C3 Howitzer Replacement

[FJAG]

It is not a fetish, it simply is a decent platform we have that is built domestically.

I agree in part. It was a fetish when we started down this road. The idea of rapidly deploying quick reaction forces around the world to failed state scenarios were all the rage at the turn of the century when both the Stryker and LAV III came into vogue. It's a bifurcated thing these days.

Most of the world runs Wheeled armored vehicles. So why cant we continue to do so?

That's kind of the "Johnny has a water pistol. Why can't I?" thing. One needs to have a close look at the tactical needs of the force and go with that.

I'm fully with @KevinB on the issue that heavy armoured forces need tracked IFVs. I formed that opinion on numerous live-fire battle runs with the Germans in Shilo using Leos and Marders. No one can change that belief in me.

On the other hand, I do see the utility of the LAV 6.0. IMHO while I would strongly advocate for tracked IFVs for our Latvia brigade and at least one additional brigade back in Canada I would equally argue for keeping all the LAVs to equip at least two brigades back here in Canada and further that we have at least one light brigade. I think LAV 6.0 is good and you should never throw out good. You should just ensure it is used in a way commensurate with its functions. I even feel that way about the TAPV which has an anticipated life-cycle until appx 2042 or thereabouts.

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.

I'm 100% on board with a tracked IFV but not as a replacement for the LAV 6.0. As an additional system.

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

I saw the article last fall. Not sure if the new production ever happened. An insitu repair/refit contract for Ukraine was awarded this spring. Regardless, its a range and terminal effects issue of the 105mm projectile for me. Comparable range and effects can be obtained by 120mm mortars which , IMHO, what a battalions mortar pl should be equipped with (preferably mounted on an ACSV chassis.)

Artillery gets its strength from being able to mass its fire across a broad front. Tat's even more important in an ADO environment. Our artillery should be equipped to do that within a divisional framework.

 

[Maxman1]

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.

My thoughts as well, except 500 or more would seem like it would meet our needs and avoid the same issues we've had with the C3.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I saw the article last fall. Not sure if the new production ever happened. An insitu repair/refit contract for Ukraine was awarded this spring. Regardless, its a range and terminal effects issue of the 105mm projectile for me. Comparable range and effects can be obtained by 120mm mortars which , IMHO, what a battalions mortar pl should be equipped with (preferably mounted on an ACSV chassis.)

Artillery gets its strength from being able to mass its fire across a broad front. Tat's even more important in an ADO environment. Our artillery should be equipped to do that within a divisional framework.

I just don't see the units getting anything more than 1x155mm if they are lucky and far fewer gun camps and adhoc training. Fewer opportunities for Gun Commanders. Fewer rounds allocated for the year and absolutely no support to maintain them in a timely manner. I think the loss of the 105 will be the death knell for Reserve Arty units.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

26 airports in the National Airport System.

Effectively one for each province and territory with a back up.

Organize them on the same terms as the Alaska Air Guard.

 

[FJAG]

I just don't see the units getting anything more than 1x155mm if they are lucky and far fewer gun camps and adhoc training. Fewer opportunities for Gun Commanders. Fewer rounds allocated for the year and absolutely no support to maintain them in a timely manner. I think the loss of the 105 will be the death knell for Reserve Arty units.

What really galls me is that this shit isn't new. We had problems with the G1 and the C3 since the mid 00s and the LCMMs have been cobbling solutions together as best that they could. That a 70-year-old gun might need replacement has been a known known for years but the army has seen fit never to allocate enough funds to address the problem. As one senior gunner told me "Thank God we had a war. It saved the artillery." But for the UOR'd M777s and the enthusiasm those brought as the first "Danger Close" missions came in they'd still be screwing around with LG1s and C3s even in the RegF.

I get your point, 100%. It was working those C1s at Meaford that made me catch the army bug and go RegF. In the numerous interviews I've done for WAFG, I've been quite surprised as to how many of the RegF I've interviewed, especially officers, got their start in the ResF. I always felt alone in that - for some reason, I was the only reservist on my 10-man Basic Arty Offr Crse.

Doing "army" is basically a hands on outdoor experience. You either like it or you walk. Making things go boom is very much a gunner thing.

I've said before that with the current authorized strength for the joint RegF and ARes army (give or take 40,000) we should be able to organize two divisions and the training and support system for that. Same for the RegF and ResF artillery strength which should let us form, give or take, eight regiments. In my mind that's 9 x six-gun batteries of 155mm tracked SPs (54 + 12 spares): 6 x six-gun batteries of 155mm LWTH M777 (36 + 10 spares); 6 x tactical batteries (FOOs, JTACs, STA - no guns); 3 x six-launcher batteries of LRPR (18 launchers + 6 spares); 6 x nine-launcher OWUAS batteries (54 launchers + 10 spares); and 3 x 12-system GBAD batteries (36 systems + 10 spares) (Note that spares include tech spares, equipment at the RCAS, and a small stock of replacements)

That's not exorbitant: 66 x 155mm SPs; 46 x 155mm M777; 24 x LRPR launchers; 64 x OWUAS launchers; and 46 x GBAD systems. A total of 182 x expensive systems and 64 x relatively cheap OWUAS launch systems. That gives each battery, RegF and ResF the equipment it trains on and would go to war with.

Live firing is essential, but much of the training can and should be done with simulation systems and sub calibre/practice munitions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That's all logical, but people are already working in their lives with simulations and virtual communication. They are joining the Reserve Forces to do things hands on. By all means have lot's of simulator and such. But people now want that visceral experience to feel alive and different and have something to brag about when they show up Monday morning at the office/school/work site. This is the same thing that Museums are grappling with, the old way of just having static display's is not good enough to bring people through the doors.