C3 Howitzer Replacement

[quadrapiper]

I see the Navy similar to the army as to a RegF and ResF ratio. There needs to be enough RegF to keep, let's say, rotationally keep 30-50% our existing ships at sea during peacetime and to man the training system and hold a core in place to surge the rest of the ships together with ResF augmentees. I think there is not the same need for additional ResF because the attrition rate will lose both crews and ships at the same rate and ship replacement is not really in the cards.

Think there might still be significant need for ResF RCN (and seagoing others) to keep crew rotations happening, especially if the conflict is one that wears on crews but doesn't attrit vessels.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I totally agree. I've said over and over again that the size of the Canadian army as it is (RegF and ResF combined) is sufficient to create two full divisions which can be logically grouped into a primarily ResF expeditionary one and a primarily RegF one for homeland defence and as the backbone for generating sustainment forces for the first one. What is needed is 1) equipment to round out missing capabilities; 2) a reorganization; 3) a viable training system for both RegF and ResF that matches the required throughput; and 4) a defence industry that continuously supplies the requisite equipment, munitions and other supplies needed.

You envision the expeditionary wing of the Army to be ARes ? Am I reading that right ?

 

[FJAG]

You envision the expeditionary wing of the Army to be ARes ? Am I reading that right ?

Largely yes. Long answer follows.

I look at it this way.

1) personnel costs are the single biggest line item in our budget and where possible needs to be reduced through ResF service;

2) Our day-to-day homeland defence, and technical complexity rests mostly with the RCN and RCAF which dictates much of it needs to be RegF;

3) Expeditionary operations are more optional than homeland defence, are primarily land force in nature, and mostly focused on NATO now;

4) Our current CA ResF system is not fit for purpose and requires major restructuring most of which is possible within our current legislation and within current CA personnel strength and infrastructure which, IMHO, presently stands at the equivalent of two full divisions;

5) The CA already holds much of the equipment needed for approximately 1/2 to 2/3 of a mechanized division which is sufficient to fully preposition a brigade in Europe (some missing capabilities clearly need enhancing). I would suggest it could be manned by approximately 1/4 of the force on a full-time posted-in manning basis and 3/4 on a fly-over basis with frequent exercise basis (say 3 to 4 exercises per year). We now have the airlift to do that rapidly. IMHO we need to stop doing rotations - they will kill the CA;

6) One RegF brigade could be split up to a) constitute the "posted element" in Europe and b) form the RegF component of three hybrid "expeditionary) brigades in Canada each of which has approximately 25-30% RegF and 70-75% ResF manning and would, at first, hold approximately 25% of a brigade's equipment.

i) I would organize each hybrid battalion something like this and place many of them in urban areas:



ii) A 100% RegF company and a 70% RegF HQ and 30% RegF CS company provides both the proper training and career advancement needed by full-time career soldiers as well as the professional leadership for the whole bn;

iii) 3 X ResF companies plus 30% of a ResF bn HQ and 70% of a ResF CS company together with the RegF core, provide sufficient manpower to mobilize a full bn plus to leave a component behind to recruit and train replacements. The 10% RegF component of the 10/90 companies do not only provide the leadership and core positions within the 10/90 companies but also constitute a full-time training wing for the entire battalion providing everything from recruiting and recruit training to DP2 training for all NCMs - RegF and ResF - of the battalion;

iv) the equipment of the RegF company during the early stages of a reorganization provides the training equipment for the whole battalion. In a subsequent phase the structure of the CA provides a target goal for equipping the entire force. Potentially, once the "expeditionary division" is fully equipped, more brigades and even the divisional HQ could be prepositioned to a NATO command;

v) note that there is no CSS company. A designated CSS company for each unit in the brigade is held within the brigade's service battalion.

vi) The full "expeditionary division" could look like this - note that the division comes primarily from central and western Canada:



7) 2 Div (in Montreal) is organized quite differently. It fulfills more day-to-day and defence of Canada tasks and would be based on 2 RegF brigades reorganized as one light brigade in Petawawa which is mostly RegF and quick reaction oriented, two 30/70 hybrid brigades in Quebec and one battle group on each coast. All Ranger groups are allocated to this division and distributed amongst the brigades/battle groups. Only three bns remain which are close to fully RegF - two light battalions and one mech battalion - nine additional battalions (4 light and 5 mech) are 30/70 models as set out above.

