C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Kirkhill]

Two thumbs up and a cheers to you, FJAG.

:goodpost: :goodpost: :cheers:

And an absolutely to Cloud Cover.

And combining some thoughts on Reserve-Centric capabilities, GBAD defences, Shipborne requirements and the Danish Stan-Flex type thinking we end up with the MBDA SPIMM system - maybe with something other than the Mistral though.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26599/this-containerized-missile-launcher-could-give-almost-any-ship-short-range-air-defenses

Or perhaps something that crosses the Russian Club K container system with the NASAMs Multi Missile Launcher.

 

[Cloud Cover]

While a great strategic asset to have, we barely have the crews for what we have according to what I hear on this site. Might be sm easy seller sell to the government, hard sell to the RCN, unless you go the Davie/FFS route and having a mixed crew.

I believe FFS was the intended operator with CAF “augmentation”.  I agree the logistics and crewing would break the Navy otherwise. Truly UNSAT situation.

 

[Kirkhill]

While a great strategic asset to have, we barely have the crews for what we have according to what I hear on this site. Might be sm easy seller sell to the government, hard sell to the RCN, unless you go the Davie/FFS route and having a mixed crew.

The ships I am talking about are not manned to RCN standards, and would not be manned by RCN crews.  They would be civvy mariners in the RCNR - about 23 to the vessel while in transit.  Crew further reduced while in port.

And please don't try and argue that any vessel in Canadian Government service must be manned to RCN standards when, as you rightly point out, it is hard to find bodies to fill existing berths.  The requirement for hulls is there even when the bodies are absent so we must learn to figure out how to manage with a whole lot fewer bodies.  And fortunately that is regularly demonstrated as being possible.  We must stop thinking of HMS Victory, with its 850 gunners stuck inside it 3500 ton hull and its 254 years of service as some kind of model.  She was laid down 3 years before Wolfe beat Montcalm.

 

[MilEME09]

The ships I am talking about are not manned to RCN standards, and would not be manned by RCN crews.  They would be civvy mariners in the RCNR - about 23 to the vessel while in transit.  Crew further reduced while in port.

And please don't try and argue that any vessel in Canadian Government service must be manned to RCN standards when, as you rightly point out, it is hard to find bodies to fill existing berths.  The requirement for hulls is there even when the bodies are absent so we must learn to figure out how to manage with a whole lot fewer bodies.  And fortunately that is regularly demonstrated as being possible.  We must stop thinking of HMS Victory, with its 850 gunners stuck inside it 3500 ton hull and its 254 years of service as some kind of model.  She was laid down 3 years before Wolfe beat Montcalm.

You wouldn't get that argument from me, the RCN standard is outdated, likely because our own ships, training and doctrine is outdated as well. Ships like this that are mostly empty space would be cheaper to build, and I'd argue such a simple ship could probably be built in South Korea for pennies compared to Irving. Plus all that empty space could be utilized in other ways if needed, I am sure it could be turned into a hospital ship if need be.

 

[GR66]

The way around that bottleneck of moving equipment is to have pre-positioned equipment in Europe (Germany/Poland) with training equipment here that matches it. Do most of your works ups over here and then fly the troops over to exercise the equipment over there and in the areas they likely fight. It means having maintainers in both places and very similar to what we were doing before.

Wouldn't these pre-positioned vehicles be a primary target for Russia should they ever decide to invade the Baltic States?  They would also be based on an assumption about where they would be needed.  If Russia makes noise somewhere else, then the vehicles aren't in the right place.  Maybe the'll instead be needed in Georgia, or North Korea, or Venezuela. 

 

[Kirkhill]

You wouldn't get that argument from me, the RCN standard is outdated, likely because our own ships, training and doctrine is outdated as well. Ships like this that are mostly empty space would be cheaper to build, and I'd argue such a simple ship could probably be built in South Korea for pennies compared to Irving. Plus all that empty space could be utilized in other ways if needed, I am sure it could be turned into a hospital ship if need be.

Sorry. I get tetchy on that point. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Wouldn't these pre-positioned vehicles be a primary target for Russia should they ever decide to invade the Baltic States?  They would also be based on an assumption about where they would be needed.  If Russia makes noise somewhere else, then the vehicles aren't in the right place.  Maybe the'll instead be needed in Georgia, or North Korea, or Venezuela.

And thus the reason for keeping your equipment reserve mobile on floating warehouses.

 

[MilEME09]

And thus the reason for keeping your equipment reserve mobile on floating warehouses.

As long as you can protect them in time of conflict

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The ships I am talking about are not manned to RCN standards, and would not be manned by RCN crews.  They would be civvy mariners in the RCNR - about 23 to the vessel while in transit.  Crew further reduced while in port.

And please don't try and argue that any vessel in Canadian Government service must be manned to RCN standards when, as you rightly point out, it is hard to find bodies to fill existing berths.  The requirement for hulls is there even when the bodies are absent so we must learn to figure out how to manage with a whole lot fewer bodies.  And fortunately that is regularly demonstrated as being possible.  We must stop thinking of HMS Victory, with its 850 gunners stuck inside it 3500 ton hull and its 254 years of service as some kind of model.  She was laid down 3 years before Wolfe beat Montcalm.

