C3 Howitzer Replacement

[GR66]

Why would you make LRPF a PRes-only function?

Just to clarify, the 105mm and 120mm mortar are also capable of precision fires.  As far as the Long Range precision fires (155mm and HIMARS) I'm simply expounding on the argument in the article above to place some possible options for platforms into a Canadian context.

The article argues that for Battle Group/Brigade size forces the shorter range, higher volume of fire and smaller logistical footprint of lighter weapons like the 105mm and 120mm mortar are the better weapon option.  Heavier weapons with greater range, but lesser rate of fire and a larger logistical footprint are better suited to Brigade/Division size forces.

Since SSE only envisions Canada deploying Battle Group sized forces then it would make sense to have the weapons suited to a Battle Group sized force in the Regular Force which are the units which will fulfill these deployments.  If the only time we might potentially deploy a Brigade sized force is if the proverbial manure hits the oscillating aerator, then it would make sense to have these weapons in the Reserves.

I did also suggest that a Battery or two of M777s (or HIMARS) could be Reg Force as well since there are obviously times when they might still be the best tool for a less than full-scale war scenario.

 

[a_majoor]

While the article and the arguments for 105/120 at the Battlegroup level are sound, there are reasons to think much bigger, mostly to future proof ourselves.

The Russians have long used masses of artillery, and modern Russian artillery parks are 3:i in favour of long range multiple rocket launchers. It is a bit difficult to conduct operations, much less hold the enemy "at risk" when they are unloading salvos of BM-30 Smerch rockets from up to 90km away. And the huge 300mm rockets have lots of room for guidance systems to make them PGMs as well.

The Americans have also seen that light, and are looking at extended range artillery using either much longer 155mm barrels for increased ballistic performance or hypervelocity shells derived from those used in the experimental railgun program to reach out and touch people at up to 70km, long range rocket artillery with ranges out to 300km and even the "Strategic Long Range Cannon" with a reach of 1000 nautical miles. Being able to shell Moscow from almost any location in Poland certainly changes your perspective.

So while we might never be able to convince the powers that be to buy a regiment of SLRC's, we should be thinking of how to operate in an environment where artillery has dramatically increased its range and power, not thrashing over replacing a system which has slightly more reach than a WWII or Korean war artillery park. It could be tube or rocket artillery, it could be swarms of UAVs, it could be long range fibre optic guided missiles, it could use entirely different principles, but we really need to change our mindset.

And the ripple effect is if artillery is going to reach out to much greater ranges, do we need more artillery, or do we extend the effects of Infantry and Armour to fill the closer in range bands?

 

[Kirkhill]

1918 - 130 km to Paris.

 

[a_majoor]

The Strategic Long Range Cannon is supposed to be road mobile, and likely will resemble an updated M-65 "Atomic Annie". While no one has said exactly how this is supposed to work, a ramjet powered shell is likely the method of getting 1000 nautical mile ranges

 

[suffolkowner]

James Hasik's take on the various US initiatives

https://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2020/10/guns-on-trucks-threats-and-rivalries-in-military-adaptation.html

and from the article

"The first observation is that replacing that towed artillery, and especially in the Stryker brigades, is probably now imperative. Over scotch one night in Warsaw about a decade ago, as I was saying something admiring about the M777, a Danish master gunner explained to me that it really wasn't the right cannon for mechanized warfare. "The first thing that happens in all the wargames," he said, "is that all the towed artillery dies." The gunner was with a CV90 regiment, so he liked things that shoot and move. Towed guns don't pull up and relocate very quickly, so they cannot expect to easily escape the counter-battery fire. Fairly, that conclusion is relying on simulations to guide procurement decisions, but it seems prudent in this case, and we've been doing that for decades anyway."

 

[Ostrozac]

The writing has been on the wall for towed artillery in major war since at least the 1970’s, when counter battery radar first started to hit the field. The proliferation of UAVs has merely accelerated the trend.

Towed artillery is great if you’re fighting someone without counter battery capabilities — if you’re going to put your howitzers into hilltop fire bases and recreate Vietnam and Afghanistan, then M777 is a good choice, and putting resources into self-propelled would indeed be a waste.

But M777 is completely outclassed against Russia and China. It’s debatable against Iran and North Korea.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We could buy versions of the South Korean EVO-105 designed to slide into our existing MSVS Gun tractors, so they can be swapped if the vehicle goes for servicing. Add 4 powered hydraulic legs so units can swap out the systems themselves. This would quickly solve the failing gun problem and improve shoot and scoot abilty, allowing Reserves to train for that. Keep towed C3 for saluting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRaMiC6AjXo

 

[GR66]

I'd love to see the gun from the EVO-105 or Hawkeye mounted on Bronco 3 ATTC or BvS 10. 

