C3 Howitzer Replacement

[FJAG]

I don't have any dogs in the hunt on the issue of logistics vehicle with gun turret or LAV with gun turret. As long as either chassis provides protection for the crew, has reasonable manoeuvrability and is compatible mechanically to other vehicle chassis already in the inventory then the only questions that remain are the efficiency and ammo capacity of the turret and self-locating/siting systems (which is independent of the chassis itself) and the overall weight and dimensions of the vehicle for air transportability.

:cheers:

 

[suffolkowner]

I was impressed with the off road ability of the 8x8 MAN trucks we had in Germany, I suspect the trucks even armoured have better mobility than a LAV 6 with 155mm turret stuck on it. The LAV will be somewhat more survivable.

A 155mm has got to rock a LAV hard does it not?

 

[FJAG]

A 155mm has got to rock a LAV hard does it not?

A 155 rocks everything pretty hard. Even the M109 (which only weighs in at 27 tonnes and has a wide wheelbase) rocked hard at full charge with the 39 calibre barrel. That's why it had ground spades at the back. With the proposed 58 calibre barrel it will rock even more. That's the trouble with these extended ranges - there's much greater strain on everything.

Surprisingly, many of the wheeled options discussed here (including logistic trucks, LAV and Boxer) weigh more than the M109 in part from the armour and autoload mechanisms they have.

:cheers:

 

[suffolkowner]

Thanks FJAG

That's what I figured, I just wondered how practical a LAV 155 would be

 

[FJAG]

Thanks FJAG

That's what I figured, I just wondered how practical a LAV 155 would be

The LAV6.0 took the basic LAVIII from some 17 tons to around 32 tons with full armament and armour so the chassis and motor has already been beefed up. Kraus-Maffei's 155/52 Artillery Gun Module (AGM - basically the Panzerhaubitze 2000 turret) with autoloader etc comes in at around 12.5 tons. I can't see why the LAV 6.0 chassis couldn't handle that load (once you remove the existing 30mm turret system and much of the armour on the back half of the vehicle (and maybe add some stabilizers)

:cheers:

 

[Dale Denton]

I remember doing some research into the US Army concept for an air-deployable LAV3 SPH with a turret from Denal (of S.Africa) which was not pursued. It makes sence to LAV-ify as much as possible but the whole idea of it is to reduce maintenance and increase commonality. In this, we'd be doing R & D on a 20 year old concept on an older (basic LAV3) chasis/drivetrain/etc... to save money, but yet spend loads just to make it production-ready. At that, we'd be the only customer for it.

TLDR; spending lots of $$$ on our own on something too old and that nobody else would buy - just to save $$$? Doesn't make sense.

Invest in a SPH that our friends have. M109 clearly has some life left in it and a friend with some cheap ones available, or get some K9 Thunders like Australia just did. Either you want the capability or ya don't. Wouldn't be crazy to have a small fleet of K9s, capability is worth the issues of having only 30.

 

[a_majoor]

I remember doing some research into the US Army concept for an air-deployable LAV3 SPH with a turret from Denal (of S.Africa) which was not pursued. It makes sence to LAV-ify as much as possible but the whole idea of it is to reduce maintenance and increase commonality. In this, we'd be doing R & D on a 20 year old concept on an older (basic LAV3) chasis/drivetrain/etc... to save money, but yet spend loads just to make it production-ready. At that, we'd be the only customer for it.

TLDR; spending lots of $$$ on our own on something too old and that nobody else would buy - just to save $$$? Doesn't make sense.

Invest in a SPH that our friends have. M109 clearly has some life left in it and a friend with some cheap ones available, or get some K9 Thunders like Australia just did. Either you want the capability or ya don't. Wouldn't be crazy to have a small fleet of K9s, capability is worth the issues of having only 30.

Maybe look at the US Army and USMC, since they also use LAV varients. It would be nice if everyone could be aligned and all use one basic hull (for argument, lets say the Stryker) - you could get lots of economies of scale with a long production run. Most modern 8X8 vehicles in service have lots of ability to be fitted with different turrets and systems, think of "Centurio" tank destroyers with actual tank cannon, or Finnish(?) 8X8s with a twin AMOS 120mm mortar turret as two examples. Even we could get in the game if the Army had pushed to replace all the older vehicles with one model - I believe the actual number was something like 1400 vehicles (TLAV's, Bisons, Coyotes and various other things) but the army ended up only buying 400 odd LAV 3's. Even doubling the number would have unburdened the Army of a lot of logistical headaches with a multitude of almost but not quite compatable LAV varients.

So many of our problems are self inflicted becasue so many things are "siloed" into cyliders of excelence - look at the threads about SHORAD, EW, ATGM and so on- all these programs should be or should have been built on a common chassis. Even if the LAV 6.0 might not be the "best" possible replacement for a Coyote or EW "boat", the logistical advantages likely overwhelm the disadvantages when played across the entire fleet.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The first SPG we should get are 120mm mortars in a modified LAV 6 chassis, have everything onboard to dismount the 120mm as required, have a MG mounted in a small RWS for self defense. This would be easily doable within the monies we return back yearly. Yes I know we will find a way to make it to difficult for ourselves, god forbid we just use what our allies are doing to inform us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfTFFzgXZkc

Call it an "interim capability" So we don't have to go through the full dog and pony show. The hulls are made in Canada and that is politically doable, the mortars and ammo can be sourced through NATO and is a capability we can use anyways in the Reserves, turning some Reserve units into heavy mortar batteries and consolidating the remaining C3 to other units.