The key point here is that one - largely ResF - division is allocated to a known continuous bde-sized "expeditionary" task in support of NATO. Less than 1/4 of the RegF in that division are posted into Europe with the prepositioned equipment for a whole brigade. Frequent short-duration exercises are held in Europe to exercise both the RegF and ResF personnel of that division and to provide a near continuous active presence there. (In effect I see the division hold no more than company-size exercises in Canada but conduct their bn and combined arms exercises (2-3 weeks) in Europe.)

Coupled with that is that the second division has a much higher ratio of RegF than the 1st division and while much of the force is targeted on Canada it is also available for short duration expeditionary operations outside the country. These could be in support of UN peacekeeping or even NATO or Pacific operations. The three high-percentage RegF battalions form the quick reaction (Roto 0) elements of the force.

The whole structure is designed to make the ResF more competent and the basis for an expanded more credible army. The structure eliminates the four RegF and ten ResF CBGs and five divisional HQs for two divisions made up of 7 manoeuvre bdes, 3 CS bdes and 2 CSS bdes, all deployable. Finally it forms a basis around which an equipment plan can be designed.

So the short answer is that the permanent NATO-related expeditionary force is largely reservist operating on a contingency fly-over basis but that the majority of the RegF will also fulfill short-term expeditionary tasks both in NATO and elsewhere.

From an artillery point of view - this is after all, a C3 replacement thread - I see almost all artillery - save AD - as 30/70 units trained almost exclusively to support expeditionary operations. In my mind I see eight artillery regiments in total - four x SP 155mm CS (of which one is unmanned (except for maintainers) prepositioned equipment); three x wheeled 155mm CS; one LRPR GS; and one 70/30 AD. Incidentally, I see each CS regiment with five batteries - three CS gun batteries, one Tac battery with FOOs, JTACs, and STA; and one GS battery with medium range launcher battery with precision OWUAV systems. Once again, each regiment's CSS battery is held at the arty bde service bn.

One last comment and then I'll stop. It's about time that we stopped calling armoured, artillery, engineer, signals etc units "regiment." Let's standardize on the term "battalion" for all units and use the term "regiment" as an administrative term for affiliated groups of battalions.

 

[FJAG]

The RCH 155 on Boxer is gathering steam.

Germany Orders 80 RCH 155 Boxer-Based Self-Propelled 155mm Howitzers from KNDS

Germany Orders 80 RCH 155 Boxer-Based Self-Propelled 155mm Howitzers from KNDS

armyrecognition.com

The contract price is allegedly 2,2 Billion Euros.

 

[PrairieFella]

The RCH 155 on Boxer is gathering steam.



The contract price is allegedly 2,2 Billion Euros.

I wonder if this would work with LAV 6 or 700?

 

[FJAG]

Further to the above.

Germany currently has 108 PzH 2000 in service and another 40 in storage which are being refurbished (possibly for Ukraine which already has 14. Ukraine has also had 36 RCH 155s ordered for them and should receive another 18 for a total of 54) Germany also has 33 MLRS. Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine serviceability of the PzH 2000 was very low often below 50%. It's a complex gun on basically an older Leopard chassis.

There are two armoured divisions in the German Army - the 1st Panzer and the 10th Panzer .Their holdings are as follows:

1st Panzer Div with two battalions: Panzerartilleriebataillon 325 with 24 x PzH 2000 and 8 x MLRS; and Panzerartilleriebataillon 215 - newly activated in 2024 to get PzH 2000.

10th Panzer Div with 4 battalions: Panzerartilleriebataillon 131 with 16 x PzH 2000 nd 8 x MLRS; Panzerartilleriebataillon 375 newly reformed in 2023/4 to get PzH 2000 and collocated in same base as Panzerartilleriebataillon 131; Panzerartilleriebataillon 295 with 16 x PzH 2000 and 8 x MLRS (assigned to the Franco-German Brigade); and Panzerartilleriebataillon 345 with 24 x PzH 2000 and 8 x MLRS.

I've found no indication if the RCH 155s will replace the PzH 2000 or supplement it. It just so happens that the four battalions in service have 80 x PzH 2000 but with two new battalions more guns are needed (and there are still enough PzH 2000s available to equip those reactivated battalions). On the other hand there are not enough RCH 155s to arm all six battalions at the same rate.

Interestingly, the entire German Army website is offline at the moment.

 

[FJAG]

I wonder if this would work with LAV 6 or 700?

I think that it could be done. There is a lot of similarity to the two vehicles.

I'm generally in favour of going with a LAV 6.0 for chassis commonality. However, our penchant for Canadianizing what is now becoming a mature system would undoubtedly delay introduction unreasonably.