To be honest I would welcome a Royal Canadian Fleet Auxiliary with vessels like this. Two problems come to mind, one is that finding ticketed crews will be difficult as the marine industry as it is, is facing the same problems as the military and to be frank, sitting in port watching the coffee pot does not appeal to most people. If the ship is needed for another task, then that stowed equipment must be moved off, breaking seals on wheeled and tracked vehicles and requiring storage for the duration of the vessel mission, then restowing and resealing. I like having a Federally owned RO/RO that can quickly load up vehicles and a Mistral style vessel manned by the Navy to do landings that may not be welcomed.

As for the Russian threat, there is only so many places that Russia could quickly make a geo-political military move and having that equipment in several depots in Germany/western Poland makes sense as it speed up deployment and reaction times. The two vessels above allow more flexibity to respond to non-Eastern European threats.

 

[blacktriangle]

A lot of talk in this thread about giving HIMARS to PRes. Seriously, what gives?

GMLRS has been used extensively by our allies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously also has relevance in a peer or near-peer fight. Not to mention that there is often a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to employ such systems. Capabilities that in our military, reside in the RegF.

Reserve augmentation? Absolutely.

 

[MilEME09]

A lot of talk in this thread about giving HIMARS to PRes. Seriously, what gives?

GMLRS has been used extensively by our allies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, and obviously also has relevance in a peer or near-peer fight. Not to mention that there is often a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes to employ such systems. Capabilities that in our military, reside in the RegF.

Reserve augmentation? Absolutely.

Our augmentation system is broken and barely useful. As is our system as a whole for a long time, you cant buy training systems for an entire component, it's a waste of money and acknowledges that you do not see them as a useful force multiplier. Give HIMARS to the refs? Absolutely but there needs to be reserve units given it as well. Before anyone says we cant maintain it, I am not talking HIMARS sittimg at an armoury, keep them at Wainwright, Shilo, gagetown for example and the reserves sign them out when needed. We can make it happen, we just need to be willing to make it happen.

 

[blacktriangle]

Before anyone says we cant maintain it, I am not talking HIMARS sittimg at an armoury, keep them at Wainwright, Shilo, gagetown for example and the reserves sign them out when needed

Who's keeping them going? RegF? Class B? Who's paying for that? What other organizations are losing six or seven figures from their budget so that a PRes unit can fire off some rockets for a weekend and then go home?

 

[FJAG]

The ships I am talking about are not manned to RCN standards, and would not be manned by RCN crews.  They would be civvy mariners in the RCNR - about 23 to the vessel while in transit.  Crew further reduced while in port.

And please don't try and argue that any vessel in Canadian Government service must be manned to RCN standards when, as you rightly point out, it is hard to find bodies to fill existing berths.  The requirement for hulls is there even when the bodies are absent so we must learn to figure out how to manage with a whole lot fewer bodies.  And fortunately that is regularly demonstrated as being possible.  We must stop thinking of HMS Victory, with its 850 gunners stuck inside it 3500 ton hull and its 254 years of service as some kind of model.  She was laid down 3 years before Wolfe beat Montcalm.

Boy are we ever  ff topic: from the C3 replacement but since we're all heading down this rabbit hole for the time being I'll add this.

I agree absolutely that if the requirement for hulls is there then we need to learn to manage to do with fewer bodies. Hulls take a long time to build; sailors are faster if you strike a proper balance between those that need to be experts/supervisors and those that perform single role tasks.

I quite frankly have no idea what the criteria are that drives the issue of how many frigates we actually need. I presume that there is a certain number to do patrol duties; another number to fill training requirements; and yet another number to ramp up when an emergency/conflict arises. Trouble is I don't know what those numbers are.

The crew number issue is also a bit of a mystery. Our Halifax class apparently crew at 225. The type 26 is described as 157 (with room for up to 206) That's already a big saving. According to the latest records available to me the Navy has a total of 8,125 PYs and 5,720 reserve positions (not all presently funded). The frigates are established at 217 PY each, The subs around 60PYs, the MCDVs at around 40 mixed crews. If all 12 frigates were manned fully, it would only eat up 2,604 PYs. With type 26s: the anticipated 15 vessels need 2,355 PYs a saving of 249. The point though is that do we really need to crew fully all at the same time or can several of the ships be largely crewed by reservists and only put to sea for limited training exercises and in the event of a crisis.

Long story short, I think that there are more than enough sailors available (both some key Reg F ones, and mostly Res F) to man a transport vessel or two on limited summer training events and emergency deployments IF the Navy in its infinite wisdom saw the desirability of owning such vessels (and training for sea lane protection) and IF the Army hierarchy decided that there would be utility in properly deploying and sustaining its land elements in Europe by sea. I despair that this is even remotely on the radar of either the Navy or the Army. They very quickly pulled back from that concept after the CAST CG failures of Ex BRAVE LION.

I expect if you allocated a dozen Reg F and a couple of hundred reservists to a couple of RORO hulls you'd be able to generate the 30 to 50 crew that each ship needs when exercising or operational.

