• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Ralph

Member
Reaction score
7
Points
180
I mean, we have several levels of UAVs - none able to drop, like you say. Wasn't sure if you meant we had none at all.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
421
Points
880
I mean, we have several levels of UAVs - none able to drop, like you say. Wasn't sure if you meant we had none at all.
It looks like we're moving down the armed drone (flight) path.

You know, a couple of decades after everyone else as per SOP :)

Armed drones on the Canadian military horizon​


The Canadian government appears to be moving closer to acquiring armed drones. According to Justin Ling of Vice News, Canadian government officials recently briefed industry partners on systems requirements, with long-range surveillance and the ability to engage targets remotely seen as key to protecting Canadian territory and participating in foreign missions. But questions about the policies guiding the use of drones by the Canadian military remain unanswered and deserve more attention from civil society and the Canadian public.

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) first showed an interest in drones in 2000, with the start of the Joint Unmanned Surveillance and Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) program. This plan met with internal and public opposition related to costs and disagreement on the best system.
For two years beginning in 2008, CAF personnel in Afghanistan flew Heron drones leased from Israel. The Heron drones were used for surveillance and did not carry weapons. In 2011, military leaders requested $600-million to buy armed drones for use in the Libyan war. Their request was denied.

Then, in 2017, Canada’s Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, in initiatives 50 and 91, outlined a path for drone acquisition by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Soon after, Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) renamed the JUSTAS program the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) procurement project. RPAS, currently in stage three of five, is expected to cost between one and five billion dollars. DND hopes to award contracts in 2022 or 2023 and have drones in operation by 2025.

 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
It looks like we're moving down the armed drone (flight) path.

You know, a couple of decades after everyone else as per SOP :)

Armed drones on the Canadian military horizon​


The Canadian government appears to be moving closer to acquiring armed drones. According to Justin Ling of Vice News, Canadian government officials recently briefed industry partners on systems requirements, with long-range surveillance and the ability to engage targets remotely seen as key to protecting Canadian territory and participating in foreign missions. But questions about the policies guiding the use of drones by the Canadian military remain unanswered and deserve more attention from civil society and the Canadian public.

The Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) first showed an interest in drones in 2000, with the start of the Joint Unmanned Surveillance and Target Acquisition System (JUSTAS) program. This plan met with internal and public opposition related to costs and disagreement on the best system.
For two years beginning in 2008, CAF personnel in Afghanistan flew Heron drones leased from Israel. The Heron drones were used for surveillance and did not carry weapons. In 2011, military leaders requested $600-million to buy armed drones for use in the Libyan war. Their request was denied.

Then, in 2017, Canada’s Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy, in initiatives 50 and 91, outlined a path for drone acquisition by the Royal Canadian Air Force. Soon after, Canada’s Department of National Defence (DND) renamed the JUSTAS program the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) procurement project. RPAS, currently in stage three of five, is expected to cost between one and five billion dollars. DND hopes to award contracts in 2022 or 2023 and have drones in operation by 2025.

You see, we once again demonstrate being behind the times. We're dealing with a decades old Predator/Reaper like system requirement (actually it was a Predator we wanted when I was still serving some 15 years ago, until folks went all single source on the thing and dealt it comatose in procurement hell) when what we're really needing these days is significantly less expensive but greater quantities of loitering munitions which would not be an Air Force resource but an Army and Navy one.

I like the cost aspect - 1 to 5 billion. If Wikipedia is to be believed the US program for Reaper program was US$11.8 billion with a per airframe fly away cost of US$16 million. How many are we buying anyway. I'm still baffled by the strategic need for this thing: Northern and coastal surveillance and striking Russian weather stations? 😅 Peacekeeping? 😱Latvia? 🤔

😠
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
57
Points
530
Recent conflicts over the past decade should of clearly demonstrated to the department that we are behind on the drone game. Heck the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan shows heavily how drones are what the tank was to the battle fields of 1918. If we do not join em, we better as heck find a way to counter them. I could see a drone with a laser designater very useful in the arty world to grab exact coordinates for a target, then drop a GPS guided round on it.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
73
Points
480
Hey now, we aren't behind...

We're just letting the US spend all of the R&D money on developing the next generation of systems & munitions, and test those systems in anger, before we commit to any purchases.


Clever in a Mr. Bean kind of way ;)
 

GR66

Sr. Member
Reaction score
14
Points
230
Without reopening the whole howitzer vs mortar debate, Patria's Nemo mortar system now has fire on the move capability.

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/patrias-modern-mortar-system-get-new-superior-feature.html

Adds a whole new level to the towed vs self-propelled survivability question.