 

[FJAG]

Maybe look at the US Army and USMC, since they also use LAV varients. It would be nice if everyone could be aligned and all use one basic hull (for argument, lets say the Stryker) - you could get lots of economies of scale with a long production run. Most modern 8X8 vehicles in service have lots of ability to be fitted with different turrets and systems, think of "Centurio" tank destroyers with actual tank cannon, or Finnish(?) 8X8s with a twin AMOS 120mm mortar turret as two examples. Even we could get in the game if the Army had pushed to replace all the older vehicles with one model - I believe the actual number was something like 1400 vehicles (TLAV's, Bisons, Coyotes and various other things) but the army ended up only buying 400 odd LAV 3's. Even doubling the number would have unburdened the Army of a lot of logistical headaches with a multitude of almost but not quite compatable LAV varients.

So many of our problems are self inflicted becasue so many things are "siloed" into cyliders of excelence - look at the threads about SHORAD, EW, ATGM and so on- all these programs should be or should have been built on a common chassis. Even if the LAV 6.0 might not be the "best" possible replacement for a Coyote or EW "boat", the logistical advantages likely overwhelm the disadvantages when played across the entire fleet.

I've been a long-time fan of common fleets.

As to the US Army and Marines: In the Stryker BCT (the equivalent of our LAV6.0 manoeuvre units) and the Marine Corps the artillery weapon is the M777. (Marines also have HIMARS which in the US Army is part of the separate and divisional artillery brigades) The US Army started to look at replacing the M777 in it's SBCTs in 2018 and there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not it should be SP or towed. Key issues are that it needs to be transportable in the same way as the rest of the brigade (ie capable of air movement) and integrate modern self deployment, manoeuvrability and extended range capabilities. While there has been much press on the M109Paladin improvements, there has been little or no information as to anything separate for the SBCTs. That's probably because the M109 extended range cannon and the precision strike missile projects are the number 1 and 2 priorities.

Quite frankly, the Stryker brigades have always been a bit of a step-child for the US Army designed to give mobility and protection to standard infantry brigade combat teams. The brigades already took a hit with the reduction in numbers of their ersatz-tank, the Mobile Gun System and the inability of the US Air Force to meet the deployment timing cycles for such a brigade (notionally set at deploying a full brigade by Hercules within 96 hours to anywhere in the world) Currently the US has 16 armourd BCTs, 9 Stryker BCTs and 23 infantry BCTs (including 5 airborne and 3 air assault). While there are ongoing upgrades to the Strykers themselves (including IM-SHORAD; better TOW and Javelin under armour; Dragoon turrets; V hulls; etc) there seems to be a dearth of information on an upgraded artillery system.

:cheers:

 

[FJAG]

The first SPG we should get are 120mm mortars in a modified LAV 6 chassis, have everything onboard to dismount the 120mm as required, have a MG mounted in a small RWS for self defense. This would be easily doable within the monies we return back yearly. Yes I know we will find a way to make it to difficult for ourselves, god forbid we just use what our allies are doing to inform us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfTFFzgXZkc

Call it an "interim capability" So we don't have to go through the full dog and pony show. The hulls are made in Canada and that is politically doable, the mortars and ammo can be sourced through NATO and is a capability we can use anyways in the Reserves, turning some Reserve units into heavy mortar batteries and consolidating the remaining C3 to other units.

There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

:cheers:

 

[GR66]

There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

:cheers:

Call me a dreamer, but the USMC is divesting itself of 16 Batteries of M777's.  If I were king for a day I'd buy the lot of them.  Three Batteries to top up the three Reg Force Regiments to 3 x 6-gun batteries each.  Twelve batteries to make up three complete Reserve Artillery Regiments (with 3 x 6-gun batteries each) and one Battery left over for the Artillery School/Training/Spares. 

While towed guns have disadvantages in range and increased vulnerability to counter-battery fire, it would at least get our Artillery units to a reasonable starting point.  Additional capabilities (SP Guns, HIMARS, etc.) could be added later. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

:cheers:

and I will have to disagree politely. The infantry should have 60 and 81mm mortars. The 120mm is to much to hump with a usable ammo load. So they go to the artillery. Currently the reg force has no SPG's and not enough tubes as it is. Dedicate a battery of LAV 120 to the tanks to provide mobile armoured indirect fire support. Another battery for LAV ops and another for the school. Dismounted or trailered 120's go to some Reserve arty units. This is all very doable in our current and foreseeable budgets. You have some great ideas, but currently they are made of unobtanium and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This would increase the number of useable tubes right now and give us something to helps fill the role of a SPG, even if it's not perfect.

cheers as well.

 

[Kirkhill]

and equips and organizes its force properly.

What is properly?  To what end? What purpose? What problem does it solve?