The front unit would have room for the entire crew so you wouldn't need two vehicles like the Hawkeye and being tracked it would have much better off road mobility than either of the wheeled options.

 

[FJAG]

There's not much difference between a towed gun and something bolted onto a soft skinned truck. Maybe a bit faster into and out of action (maybe not depending on which gun). What you don't have is armoured protection for the crew or the gun so it's highly splinter vulnerable on top of which it's harder to dig in.

:2c:

 

[GR66]

There's not much difference between a towed gun and something bolted onto a soft skinned truck. Maybe a bit faster into and out of action (maybe not depending on which gun). What you don't have is armoured protection for the crew or the gun so it's highly splinter vulnerable on top of which it's harder to dig in.

:2c:

The Bronco 3 ATTC can apparently be armoured to STANAG Level 4 with add-on armour to protect the crew and you could likely have the same side panels as the EVO-105 to provide ballistic protection while the gun is firing.  The EVO-105 system claims it can have the gun in operation within 60 seconds vs 4-1/2 minutes for its towed counterpart and can begin moving from its firing position within 30 seconds.

If the whole point of a self-propelled system is to have the ability to scoot and shoot to avoid counter battery fire by an enemy with superior numbers of indirect fire weapons, then would digging in to a position really be a better option than relocating?  And if you have the ability to dig in a MBT with the right equipment, couldn't you do the same for a vehicle mounted howitzer?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Being dug in, does not seem to be helping much with the new loitering munitions doing top down attacks.

 

[MilEME09]

Being dug in, does not seem to be helping much with the new loitering munitions doing top down attacks.

A dug in M777 has a trench/dug in position that has a diameter of 12 meters, more then enough space for a precision munition to hit it.

 

[blacktriangle]

The USMC plans to utilize an unmanned JLTV as a missile platform. I doubt they will remain static after firing.

Not sure why we would consider subjecting our limited gun crews & guns to CB fire unless there was literally no alternative...

Ostrozac summed it up nicely.

 

[a_majoor]

Given the potential speed of modern warfare, a SP platform would have to be far faster than a Bronco or even a Swedish "Archer". Conceptually, I would imagine something along the lines of the South African G6 Howitzer (who's gun, ironically, owes a lot to Canadian Gerald Bull), since it combines speed, protection and cross country mobility. Using either an extended barrel or hypersonic ammunition to reach out to 70km, something along these lines would be ideal for our artillery park.

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/g6_52.htm

The G6-52 is fitted with a longer 155 mm/L52 howitzer comparing with its predecessor. It is also fitted with a fully-automatic ammunition loading and handling system. The G6-52 was originally developed with 23 and 25 liter chambers, however marketing is now concentrated on the 23 liter chamber, which meets the NATO Joint Ballistic Memorandum of Understanding. This artillery system comes with a modular charge system and is compatible with a Denel developed V-LAP rocket assisted projectiles, as well as standard NATO 155 mm ammunition. The G6-52 has a range of 58 km with V-LAP projectile. When firing a high-explosive extended-range full bore projectile maximum range is 33 km. The G6-52 is capable of multiple round simultaneous impact firing. It can fire 5 rounds at 25 km range to hit targets simultaneously.

Using the same chassis for a rocket launcher, protected supply vehicle with magazines or rockets and even a counter battery radar platform would provide economies of scale. This isn't to say we need to purchase the G6 (although it is still in production), but should be thinking along these lines.

The usual arguments about "can the reserves use it" will be raised, of course, but if we are willing to have a reserve at all, we should be thinking about how other nations organize and use their Reserves so those formations are capable of being issues and using tanks, SP artillery and so on - if they can do it then there is no reason we cannot.

 

[FJAG]

Using the same chassis for a rocket launcher, protected supply vehicle with magazines or rockets and even a counter battery radar platform would provide economies of scale. This isn't to say we need to purchase the G6 (although it is still in production), but should be thinking along these lines.

The usual arguments about "can the reserves use it" will be raised, of course, but if we are willing to have a reserve at all, we should be thinking about how other nations organize and use their Reserves so those formations are capable of being issues and using tanks, SP artillery and so on - if they can do it then there is no reason we cannot.

I quite like the configuration of this system, especially how low to the ground it is built which IMHO provides enhanced stability both while travelling and in action.