Are we again a generation behind the thinking in our replacement gear? We talk about replacing WWII era towed artillery with Vietnam era self-propelled artillery while others are starting to roll out fire-on-the-move platforms.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
421
Points
880
Without reopening the whole howitzer vs mortar debate, Patria's Nemo mortar system now has fire on the move capability.

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/patrias-modern-mortar-system-get-new-superior-feature.html

Adds a whole new level to the towed vs self-propelled survivability question.

Are we again a generation behind the thinking in our replacement gear? We talk about replacing WWII era towed artillery with Vietnam WW 2 era self-propelled artillery while others are starting to roll out fire-on-the-move platforms.
FTFY :)
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
73
Points
480
Without reopening the whole howitzer vs mortar debate, Patria's Nemo mortar system now has fire on the move capability.

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/patrias-modern-mortar-system-get-new-superior-feature.html

Adds a whole new level to the towed vs self-propelled survivability question.

Are we again a generation behind the thinking in our replacement gear? We talk about replacing WWII era towed artillery with Vietnam era self-propelled artillery while others are starting to roll out fire-on-the-move platforms.
This has become our tradition :ROFLMAO:

As frustrating and sad as it may be - I do find a somewhat humorous solace in this unintentional tradition of ours.


We either have world class, state of the art kit. Or kit that other countries have had in museums for years - or, in some cases, decades. Not much between those 2 extremes ;) It's part of our charm at this point
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
Without reopening the whole howitzer vs mortar debate, Patria's Nemo mortar system now has fire on the move capability.

https://defence-blog.com/news/army/patrias-modern-mortar-system-get-new-superior-feature.html

Adds a whole new level to the towed vs self-propelled survivability question.

Are we again a generation behind the thinking in our replacement gear? We talk about replacing WWII era towed artillery with Vietnam era self-propelled artillery while others are starting to roll out fire-on-the-move platforms.
I'll believe it after it's been evaluated by a third party rather than touted in a glossy sales brochure. I note in their previous material they talked about "fire on the move" capability only about their navy gunboat system.

Stabilizers and GPS have come a long way ... but ... it's still a mortar. I hope it works because our mechanized battalions could really use something like that in their mortar platoons rather than what they have. All my old statements about the fact that there's a difference between the artillery role and that of a mortar platoon still stand.

In the meantime I wouldn't be using it on any "danger close" missions.

🍻
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
202
Points
680
Our "LAV Brigade" should have mortar and guns mounted on LAV 6 chassis to support that brigade. Our Tank Brigade should have tracked SPG and tracked APC/IFV's to support them.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
Well this is a novel way packing a vehicle borne mortar, not sure how much I like it though.

https://i1105.photobucket.com/album...e_with_Ukrainian_army_925_001_zpsh1r11ppf.jpg
That's a very intricate, built for purpose, piece of kit. Makes me wonder why they didn't go the extra mile to just put the thing under armour in the first place. The mechanism to unload the mortar looks like a heavy piece of equipment all of it's own. The side panel door with ammo looks to me like it means it's hand loaded in the traditional fashion and from what I read can be directed from either inside or outside the vehicle. Interestingly it only carries 60 rds.

🍻
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
78
Points
530
That's a very intricate, built for purpose, piece of kit. Makes me wonder why they didn't go the extra mile to just put the thing under armour in the first place. The mechanism to unload the mortar looks like a heavy piece of equipment all of it's own. The side panel door with ammo looks to me like it means it's hand loaded in the traditional fashion and from what I read can be directed from either inside or outside the vehicle. Interestingly it only carries 60 rds.

🍻

A couple of links with moving pictures . . .



This particular piece of kit (the mortar, not the vehicle) seems to be Spanish in origin.
 
Last edited:

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
A couple of links with moving pictures . . .



This particular piece of kit (the mortar, not the vehicle) seems to be Spanish in origin.
Thanks especially for the videos which confirm what I thought. Operated from outside right up to and including firing with a long lanyard.

IMHO if you are going so far as to provide an armored transport for the kit then save the hydraulics for stabilizers and make it operable from under armour. I see that using an existing Spanish mortar assembly that was designed for an open truck limits the options and that wrapping an armoured vehicle around it is a step forward but still ... I think that there are better options.

🍻
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
160
Points
680
I dunno... the L118 light gun is still a nice little number IMHO:

I dunno ... I could never figure out why the Brits needed to separate load -- load projectile ... ram projectile ... load cartridge -- on the 105 when semi fixed NATO standard 105 works about the same on the M119 but is easier (simpler to load).

M119

- Yeah I know the Yanks are a bit slow but it has nothing to do with the ammo - its ... well ... the ammo numbers at the back of the truck are a bit slow ... and they're yanks ... and they're airborne at that. :p

Quirk left over from the 25 lbdr I guess. Brian or Kevin would know, I guess.

🍻
 
Top