A big chunk of our problem is that the Canadian Armed Force solves few, if any problems.  It only ever solves part of the problem. That is why we joined NATO.  The Greeks will defend Iqaluit.  If it needs defending.

 

[OldSolduer]

and I will have to disagree politely. The infantry should have 60 and 81mm mortars. The 120mm is to much to hump with a usable ammo load. cheers as well.

One of the characteristics of the 81 mm mortar is that it is man portable, for short distances. The ammunition for an 81 isn't light, and you need lots to be effective.

:2c:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Which is why the 81mm should the maximum size for the infantry, they also have to pack water, food, medical, small arms ammunition, batteries, LAW's, Carl G, HMG, GPMG's and some form of ATGM, along with all the other kit a Infantry Battalion needs day to day.

I would put 120mm mortars, Manpads and any ATGM bigger/heavier than a jeep mounted TOW with the artillery (or armour with a TOU)

 

[OldSolduer]

Which is why the 81mm should the maximum size for the infantry, they also have to pack water, food, medical, small arms ammunition, batteries, LAW's, Carl G, HMG, GPMG's and some form of ATGM, along with all the other kit a Infantry Battalion needs day to day.

I would put 120mm mortars, Manpads and any ATGM bigger/heavier than a jeep mounted TOW with the artillery (or armour with a TOU)

Not to be a bubble burster but the infantry - at least when I was in Mortar Platoon - never manpacked 81s. We always transported them via M113 and deployed them on the ground.

 

[GR66]

There are already Stryker mortar carriers for the 120mm and it would be very simple to install one in a LAV6.0. In Stryker BCTs, each mortar detachment has the vehicle mounted 120mm as well as a standard 81mm mortar which they can use if the battalion needs to go dismounted. I fully agree with you that every Canadian LAV6.0 battalion's mortars should be configured exactly the same as the SBCTs (i.e. a vehicle mounted 120 and a dismountable 81mm)

I strongly disagree with the idea that we call these "SPGs" or consider them an "interim" solution or that we give them to reserve artillery units. They're an infantry weapon and should stay with the infantry. Period.

Every reserve gunner we have now will be needed if the artillery ever gets off it's butt and equips and organizes its force properly. For starters based on current Reg F formations we need three more 6 gun batteries and more guns and detachments for the batteries we have. We need them for the air defence role, and for target acquisition (both radar and UAVs). Once we have that underway we need to strongly consider precision strike rockets and possibly brigade level anti-armour resources.

Don't start undermining the gunner role by parcelling them out for "quick gratification" missions. There are more than enough gunner roles once we get our crap together. The problem is that the Army in total hasn't been able to get it's head out of the Afghan Battle Group mission format. Hopefully, there is change in the wind. We need to think peer-to-peer.

:cheers:

I think the highlighted portion is what was missed.  The Strykers have a 120mm mortar mounted in the vehicle.  Good range and punch when the unit is mounted, but they use an 81mm when the Battalion is dismounted.  It wasn't suggested that the infantry try and hump a 120mm mortar around the battlefield.  Our mortar platoons will be in a LAV...why not use the proven LAV mortar vehicle that is available?  The cheaper solution and adds another tool to the toolbox.

 

[MilEME09]

I think the highlighted portion is what was missed.  The Strykers have a 120mm mortar mounted in the vehicle.  Good range and punch when the unit is mounted, but they use an 81mm when the Battalion is dismounted.  It wasn't suggested that the infantry try and hump a 120mm mortar around the battlefield.  Our mortar platoons will be in a LAV...why not use the proven LAV mortar vehicle that is available?  The cheaper solution and adds another tool to the toolbox.

Gives us mobile fire support, and keeps jobs in London, sounds like a win win. We Can always use more LAVs, and the army wants its AFV fleet to be as common as possible, that means more LAV variants.

Another option could be to take the TCV variant that GD has (which we are getting a few) and slap a rocket system on the back deck, sorta a mini HIMARS is what I envision.

 

[FJAG]

Gives us mobile fire support, and keeps jobs in London, sounds like a win win. We Can always use more LAVs, and the army wants its AFV fleet to be as common as possible, that means more LAV variants.

Another option could be to take the TCV variant that GD has (which we are getting a few) and slap a rocket system on the back deck, sorta a mini HIMARS is what I envision.

One probably could, but HIMARS already comes on a complete and proven vehicle system that's already C130 transportable. Due to the low volume we would probably have ( my guess topping out at one 18 launcher regiment but more probably a six launcher battery) it would not be worth the research and development costs to adapt it to a LAV chassis.

:cheers:

 

[GK .Dundas]

I think the highlighted portion is what was missed.  The Strykers have a 120mm mortar mounted in the vehicle.  Good range and punch when the unit is mounted, but they use an 81mm when the Battalion is dismounted.  It wasn't suggested that the infantry try and hump a 120mm mortar around the battlefield.  Our mortar platoons will be in a LAV...why not use the proven LAV mortar vehicle that is available?  The cheaper solution and adds another tool to the toolbox.

But damn it! We're Canadian we have too !
That's why we have taxpayers isn't it?
Regards,
Gordon