C3 Howitzer Replacement

[FJAG]

Sure and when the reserve Bty has to defend Trenton from your surprise FPV strike how to I ensure they actually all showed up? Current system does not align to that structure. Read what I wrote above, we are tethered to a structure that doesn’t work.

We're teetering close to making this a ARes restructure thread.

Under our current system, the GiC can place any individual, unit or element of the ResF on active service with the stroke of the pen or may be called out on service. If that happens reservists either show up or go to jail. We have the tools as it is. Do we have the will?

What we do not have in the CA is a uniform approach to blending RegF and ResF elements into one organization. The artillery has had some brilliant successes with this (4 AD is one of them) and some failures. The infantry is not so good at it and has had some dismal failures (10/90 is one example but not the only one). Afghanistan proves that integration can take place. The problem is making it work during peacetime.

 

[GR66]

Well actually we form a replacement unit, as if it’s a LSCO all 3 Bns are likely fighting.

Again semantics. Organize the AD Batteries however you wish. Depth is required for sustainment in the face of combat losses. Two batteries is not depth.

An FPV drone could indeed destroy a parked plane. However, if you read what I wrote, that scenario would involve flying a drone into the middle of Canada, so I assume you’re talking about something much much larger. The FPV drones in Ukraine are averaging an 5-10 k range with repeaters, and teams of 10-20 planning and executing. Unless you mean it’s being flown from the states or much closer in which case we’ve had yet larger breaches of national security. Your example is far fetched is what I’m saying, and would required an AD Bty on every base with ROEs to engage and destroy every drone within a given range. Let’s keep this to reality.

I don't consider the possibility of an enemy preemptively attempting to cripple our strategic airlift or ASW assets in the opening stages of a conflict as fantasy. The cost benefit of a small team using short range FPVs to take out transport, AAR and/or MPA assets would be huge.

Absolutely our airfields should have permanent CUAS capabilities to deal with potential drone incursions into their airspace and we should have the assets available to beef up the capability in times of increased threat. These assets should also be available for domestic and foreign deployment in other threat environments as well.

Sure and when the reserve Bty has to defend Trenton from your surprise FPV strike how to I ensure they actually all showed up? Current system does not align to that structure. Read what I wrote above, we are tethered to a structure that doesn’t work.

That's more an argument to change the structure rather than ignore the capability requirement.

Unmanned systems, like the video you showed, are having an effect. However much like the video you showed some people are having their perspectives heavily skewed because of the success bias of the videos, the use of these videos as propaganda, and the funding nature of these units making showing their success a critical point.

No argument that there is success bias and also that counter-measures will improve to meet the threats, however our allies seem to be moving much faster at adopting both their own unmanned technologies and their counter-measures that we are. Do we know something they don't?

Beyond that I agree with what @FJAG says: inability is not the same as not wanting to. But I don’t think we need an AD Bde, we need probably a division with 3 shooting Bty’s and CUAS pushed lower.

You're both correct that much/most of the blame can be put on the politicians that control the purse strings for the CAF, but there have been plenty of senior CAF leaders that have chosen to allow certain capabilities to be lost/atrophied rather than make tough organizational choices in the past as well as plenty of opportunities to beat the drum much harder about the crisis that slow-rolled the CAF into the poor state in which it currently finds itself.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Domestically you have in many places civy employees protecting airports from birds. Build on that to be able to protect from UAV's as well. You could hire civy's to patrol airfields tasked with both bird and UAV control. That gives you at least 8-12hrs of limited coverage and at least some sort of response capability without a massive investment. If the threat is escalated, have some short term Class B's and teach them how to use the anti-UAV devices, to bolster the capability.
You can do the same overseas, using civy staff like we used to in the Cold War era.

 

[markppcli]

Again semantics. Organize the AD Batteries however you wish. Depth is required for sustainment in the face of combat losses. Two batteries is not depth.

I agree I’m just pointing out the specific example you used is wrong, and we have no depth across the CAF. We have the regular army, and once that’s destroyed the Army is essentially without combat power (ie it has no fires, no armour, ect), so making AD the hill to die on for that is a bit absurd. We need depth everywhere but we aren’t going to fund that.

I don't consider the possibility of an enemy preemptively attempting to cripple our strategic airlift or ASW assets in the opening stages of a conflict as fantasy. The cost benefit of a small team using short range FPVs to take out transport, AAR and/or MPA assets would be huge.