My preference for any such system is that the non gunnery parts (i.e. the chassis, automotive etc) be identical to the general fleet (i.e. the LAV 6.0 chassis) for ease of maintenance. Makes me wonder if the LAV 6.0 chassis and automotives could be easily configured into this style and carry the G6-52 turret system.

Re the reserves, hell, yes. I don't think that we have to look far for a better reserve model. Just glance across the border to the US for a successful system. IMHO there are too many countries who eschew using reservists in a meaningful way to bother with a broad study. Some countries have pay rates so low for their lower ranked full-time staff that it doesn't matter as much; some still use a form of conscription to bulk out their forces at low cost; while others have what I consider a civil service attitude to reservists which is that to be "professional" you need to be in a full-time career to do the job and that part-timers threaten those careers. The latter category is where I think Canada stands.

Truth be told is that most of the people who actually go to fight are young folks who have only had a few years of training and experience before deploying (a Canadian Infantry battalion authorized at 593 all ranks has 270 Cpl/Ptes; 78 Cpls and 100 MCpls or 75% ranked MCpl and below. An artillery regiment authorized at 552 has 409 or 74% of it's strength made up of MBdrs and below). The trick is to have a large enough full-time force to provide the core of well experienced NCOs and officers needed for leadership while the rest can be younger, fitter individuals who have received enough training and experience to do their specific jobs. That means just enough full-time units to allow the full-time force to train and develop the leadership core and to provide a quick reaction element while the bulk of the force is a trained and equipped mixture of primarily reservists with a leadership core that can deploy if and when circumstances demand it.

:cheers:

 

[Kirkhill]

Me.

Still not convinced.

When the other guy can bring this to the fight -

SWITCHBLADE® 300
Supporting conventional or special operations forces in the field or from fixed defensive positions, the combat-proven Switchblade 300 with patented wave-off feature is the ideal loitering missile for use against beyond-line-of-sight targets. Back-packable and rapidly deployable from air, sea or ground platforms, Switchblade 300 features increased lethality, reach and precision strike capabilities with low collateral effects. Remotely piloted or flown autonomously, Switchblade can provide real-time GPS coordinates and video for information gathering, targeting, or feature/object recognition. The vehicle's small size and quiet electric motor make it difficult to detect, recognize, and track, even at close range.



RANGE
10 km

ENDURANCE
15 min

WEIGHT
5.5 lb (2.5 kg), fits inside rucksack (includes payload, launcher, transport bag)

SPEED
Cruise: 63 MPH, Dash: 100 MPH

How thick do you want your overhead armour to be?

As a ground-pounder by inclination I still prefer to hide behind (or under) a hill than rely on a tin shield.

Give me a missile that I can dig in by the box load and launch off axis from cover in a confined space by remote control.  Keep your guns.  I want to launch rounds direct from the pallet.

Edit - Missiles or "Bots"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2020/06/17/turkish-military-to-receive-500-swarming-kamikaze-drones/?sh=2ccd404a251a

 

[a_majoor]

FJAG

I'm not wedded to the G6, although I suspect the LAV might not be suitable for a 155 turret without considerable modification. OTOH, there is a "pickup truck" version of the LAV which might work with the "Archer's" 155 gun + magazine setup with a turntable on the "pickup" bed, so as a guess, there may be ways to do this with a LAV. The more important issue is getting the artillery moving at the same speed as the rest of the Battlegroup, when "Бог войны" replies to your shots, you want to be well clear of the area.

Chris

These sorts of devices are tools in the toolkit as well - I don't think of this as an "either/or", loitering munitions like that can help spot for tubes and rockets, or follow up or even be dispatched to an area to go hunting for themselves. My main issue in this thread is we are looking at what is needed to replace a Korean war (?) vintage design and concept of use with something similar, without thinking about the changes in the military environment since then. Sure we could replace the C3 with a C3A1 or even a "C4" 105mm towed howitzer, which would then be savaged in the field by some Chinese knockoff of the Switchblade purchased in a Pakistani arms bazaar and fired by a 14 year old insurgent, or blasted into oblivion by some long range artillery weapon firing from 10X the max effective range of a 105...

You could make an argument that the Switchblade like weapon should actually be an Infantry weapon to supplement or replace mortars and ATGM's (if artillery is carrying the fight to targets 50+ km away, who is responsible for the "close" battle 10km out?) but that is a more doctrinal thing. A mobile, armoured platform carrying something like the USMC LOCUST concept would be just fine as far as I am concerned, we can sort out who uses the thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thuc

I think my current thinking has evolved to the point that I think that it is difficult, to the point of fruitlessness, to divide the means of delivering packets of energy on to a target.