I'll add a second factor. My guess is that based on the price of these systems we would probably not buy more than a 6-gun battery for Latvia plus tech, trg and loss spares. So maybe 12-14 guns. (Which based on the German price would come out to roughly CAD 400 million.) If we duplicated the M777 purchase of 37 guns, that would be a little over CAD 1 billion.

If we continue with our stupidity of having 8-gun regiments (two batteries of four guns each) then we could probably do with even less. And believe me there are far too many people in the Canadian army who think 4-gun batteries are a norm and the rate of fire of these things can deliver will make up for the few guns. Personally once you consider how few rounds these guns carry and how frequently they have to move and rearm then there has to be considerable redundancy built in. I would consider anything less than as 3-battery, 18-gun regiment for a mechanized brigade as dangerous.

Self propelled guns are being actively considered, but I have no inside knowledge of where things stand vis a vis which guns or how many are under consideration. The last I heard the project remained unfunded.

Long story short, even if we purchased 37 guns, it would be too small an order to make the modification to a LAV 6.0 chassis economical. It would probably be a hugely expensive engineering and manufacturing job to make the concept viable. On top of that, we'd want them in Latvia sooner rather than later and that mitigates against a chassis conversion. My guess is whatever we get will be off-the-shelf.

All of which beggars the question of this thread - what about replacing ARes C3s?

 

[KevinB]

All of which beggars the question of this thread - what about replacing ARes C3s?

I still see the C3 replacement as wanting chicken when one doesn’t yet have any eggs.

Yes the C3 needs to be replaced, but what does the CA need from that.

My belief is that 3 X 8 gun Bty’s make a Reg’t
4 guns is a troop…

1) Is the PRes Arty a filing function for the Reg’s or are they expected to supply formed Bty’s - and if formed Bty’s what of the other function? Or is the formed Bty a filling function for the Reg Regiments ?

2) What are the Regular Regiments requirements? Which adds to the question of what does the CA want to be when it grows up.

The RCAF and RCN seem to have given thought to what they need (well for the most part) but the CA seems to be clinging to symmetrical Bde’s with no real sense of operational integrity and no higher than Bde functions.

If the CA could articulate what it needs from the Res Gunners, then a real concept could be implemented to find replacement(s) for the C3.

 

[FJAG]

I know these are rhetorical questions you are asking, but I'm never reluctant to throw in my $0.02 worth.

I still see the C3 replacement as wanting chicken when one doesn’t yet have any eggs.

100%

Yes the C3 needs to be replaced, but what does the CA need from that.

I sometimes wonder if that is a question anyone is really asking. The preliminary, unanswered question is: what does the government want from the CA?

My belief is that 3 X 8 gun Bty’s make a Reg’t

I go 4 x 6. I started this job in the 1960s with 4 x 8 (3 x 105, 1 x 155) but am flexible because the nature of tactics and ammunition effects is changing rapidly. My 4 x 6 includes 3 x 6 155 L52 (minimum) gun (two three gun troops) batteries as close support and 1 battery of OWUAV precision strike systems as general support. I'm not thinking HIMARS here (that's for div GS) but something in the nature of a weapon system that can take out individual heavily armoured vehicles at something like up to 60-70 kms so as to allow a bde screen to engage targets with launchers well in rear areas.

4 guns is a troop…

3 or 4 is a good number. Easily controlled and sustained but able to deploy as individual weapon systems within a given artillery manoeuvre area.

1) Is the PRes Arty a filing function for the Reg’s or are they expected to supply formed Bty’s - and if formed Bty’s what of the other function? Or is the formed Bty a filling function for the Reg Regiments ?

My preference is 30/70 regiments. One 100% RegF gun bty, an RHQ (roughly 50% regF), one STA bty (FOOs JTACs and STA roughly 70% RegF and 30 ResF) and 1/3 OWUAS bty (for rotations or rapid response). 2 ResF gun bties (each with appx 8-10 RegF staff) and 2/3 OWUAS bty and additional augmentation of other components and for mobilization.

That provides expertise, a training establishment, a quick reaction element and a mobilization/expansion capability

2) What are the Regular Regiments requirements? Which adds to the question of what does the CA want to be when it grows up.

Exactly. I gave my opinion above of 8 regiments including an AD regt and an LRPR regt.

The RCAF and RCN seem to have given thought to what they need (well for the most part) but the CA seems to be clinging to symmetrical Bde’s with no real sense of operational integrity and no higher than Bde functions.

If the CA could articulate what it needs from the Res Gunners, then a real concept could be implemented to find replacement(s) for the C3.

Exactly again. I don't believe in "training guns". I believe in all equipment being operational but with a variety of training devices from fire observation systems to sub calibre devices to fire cheap practice ammunition.