:cheers:

 

[MilEME09]

Who's keeping them going? RegF? Class B? Who's paying for that? What other organizations are losing six or seven figures from their budget so that a PRes unit can fire off some rockets for a weekend and then go home?

Maintenance? Reg force, which is why I said prepositioning at major training bases. Make it the same group of vehicles the reg force units use. Budget for munitions would have to come from what ever the reserve unit is allocated.

If you want a useable reserve force you have to be willing to invest in them. That means training and equipping them the same as the reg force. Other countries around the world do it easily, we don't. Why because we are institutionally in the dark ages and haven't evolved our forces to get maximum capabilities from the forces we have. This is a political, and leadership failure. The reserves could be valuable but assuming the cant do it, or somehow there is no value in putting resources into the reserves is admitting we do not have a plan, which explains why the department seems to care more about figures on paper and wastes money on concessions rather then actual capability.  The reg force and reserve need to work complimentary to each other, we need to get out of the us vs them fighting over budget, etc...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Mistrals have a base crew smaller than the 280's had. that crew goes up depending on what your doing (helicopters, medical, landing craft)

Dragging this ever so slightly back to the topic, we could do fire support from the ships. Actually this would be an interesting exercise to do for both reg and reserve force members. 

 

[MilEME09]

The Mistrals have a base crew smaller than the 280's had. that crew goes up depending on what your doing (helicopters, medical, landing craft)

Dragging this ever so slightly back to the topic, we could do fire support from the ships. Actually this would be an interesting exercise to do for both reg and reserve force members. 

Be an interesting exercise, just put then on a barge, take them out to a random part of ocean. Send out a target bouy, tell them to put rounds within 10 meters.

 

[FJAG]

Our augmentation system is broken and barely useful. As is our system as a whole for a long time, you cant buy training systems for an entire component, it's a waste of money and acknowledges that you do not see them as a useful force multiplier. Give HIMARS to the refs? Absolutely but there needs to be reserve units given it as well. Before anyone says we cant maintain it, I am not talking HIMARS sittimg at an armoury, keep them at Wainwright, Shilo, gagetown for example and the reserves sign them out when needed. We can make it happen, we just need to be willing to make it happen.

Anything is doable if there is a will.

A High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) vehicle is loaded into one of four C-130 aircraft from the 118th Airlift Wing June 4th, as the Tennessee Army National Guard's 1-181st Field Artillery Battalion headed to Fort Chaffee, AR for two weeks of annual training. (Photo by Tech. Sgt. Robin Olsen, Tenn. National Guard Joint Force Headquarters, Public Affairs.)

Stop telling yourself what can't be done and spend your efforts working on a way to make it happen. The only real question is: why should it happen?

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

Some of the reasons I am a fan of the missile based systems:

The missiles are considered "wooden" - meaning they have a long shelf life and don't require much maintenance
The missiles are containerized and easily transported to and from Dundurn by road, rail, sea and air to wherever the launcher is located-they wouldn't be located at the armouries
The missiles can be launched from their containers mounted on either tracked vehicles or trucks (or perhaps a ground or deck mount).
The crew requirements seem to consist of a driver, a gunner and a det commander.
The fire control  system is small enough to fit inside the cab of the truck with the three man crew. - Presumably a desk-top training device netted into a simulation system is already available.

The Reservists could spend their Wednesday nights practicing fire support with the same buttons and screens they would be called on to work with in the field.  The trucks for the launcher and the reloads would be be the same as those available at the armouries for civil support duties.

I wonder if it isn't easier to train and retain missile gunners than it is cannon gunners.

And, if you want a smaller calibre "training" system, there are always the 70mm rockets and missiles (which we make in Canada)

Note that the Unmanned unit is sold by Rheinmetall (which has a plant in Quebec) and fires missiles (70mm CRV-7s) manufactured by Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some of the reasons I am a fan of the missile based systems:

The missiles are considered "wooden" - meaning they have a long shelf life and don't require much maintenance
The missiles are containerized and easily transported to and from Dundurn by road, rail, sea and air to wherever the launcher is located-they wouldn't be located at the armouries
The missiles can be launched from their containers mounted on either tracked vehicles or trucks (or perhaps a ground or deck mount).
The crew requirements seem to consist of a driver, a gunner and a det commander.
The fire control  system is small enough to fit inside the cab of the truck with the three man crew. - Presumably a desk-top training device netted into a simulation system is already available.

The Reservists could spend their Wednesday nights practicing fire support with the same buttons and screens they would be called on to work with in the field.  The trucks for the launcher and the reloads would be be the same as those available at the armouries for civil support duties.

I wonder if it isn't easier to train and retain missile gunners than it is cannon gunners.

And, if you want a smaller calibre "training" system, there are always the 70mm rockets and missiles (which we make in Canada)

Note that the Unmanned unit is sold by Rheinmetall (which has a plant in Quebec) and fires missiles (70mm CRV-7s) manufactured by Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg.

The right missile based system is, of course, MLRS. Anything else is likley just dancing around the edges...

 

[daftandbarmy]

The right missile based system is, of course, MLRS. Anything else is likely just dancing around the edges...