I’m not suggesting a premptive strike isn’t a possibility, I’m merely looking at the realities of FPV employment, and suggesting that it’s an unlikely first strike system. If some one wanted to sabotage our strategic assets that would be fairly low on the list of options. Getting hired as a base cleaner and throwing a grenade seems more likely.

Absolutely our airfields should have permanent CUAS capabilities to deal with potential drone incursions into their airspace and we should have the assets available to beef up the capability in times of increased threat. These assets should also be available for domestic and foreign deployment in other threat environments as well.

Cool what’s your mitigation plan for a CIWS killing a bird and lobbing 15000 rounds into down town Winnipeg ?

That's more an argument to change the structure rather than ignore the capability requirement.

Capability drives structure drive requirements. They’re linked.

No argument that there is success bias and also that counter-measures will improve to meet the threats, however our allies seem to be moving much faster at adopting both their own unmanned technologies and their counter-measures that we are. Do we know something they don't?

Don’t disagree that our Allies are moving faster, but I don’t see anyone making 1/4 of their combat formations AD either.


@FJAG concur that it can be done, my point was more that blended Reg / Res AD batteries are not a solution if we’re truly worried about Russians flying to Canada, getting their hands on some RPG 7 rounds (or buying a 3D printer and the necessary explosives), buying drones, fitting those drones with fused RPG rounds, moving into position, and flying a bomb onto a base they can walk onto.

 

[FJAG]

@FJAG concur that it can be done, my point was more that blended Reg / Res AD batteries are not a solution if we’re truly worried about Russians flying to Canada, getting their hands on some RPG 7 rounds (or buying a 3D printer and the necessary explosives), buying drones, fitting those drones with fused RPG rounds, moving into position, and flying a bomb onto a base they can walk onto.

I for one am:

1) not worried that that will happen; and

2) If I ever did get worried wouldn't know how to set up the multi-trillion dollar industry necessary to protect all of our vulnerable infrastructure. A couple of air defence batteries, RegF or not, won't cut it.

Sometimes you just have to hope your intelligence system is good enough to pinpoint the threat in time for law enforcement to take it out.

 

[GR66]

Meanwhile in Spain...

Spain to acquire 145 advanced self-propelled howitzers

The Spanish Ministry of Defense has announced an ambitious plan to procure 145 self-propelled howitzers, aiming to modernize the country’s artillery capabilities and enhance its military readiness. This acquisition is set to replace the aging M109 howitzers, which have been in service for over...

defence-blog.com

 

[FJAG]

Despite @KevinB's concerns, the Piranha 10 x 10 with AGMM is starting to look viable with Britain using the AGM on a Boxer.

It checks all but one box for me - tracked - but an automated turret on a chassis that GDLS could produce in Canada and which could be made compatible with the LAV series. If Spain used it as well it could create some commonality as between artillery elements within the Cdn brigade. Just spit balling here but an SP is high on the army's priority list for replacing the M777 (which I for one wish to keep in one "light" regiment but I'm not so sure the army's divestment monkeys and I see eye to eye)

 

[KevinB]

Despite @KevinB's concerns, the Piranha 10 x 10 with AGMM is starting to look viable with Britain using the AGM on a Boxer.

It checks all but one box for me - tracked - but an automated turret on a chassis that GDLS could produce in Canada and which could be made compatible with the LAV series. If Spain used it as well it could create some commonality as between artillery elements within the Cdn brigade.

I’m still in the M109A7 camp, mainly as we have them here so parts are always available.

Other than that I’m fairly agnostic to tracks on SPA’s as they don’t have the same terrain requirements as MBT’s and IFV’s that work with MBT’s, note I’m a HIMARS fan

Just spit balling here but an SP is high on the army's priority list for replacing the M777 (which I for one wish to keep in one "light" regiment but I'm not so sure the army's divestment monkeys and I see eye to eye)

I can’t see the CA divesting the 777’s simply as they don’t have enough C3’s - I hope I’m not proven wrong.

 

[markppcli]

Despite @KevinB's concerns, the Piranha 10 x 10 with AGMM is starting to look viable with Britain using the AGM on a Boxer.