IMHO, in light of world developments over the last few years Canada needs to seriously rethink its expeditionary and homeland defence structure. Personally I think there is even a role in reviving such things as coastal artillery with long range anti-ship and air missiles. The question for the government needs to be if it will use force, or threaten force as a deterrent, of our coastal integrity.

 

[childs56]

This is what we should get for direct Artillery support.

LAV III Stryker T7

LAV III Stryker T7 105 mm self-propelled howitzer a The LAV-III Stryker 105 mm Self-Propelled (SP) Howitzer is based

armyrecognition.com

We can also run the M777s and get more of those.

I am sure there are already drawing up plans for a LAV to have a flat back to accept different modules. Maybe those people in R&D could figure out a 155 turret could fit.

 

[KevinB]

This is what we should get for direct Artillery support.

LAV III Stryker T7

LAV III Stryker T7 105 mm self-propelled howitzer a The LAV-III Stryker 105 mm Self-Propelled (SP) Howitzer is based

armyrecognition.com

I don’t think any new 105mm systems should be procured.

We can also run the M777s and get more of those.

I am sure there are already drawing up plans for a LAV to have a flat back to accept different modules. Maybe those people in R&D could figure out a 155 turret could fit.

One day I hope to wake up and Canadians will have gotten over this LAV fetish.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am going to disagree (again), buy 200x new M119's fit them with the same FCS as any 155 that you get. Almost none the ARes arty units are capable of maintaining and storing and moving the M777. Nor will the support units be there for them. Issue the existing units 6 guns each and buy dedicated gun tractors that aren't behemoths. (Wonder if the Roshel could make a gun tractor version?)
The rest of the guns go into preserved storage and as issues develop, pull a gun from the unit, refurbish, preserve and issue a stored one, so you cycle the fleet. This gives some depth to our artillery park.
At the same time work on the SPG and MRLS systems, a few of the ARes units get M777 if it makes logistical sense. If MRLS gets sent to a Reserves unit, let them keep 1x M119 for basic gunnery training
My guess is that a M119 buy could be done faster than most of the 155 buys as they be less of a lineup. With some effort we could push the number of newish artillery guns for the CAF up to 300+ active and stored. That allows us to support ourselves, have war stock and help our allies.

 

[FJAG]

This is what we should get for direct Artillery support.

LAV III Stryker T7

LAV III Stryker T7 105 mm self-propelled howitzer a The LAV-III Stryker 105 mm Self-Propelled (SP) Howitzer is based

armyrecognition.com

Hell, No!

We can also run the M777s and get more of those.

No. We have enough to properly equip one light brigade and one light brigade is enough for the CAF.

I am sure there are already drawing up plans for a LAV to have a flat back to accept different modules. Maybe those people in R&D could figure out a 155 turret could fit.

See my comments above about the likelihood of that happening. The US army has a project for a wheeled SP howitzer that turns to in-service COTS products. GDS is too late to get on board (if the project even survives considering the divisional restructure and the proliferation of M109 Paladins.) Without a major customer GDS won't change its Stryker/LAV lines.

Personally, I question the validity of the Boxer modular concept. It is valid if you see a need to change a module out from the chassis in the field - such as where the chassis is heavily damaged but the gun is good and you need to transfer it to an ammo carrier's chassis. That's fine for the simpler variants but I think that the RCH chassis is probably bespoke enough with much of the electronics tied into the commander's station in the chassis and not easily or rapidly transferable to another chassis. I wonder about the suspension itself. My guess is it must be more robust than the standard one to take the shock of firing - but I don't know that as a fact.

Much of the LAV chassis is standard in any event albeit it becomes a bespoke, unalterable variant, during the latter stages of manufacture. I think that technically a LAV based RCH is highly doable but doubt that anyone will pay for that.

One day I hope to wake up and Canadians will have gotten over this LAV fetish.

I believe that the life cycle date is 2035. Have a nice nap.

I am going to disagree (again), buy 200x new M119's fit them with the same FCS as any 155 that you get.

Have they made any new M119s since 2013 - I don't think so.

Almost none the ARes arty units are capable of maintaining and storing and moving the M777. Nor will the support units be there for them.

Change the structure of the ResF units.

Issue the existing units 6 guns each and buy dedicated gun tractors that aren't behemoths. (Wonder if the Roshel could make a gun tractor version?)

Agreed.

At the same time work on the SPG and MRLS systems, a few of the ARes units get M777 if it makes logistical sense. If MRLS gets sent to a Reserves unit, let them keep 1x M119 for basic gunnery training

Delete MLRS and insert HIMARS and I agree. Forget about the M119.

