NATO Heavy Brigade to align them with Sweden, Poland, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as Ukraine. They have adopted SkyRanger for their VSHORAD system and are contemplating re-raising their HAWK airfield defence batteries with the NASAMs system.

And on one of my tangents, if I remember correctly, part of the C-RAM programme in Afghanistan was the netting in of the guns so as to be able to fire on the launch sites of the incoming missiles. Effectively Counter-Battery Fire working in conjunction with the ability to detect and destroy incoming missiles in flight. That is another reason that I would be adding a HIMARS battery to 4 GS Regiment's structure.

Now, there have been times when Canadian AD resources have been deployed to major events in Canada as part of the overall security arrangements. At the end of the day, though, the RCAF and USAF acting in concert through NORAD are what will defend North America against air attack.

But will they defend against low level drones and missiles launched within Canada's borders?
Improbable I agree. But not as improbable this year as it was last year.
And if we are getting a GBAD system, properly layered one hopes, for the Expeditionary Force then why not include it as a Reserve Capability?
We have 100 tanks (80 +/-) but we are only deploying 20 of them. 4 or 5 to 1.
We have 12 to 15 frigates but we only intend to deploy 3 or 4 of them. 4 or 5 to 1.
We are talking about buying 12 subs so that we can deploy 2 or 3 of them. 4 or 6 to 1.
If we are buying a layered GBAD system for the deployed force then why can't we talk about buying 4 or 5 more of them and distribute them around the country where they might come in handy some day. Just in case.

Canadian VHSORAD and CUAS for our deployed elements is incoming, as is a more deliberate GBAD capability.

And this is a good thing. Even a great thing. I just think we need more of it.

ps - For what its worth, our MRR is a component derived from Iron Dome.

Understood that the MRR is an Elbit product supplied through Rheinmetall.

Again, and again and again.

I am not against an Expeditionary Force. I am not against Mechanized Brigades. I am not against Tanks or Tracked Self Propelled Howitzers.

I am trying to help you sell National Defence to Canadians who want to know what is being done to defend them at home should something nasty and unforeseen happen.

I believe that the more you can demonstrate to Canadians that your services are needed and useful at home then the more chance there is that they will give you the money to raise and equip forces that can be safely and effectively deployed overseas.

If you keep telling them that you are off to fight dragons in foreign lands they will wonder why you are provoking dragons since it is abundantly obvious there are no dragons here.

 

[KevinB]

But will they defend against low level drones and missiles launched within Canada's borders?
Improbable I agree. But not as improbable this year as it was last year.

You have the RCMP and Provincial Police forces, as well as CSIS that would be hopefully interdicting the shipment, and preparation for anything like that.
Even down here we only have a MRAD program for the NCR, not a bunch of other cities, as we belief the Navy, AirForce, and NORAD will deal with any of those external threats (hmm kind of like Canada has) and the FBI and other intelligence and Law Enforcement entities to ensure that it doesn't happen from local launches.

And if we are getting a GBAD system, properly layered one hopes, for the Expeditionary Force then why not include it as a Reserve Capability?
We have 100 tanks (80 +/-) but we are only deploying 20 of them. 4 or 5 to 1.
We have 12 to 15 frigates but we only intend to deploy 3 or 4 of them. 4 or 5 to 1.
We are talking about buying 12 subs so that we can deploy 2 or 3 of them. 4 or 6 to 1.
If we are buying a layered GBAD system for the deployed force then why can't we talk about buying 4 or 5 more of them and distribute them around the country where they might come in handy some day. Just in case.

Any of those other items a Reserve capacity?
Your tanks are being upgraded/maintained to the point that only ~20 could go out the door
The Frigates are almost rusted out -- so you can't deploy more, but they used to have a much more robust sailing schedule.
The CSC assumably would resume a great deployment schedule - but you still need to rest crews and conduct maintenance.
The Subs, are a prime example of how the rule of 3's work, 1 deployed, 1 standby/workup, 1 in maintenance.

I believe that the more you can demonstrate to Canadians that your services are needed and useful at home then the more chance there is that they will give you the money to raise and equip forces that can be safely and effectively deployed overseas.

If you keep telling them that you are off to fight dragons in foreign lands they will wonder why you are provoking dragons since it is abundantly obvious there are no dragons here.

I think the average Canadian would shit if you proposed putting Air Defense Missiles around Canada, and you would be tarred and feathered for such fear mongering...

 

[Kirkhill]

I know that this suggestion is meant to protect the greatest number of people with the least equipment/cost, but what kind of political message would that send to the rest of Canada? That they are not worth defending? There may be cold, hard logic behind your suggestion but you can't ignore the political impact of such a policy and its affect on the population outside these "valued" locations.

Regular Component Order of Battle​

• 1st Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
• 2nd Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery
• 5e Régiment d’artillerie légère du Canada
• 4th Artillery Regiment (General Support), RCA

Reserve Component Order of Battle​

• 1st (Halifax-Dartmouth) Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Halifax
• 2nd Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Montreal
• 3rd Field Artillery Regiment (The Loyal Company), RCA - Saint John
• 5th (British Columbia) Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Victoria
• 6th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Quebec
• 7th Toronto Regiment, RCA - Toronto
• 10th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Regina
• 11th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Hamilton / Guelph / Kitchener-Waterloo / Cambridge - Galt
• 15th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Vancouver
• 20th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Edmonton
• 26th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Winnipeg
• 30th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Ottawa
• 42nd Field Artillery Regiment (Lanark & Renfrew Scottish), RCA - Ottawa
• 49th (Sault Ste Marie) Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Sault Ste Marie / North Bay
• 56th Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Brantford / Simcoe
• 62nd Field Artillery Regiment, RCA - Shawinigan
• 20th Independent Field Artillery Battery, RCA - Calgary
• 84th Independent Field Artillery Battery, RCA - Yarmouth NS
• 116th Independent Field Artillery Battery, RCA - Kenora / Thunder Bay.

19 field elements, all collocated in major urban centres.



This is the level of commitment that I am suggesting for each of those locations. A single launcher unless circumstances deem otherwise.
19 x 11 = 209 reservists. Total.
Any three of those Troops could be withdrawn from the local defence and sent overseas to augment the expeditionary force.
209 reservists out of a force of 2200 reserve gunners or 20,000 reservists total.
This is what we are arguing about.

I get the feeling you don't understand the actual threats to Canada, and our economic security.

We are a nation of traders, and importers. We need to reinforce, and occasionally enforce the "rules based order" our system depends on. We don't do that with SAM sites in Toronto.

And I fully understand the threats. And the biggest threat to our security is a US of A that doesn't feel safe. A US of A that feels that Canada is an open border.

A US of A that might appreciate a couple of Canadian Air Defence Troops moving in to US territory, or even just covering off their air space from Esquimalt, Aldergrove, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Windsor, Kingston, Cornwall, Yarmouth.

We may not practice for that kind of thing but the US National Guard Avenger Battalions do. Including the ones that man the NASAMs system in Washington DC.