It checks all but one box for me - tracked - but an automated turret on a chassis that GDLS could produce in Canada and which could be made compatible with the LAV series. If Spain used it as well it could create some commonality as between artillery elements within the Cdn brigade. Just spit balling here but an SP is high on the army's priority list for replacing the M777 (which I for one wish to keep in one "light" regiment but I'm not so sure the army's divestment monkeys and I see eye to eye)

Every indication is M109A6, just in small numbers..

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem is making it work during peacetime.

The beginning and the end. The alpha and omega.

Don't bother me until the shells start flying.

 

[Maxman1]

Every indication is M109A6, just in small numbers..

Or hopefully M109A7s.

 

[Kirkhill]

A nation organized for war.

Armed Forces of Ukraine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ukrainian Ground Forces - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ukrainian Air Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Territorial Defense Forces (Ukraine) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hard to keep track of all the Air Defence and Long Range Missile elements.

​

 

[Kirkhill]

Deadly verdict for Russians: How Ukrainian fighters of 14th regiment use FPV drones, video

Read more

newsukraine.rbc.ua

A half hour of Ukrainian but lots of interesting images -

FPV det of 5 with what appears to be an EW number.
Mobility on roads in pickup trucks - dirt tracks, highways and bombed out towns.
Shell scrapes and lots of scrim.

 

[FJAG]

I’m still in the M109A7 camp, mainly as we have them here so parts are always available.

You know me - a long time M109 fan - BUT - don't talk to me until they have something better than an L39 barrel. There's talk of an L58 in the future but, they're just starting the A6 to A7 upgrades so I don't have my hopes up yet.

Parts - the automotives for a Piranha could be Canadian if done right. So could the AGM module but for the tube.

I can’t see the CA divesting the 777’s simply as they don’t have enough C3’s - I hope I’m not proven wrong.

Me too although I have a zero level of trust on that but we have a very low number of guns and gunners and keeping two 155mm systems is seen as a sustainability issue. I would keep them to support the light battalions but the theory these days is that the light battalions won't be operating in an air mobile role but more along the line of complex terrain near mechanized forces or rear area roles and as such would share the fire support of the mech units. I don't think the RegF army is giving up on the idea of symmetrical brigades to keep alive the force generation/managed readiness model it is using. That negates the idea of a proper light brigade.

Personally I would give them to select reserve units and acquire 155mm practice ammunition. It would allow some consolidation of the 105mm guns to alleviate some of their serviceability issues. Quite frankly I don't think we can give up any serviceable guns in the state that we are in.

Every indication is M109A6, just in small numbers..

God I hope its not six guns for Latvia and 2 guns in each CS regiment and the RCAS for training or some such nonsense. That said, the last info I had on this project was that the requirements were for 155mm L52 guns which the A6 does not offer.

I'm not sure where the A6 to A7 upgrade run is for the US Army. I presume it is still ongoing. I would hope that if we do get A6s then the contract also puts us in line for an upgrade to A7s as once all the A6s are done in the US, parts for the A6 and future upgrades to an L58 barrel become difficult. (These were issues we had with the A4+ we had in 2004 because the A5 upgrade lines were shut down already and the A6 conversion needed an A5 to start with.

 

[markppcli]

You know me - a long time M109 fan - BUT - don't talk to me until they have something better than an L39 barrel. There's talk of an L58 in the future but, they're just starting the A6 to A7 upgrades so I don't have my hopes up yet.

Parts - the automotives for a Piranha could be Canadian if done right. So could the AGM module but for the tube.


Me too although I have a zero level of trust on that but we have a very low number of guns and gunners and keeping two 155mm systems is seen as a sustainability issue. I would keep them to support the light battalions but the theory these days is that the light battalions won't be operating in an air mobile role but more along the line of complex terrain near mechanized forces or rear area roles and as such would share the fire support of the mech units. I don't think the RegF army is giving up on the idea of symmetrical brigades to keep alive the force generation/managed readiness model it is using. That negates the idea of a proper light brigade.

Personally I would give them to select reserve units and acquire 155mm practice ammunition. It would allow some consolidation of the 105mm guns to alleviate some of their serviceability issues. Quite frankly I don't think we can give up any serviceable guns in the state that we are in.


God I hope its not six guns for Latvia and 2 guns in each CS regiment and the RCAS for training or some such nonsense. That said, the last info I had on this project was that the requirements were for 155mm L52 guns which the A6 does not offer.

I'm not sure where the A6 to A7 upgrade run is for the US Army. I presume it is still ongoing. I would hope that if we do get A6s then the contract also puts us in line for an upgrade to A7s as once all the A6s are done in the US, parts for the A6 and future upgrades to an L58 barrel become difficult. (These were issues we had with the A4+ we had in 2004 because the A5 upgrade lines were shut down already and the A6 conversion needed an A5 to start with.

Always assume the worst…

 

[quadrapiper]

You know me - a long time M109 fan - BUT - don't talk to me until they have something better than an L39 barrel. There's talk of an L58 in the future but, they're just starting the A6 to A7 upgrades so I don't have my hopes up yet.

Parts - the automotives for a Piranha could be Canadian if done right. So could the AGM module but for the tube.


Me too although I have a zero level of trust on that but we have a very low number of guns and gunners and keeping two 155mm systems is seen as a sustainability issue. I would keep them to support the light battalions but the theory these days is that the light battalions won't be operating in an air mobile role but more along the line of complex terrain near mechanized forces or rear area roles and as such would share the fire support of the mech units. I don't think the RegF army is giving up on the idea of symmetrical brigades to keep alive the force generation/managed readiness model it is using. That negates the idea of a proper light brigade.

Personally I would give them to select reserve units and acquire 155mm practice ammunition. It would allow some consolidation of the 105mm guns to alleviate some of their serviceability issues. Quite frankly I don't think we can give up any serviceable guns in the state that we are in.


God I hope its not six guns for Latvia and 2 guns in each CS regiment and the RCAS for training or some such nonsense. That said, the last info I had on this project was that the requirements were for 155mm L52 guns which the A6 does not offer.

I'm not sure where the A6 to A7 upgrade run is for the US Army. I presume it is still ongoing. I would hope that if we do get A6s then the contract also puts us in line for an upgrade to A7s as once all the A6s are done in the US, parts for the A6 and future upgrades to an L58 barrel become difficult. (These were issues we had with the A4+ we had in 2004 because the A5 upgrade lines were shut down already and the A6 conversion needed an A5 to start with.

Is there also a value in an airmobile gun on its own merits, anywhere that's not rolling plains or lousy with roads? Being able to perch artillery on hills seems convenient, whatever weight of force it's supporting.

 

[FJAG]

Is there also a value in an airmobile gun on its own merits, anywhere that's not rolling plains or lousy with roads? Being able to perch artillery on hills seems convenient, whatever weight of force it's supporting.

In my opinion, yes there is. I still think we need to throw even the modern version of the MRP under the bus and form a light brigade and two mediums. Rather than rotating readiness between the three brigades, you rotate readiness within each brigade. The light brigade should have an artillery regiment capable of airborne transport both by aircraft and by heavy left aviation.

Others consider the Ukraine experience as suggesting the towed gun's time has come due to the time required to place it into and take it out of action making it vulnerable to both counterfire and drones. IMHO, everything is vulnerable to drones.

The issue with counterfire is a complex one. Moving guns after every mission greatly reduces their availability to provide support and puts a major strain on the crews. The idea of roving guns that can deploy rapidly and engage targets is a fine one, but with today's observation resources, anything that moves also becomes a target just like anything that fires. It's going to be a challenging game of EW and CUAV and AD to provide the proper protection for these resources. ... That and an abundant supply of spare guns and crews.

 

[Maxman1]

Is there also a value in an airmobile gun on its own merits, anywhere that's not rolling plains or lousy with roads? Being able to perch artillery on hills seems convenient, whatever weight of force it's supporting.

Like this?

 

[IKnowNothing]

In my opinion, yes there is. I still think we need to throw even the modern version of the MRP under the bus and form a light brigade and two mediums. Rather than rotating readiness between the three brigades, you rotate readiness within each brigade. The light brigade should have an artillery regiment capable of airborne transport both by aircraft and by heavy left aviation.

While this would enable the army to ditch symmetry and likely be the most effective way of generating Inf Bn + attached Sqn/Bty battlegroups, would it not make it much more difficult to validate to Bde and be one more step towards throwing in the towel on being anything more than BG generating army?

 

[KevinB]

The Light elements validate down here. No reason it couldn’t be a Bde validation instead of a LIB one.