My guess is that a M119 buy could be done faster than most of the 155 buys as they be less of a lineup. With some effort we could push the number of newish artillery guns for the CAF up to 300+ active and stored. That allows us to support ourselves, have war stock and help our allies.

You know my thoughts about "training guns." Develop a gun drill compatible 40 - 75mm subcalibre for the 155mm and use it in training. HIMARS crews can use the existing practice rockets. And for God's sake select or develop a precision OWUAV launcher system for bde level GS work.

 

[Kirkhill]

IMHO, in light of world developments over the last few years Canada needs to seriously rethink its expeditionary and homeland defence structure.

Singing from my hymn book.

Personally I think there is even a role in reviving such things as coastal artillery with long range anti-ship and air missiles.

And the doxology.

The question for the government needs to be if it will use force, or threaten force as a deterrent, of our coastal integrity.

Why every group of missile throwers needs its own spotters. Sacrificial UAVs with 2 to10 x the range of the primary weapons allows the government to react immediately, without thought, buy time to think and then decide how to act.

The concept works with 60mm mortars and Maviks as well as PrSMs and 5000 km drones.

 

[Kirkhill]

PS Every airport with an RRCA GBAD Troop and a security Battery/Company.

 

[KevinB]

PS Every airport with an RRCA GBAD Troop and a security Battery/Company.

And the cost to build TDM/ASP’s as well have secure storage for the systems? Then unless they are all regular force - need to go about ensuring that you have 24/7 manning.

 

[PrairieFella]

PS Every airport with an RRCA GBAD Troop and a security Battery/Company.

There's only what, several hundred airports in Canada? Im sure we can generate a force pro company per, no big deal.

 

[childs56]

Hell, No!

No. We have enough to properly equip one light brigade and one light brigade is enough for the CAF.

See my comments above about the likelihood of that happening. The US army has a project for a wheeled SP howitzer that turns to in-service COTS products. GDS is too late to get on board (if the project even survives considering the divisional restructure and the proliferation of M109 Paladins.) Without a major customer GDS won't change its Stryker/LAV lines.

I would think the ARCHER system could be adapted to fit a another chassis, be it LAV, Bradley etc.

Personally, I question the validity of the Boxer modular concept. It is valid if you see a need to change a module out from the chassis in the field - such as where the chassis is heavily damaged but the gun is good and you need to transfer it to an ammo carrier's chassis. That's fine for the simpler variants but I think that the RCH chassis is probably bespoke enough with much of the electronics tied into the commander's station in the chassis and not easily or rapidly transferable to another chassis. I wonder about the suspension itself. My guess is it must be more robust than the standard one to take the shock of firing - but I don't know that as a fact.

It looks like they have a 2 variants of the turret. They fit the Boxer, MOWAGG and ASCOD2.

Much of the LAV chassis is standard in any event albeit it becomes a bespoke, unalterable variant, during the latter stages of manufacture. I think that technically a LAV based RCH is highly doable but doubt that anyone will pay for that.

If we just buy a few turrets and have the fab shop but the back out of a couple older LAVS, a small turret ring, a few wire connectors and its out the door.

Have they made any new M119s since 2013 - I don't think so.

BAE signed an agreement to Build some in Ukraine.

I don’t think any new 105mm systems should be procured.

Thats fine, but a few countries still have many 105mm and a couple are still going to or producing new 105mm systems.

One day I hope to wake up and Canadians will have gotten over this LAV fetish.

It is not a fetish, it simply is a decent platform we have that is built domestically. Most of the world runs Wheeled armored vehicles. So why cant we continue to do so?
If we buy a track system then so be it. But we don't so we need to buy systems to adapt to what we have.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My understanding is that BAE is restarting production of the M119.

 

[KevinB]

My understanding is that BAE is restarting production of the M119.

Both the M119 and M777 line have been restarted, but at this point it isn’t intended to be for complete systems, just parts.

I know the expectation was that it wasn’t going to be able to produce complete guns until at least FY26.

@childs56 I think the M109 is ideal for Canada - sure it’s not a LAV chassis - but the CA has previous experience with the design and we make them down here - so any parts etc are easily available.

If one goes to @FJAG’s 2 DIV concept

I’d have 2 Light Bde and one LAV Bde Which could be 3 M777 BN’s for the Arty Bde perhaps with a HIMARS BN.

Then 2 Heavy Bde and one LAV Bde - which would be 3 M109 BN’s and a HIMARS.

Then you could get a HIMARS Bde for DIV Arty