Ultimately all that is required is that energy is delivered and the target is eliminated.

What am I getting at?

A knife, a spear, an arrow, a slung shot, a bullet, an urn packed with charcoal and saltpetre. 

Delivered by foot, or horse or springs or from an urn packed with charcoal and saltpetre

A 57mm HE Round delivered from a gun mounted in a manned aircraft like the Mosquito, or a cruise missile like the V1 or a ballistic missile like the V2

Off route mines.  Aircraft carrying missiles carrying smaller missiles with autonomous guidance.  UAVs carrying HEAT shaped charges.  Ballistic missiles carrying paintbombs and teargas..... etc ad nauseum ad infinitum.

We are trying to justify silos/stove-pipes/hat-badges and keeping guilds alive by laying claim to technologies with boundaries that are meaningless. 

Your average overweight 14 year old has all the skills necessary these days to immediately start contributing to a national war effort without stirring from the Gamer's Chair that her parents bought her last Christmas.

Jocks for the Infantry are a bit harder to come by.


We know that the battlefield is going to look different and I believe that tanks and armoured vehicles will end up as scarce as horses in Stalingrad.

 

[a_majoor]

While I agree with you to a certain extent, there is a necessary division of labour, and has been since Thagg's "Execution" paragraph stated "Grog throw spear, Urk follow up with rock and hit Mammoth on head". Urk would be less than pleased if Grog speared him by mistake, and even less happy with Thagg if the operations were carried out of order virtually guaranteeing Urk getting speared, gored or trampled in the process.

Division of labour also makes sense in other ways. I have read of scaled up devices which work like the Switchblade, but have ranges of up to 100km or more. While a hefty Infantryman could manpack one of these things, and likely use it on a target 1500m away as well as shooting from Wainwright to Edmonton, is that exactly the best use for either the infantryman or the weapon? Infantrymen carrying things that can reach out to the limit of visibility makes sense (a man portable Switchblade), but when people the next county or province over can shoot at you, having someone who can respond quickly and effectively would be good to have on your team as well. It isn't always about the cap badge - indeed a 1980 era mechanized Infantry battalion was pretty well balanced with an 81mm mortar platoon and an ATGM platoon with TOW- that combination made sense (and would still do so today) - more direct fire came from an attached Armoured squadron and more indirect fire came from the Artillery.

That's the sort of division of labour that I can see, and if the 21rst century means we have a "LOCUST" platoon in a mech infantry battalion rather than a mortar platoon, that's just fine. If the LOCUSTS can also be integrated into a long range sensor network, then an artillery battery of LOCUSTS supporting the Infantry in depth (who use their LOCUSTS in the 0-10km band to protect themselves) would make perfect sense. Like I said upthread, it isn't so much the tools you use (tubes, rockets, missiles, UCAVs), but how they are meant to be used.

 

[FJAG]

I'm with Thucydides on this issue. I said recently, in another thread, that we should seriously give consideration to detaching a full battlegroup (with reduced brigade and sustainment elements) from all other duties and make it an experimental battlegroups for testing out all the new upcoming equipment and develop appropriate doctrine. Whether the battalion handles swarm drones or the guns or recce or some other as yet non existent "combat arm" or "combat support arm" can be worked out in the process. I'm certainly not against new technology, far from it, I'm a raving advocate.

In the meantime let's not throw out the ground gaining armoured baby with the bathwater. Let's just make sure it has a highly efficient GBAD shield arm to properly protect it. That force will need a protected indirect fire support element that will work in high winds and obscuring weather that still continues to handicap airborne systems. Just as importantly, like Old Sweat argues, weapon systems that deliver an area neutralizing capability, rather than a pin point destruction capability also have their uses especially using cheaper dumb or semi dumb munitions.

We clearly need a tool kit. Something akin the mortars for infantry intimate fire support; armoured indirect fire capability to support the brigade across it's entire front; and hunter-killer devices (drones or remote controlled ground vehicles) for equipment destruction missions. Similarly we need above brigade systems such as long range guns, rockets and missiles to take out deeper enemy systems such as artillery, command and control facilities, anti-air facilities, sustainment elements etc.

The only problem that I see is prematurely wedding ourselves to one system or type of systems like we did two decades ago. Our problem seems to be that we think only at the battlegroup level (and not very well at that judging by our experience with mortars, anti-armour and pioneers). Peer conflict goes far beyond that. "Agile" is a terrible counterproductive buzzword that deludes us into thinking that we can create a single all-singing, all-dancing force.

:cheers: