• 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

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
655
Points
940
Yes the M119 is an attractive option as a direct replacement for the C3
Viable as a lightweight, operational weapons system that could be plugged into reserve units, especially since it includesdigital fire control that could be a stepping stone to the M777? Yes. Attractive as the most modern, necessary operational weapon system that Canada need? No.

🍻
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
666
Points
910
As I previously mentioned, time is of the essence and likley a system either based on the M119 or a 120mm mortar is likley the only doable solution within the budget, industrial capacity and timeframe that currently exist. It may not be the perfect solution, but it will be good enough. Pitching a system that could be partial or fully built here increases the likelihood of surviving the coming defense budget cuts, otherwise the Canadian Reserve artillery will become a professional reenactment force sleepwalking through the drills on non-functioning guns.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
267
Points
910
As I previously mentioned, time is of the essence and likley a system either based on the M119 or a 120mm mortar is likley the only doable solution within the budget, industrial capacity and timeframe that currently exist. It may not be the perfect solution, but it will be good enough. Pitching a system that could be partial or fully built here increases the likelihood of surviving the coming defense budget cuts, otherwise the Canadian Reserve artillery will become a professional reenactment force sleepwalking through the drills on non-functioning guns.
Agreed l, the C3 needs a replacement by the end of the decade at the latest, but the sooner the better. At this point a system that checks most of the boxes is better then nothing.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
655
Points
940
Agreed l, the C3 needs a replacement by the end of the decade at the latest, but the sooner the better. At this point a system that checks most of the boxes is better then nothing.
Loitering munitions are relatively inexpensive and the training systems are even cheaper.

And you do not need to redesign the armouries to store them. 🙂

🍻
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,646
Points
1,060
Loitering munitions are relatively inexpensive and the training systems are even cheaper.

And you do not need to redesign the armouries to store them. 🙂

🍻
Right, because they could hover a few feet above the parade square when not being used, like the guns that are parked there now :)
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
655
Points
940
I rest my case. The HIMARS is equally effective and easier to maintain and is used by a number of National Guard units. A perfect fit. A system that is rarely used and only necessary in case of a major war run by part time soldiers thus creating a very low cost to sustain annually. Note the practice rockets which have a range of five to nine miles, can be used on any standard artillery range and cost a fraction of a service rocket.

We planned on HIMARS once and then figured we'd never be going back to a peer war so why bother?

Command and control of artillery is complex and we need full-time gunners for that. Delivery systems from guns to rockets, even the modern ones, are relatively easy and should, in large part, be manned by reservists.

🍻
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
666
Points
910
Apparently the G7 was tested but nothing more happened. There is a post in this thread about a Caser like self-propelled gun being tested by the CF as well. Again nothing more.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
193
Points
710
I rest my case. The HIMARS is equally effective and easier to maintain and is used by a number of National Guard units. A perfect fit. A system that is rarely used and only necessary in case of a major war run by part time soldiers thus creating a very low cost to sustain annually. Note the practice rockets which have a range of five to nine miles, can be used on any standard artillery range and cost a fraction of a service rocket.

We planned on HIMARS once and then figured we'd never be going back to a peer war so why bother?

Command and control of artillery is complex and we need full-time gunners for that. Delivery systems from guns to rockets, even the modern ones, are relatively easy and should, in large part, be manned by reservists.

🍻
The flexibility of the system is also demonstrable -



Coastal Artillery, Divisional Support, Theater Response - "Drone" compatible.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
193
Points
710
Meanwhile the 155mm for the Medium Brigades?



Archer, the BAE Systems Bofors’ 155mm/52-cal SP wheeled artillery system was on display at DSEI for the first time carried on a Rheinmetall MAN 8×8 cross country truck with an armoured cab. This 8×8 carrier is widely in use around the world and indicates the international intentions of the company for this wheeled artillery system. Sweden is already going full steam ahead equipping its artillery units with Archer, 24 of which have been received, with a further 12 on order as reserve equipments. (These had been slated as part of a delivery to Norway, but that deal did not go ahead.)


Buy Guns, Not Gun-Bunnies. :giggle:

And buy kit that is not specialized.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
193
Points
710
Although this is a Navy article the HVP projectile info is equally valid

“So if you think about the kinds of threats you might face in the Middle East Anywhere the lower-end cruise missiles or a larger UAV, now you have a way to shoot them down that doesn’t require you use a $2 million ESSM or $1 million RAM because a hyper velocity projectile – even in the highest-end estimates have it in the $75,000 to $100,000 range, and that’s for the fanciest version of it with an onboard seeker,” he said.

An added benefit of using HVP in powder guns is the gun’s high rate of fire and a large magazine capacity.

“You can get 15 rounds a minute for an air defense mission as well as a surface-to-surface mission,” Clark said. “That adds significant missile defense capacity when you think that each of those might be replacing a ESSM or a RAM missile. They’re a lot less expensive.”


Lower end cruise missiles - Tomahawks
Larger UAVs - Loyal Wingmen, Kratos's upgraded drones, Turkey's tank killing UAVs
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
193
Points
710
Putting those pieces of the puzzle together - how saleable would the idea be of the local part time gunners having vehicles in their garage that could knock UAVs out of the sky at 100 km and missiles taking out their launch ships at 1500 km?

Unlike Aircraft Carriers and Bombers any mid-tier economy (government or not) can afford the capability to match their intent.

EELW5G_XUAEJCpe-1068x645.jpg
Raytheon DeepStrike Missile, United States of America
USMC to Buy Naval Strike Missile in $47 million Dollar Deal
SNAFU!: The US Army's Multi-Mission Launcher is dead...in steps a BIG  Multi-Mission Launcher?



It is all about Defence!

We don't want any of that dangerous Attack stuff.

This type of stuff could even be tied into the local Airport control tower.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,646
Points
1,060
Putting those pieces of the puzzle together - how saleable would the idea be of the local part time gunners having vehicles in their garage that could knock UAVs out of the sky at 100 km and missiles taking out their launch ships at 1500 km?

Based on what little I know about previous support provided to our local part time gunners, this would never, ever happen IMHO...
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
655
Points
940
Based on what little I know about previous support provided to our local part time gunners, this would never, ever happen IMHO...

The regular Army artillery is spread so this between two four gun batteries and a target acquisition battery in the field regiments and the Blackjack TUAV, medium range target acquisition radars and air space coordination centres with the general support regiment that it practically impossible to add on any of the necessary capabilities needed without adding more PYs (snowball's chance in hell for that) or giving up am existing capability that is already stretched beyond all reason.

One of these days the geniuses that keep naysaying the reserves are going to come to the conclusion that the only way that 2 plus 2 can ever equal 4 is if one of those 2s are reservists. I do have to tell you that the reluctance is not coming from within the artillery itself. My interviews now with about two dozen Afghan gunner vets (mostly high ranking officers and NCOs now) all say the same thing: reserve gunners did a great job in Afghanistan and the artillery could not have done the job there without them.

I'm cautiously (and perhaps unrealistically) optimistic. The problem is that such units need to be hybrid ones like the reserve air defence regiments were in the 1990s but the numbers of Reg F folks are no longer enough to do that easily.

My personal choice is to disband 3 PPCLI and take 1 and 2 PPCLI and the LdSH and turn them into three combined arms battalions - redistribute the PYs to guns and maintenance and redistribute the people into the three combined arms battalions which undoubtedly have many PYs standing vacant.

:confused:
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
193
Points
710
What I'm wondering about is utility.

A 105 mm only has utility if the enemy is in Hamilton or if the gun moves overseas and into range of the enemy.

I'm wondering what happens if 155s, equipped with these new HVM toys that are capable of taking down cruise missiles, UAVs and other aircraft at 100 km can be sold as Air Defence guns necessary to protect Toronto et al.

Likewise trucks with missiles that can take out ships at 1500 km, PrSM gen 2, to protect our coasts and the Arctic.

We can demonstrate domestic utility with vehicles that can be used in the parking lot of local Armouries with local gunners on call like volunteer firemen.

Those same systems could be used with other projectiles at shorter ranges when deployed.

With the guns as anchors then the rest of the puzzle starts falling into place.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
193
Points
710
It appears to me that 155mm is becoming a defacto standard as a launch platform. On the same grounds as 7.62mm and then 5.56mm became standards. The Americans have lots of bullets and rifles in stock.

The fact that the capabilities of the 155s are being stretched in terms of range and flexibility is a good thing that opens up all sorts of possibilities on the domestic front for justification. I believe our fellow citizens are likely more alive to aerial threats than they are many others. The certainly know about the 9/11 air patrols. They know about Russians skirting our airspace. They might remember the deployment of the Arty to defend Kananaskis. And UAVs/Missiles are on the news regularly. An ability to counter those potential threats by local artillery might not be a hard sell.

100 km guns to take out aerial threats
1500 km missiles launched from trucks to take out seaborne threats
Satellites, Pseudo Satellites, JUSTAS, LRPA and F35s to spot all threats.

The US, as noted above is redividing its world into new theatres based on the range of its Long Range Hyper Velocity Missile (2775 km)
Two of those theatres are in the Pacific, which we border. One is in Europe, on the other side of the Atlantic, which we border. One is in the Arctic, in which we have a proprietorial interest. And then there is the US Homeland. Which we border.

We are the hole in the doughnut. I am pretty sure the Americans want that theater sized hole closed. We may not have any use for the LRHW given its apparent inability to hit our predominant threats, all moving targets, but I think it would be better to do a Bomarc on this one and offer to buy a theater set and install it to cover the Canadian Theater (re). I'd much rather have a Canadian Lt General on the trigger than an American.

This would be in keeping with our existing NORAD obligations and would tie the RCA, RCAF and RCN into the daily operations of NORAD.

Now if only we could come up with a common missile launch pallet that would accommodate all of the truck-launchable missiles. Then the planned/existing MSVS/HSVS fleet could be employed both as transports to move launchers from ground mount to ground mount as well as being able to launch from their backs.

Then with trucks mounting Archer 155s and Missile launching pallets you have a system that has domestic utility, a recruiting and training focus and an expeditionary capability that can be exploited by both Regs and Res.

In addition - the guns need spotters - bring on the Cavalry with light vehicles and UAVs - and they need defending - jobs for infanteers. They need supplies from the Service Battalion and they need RCEME types to maintain them at a high readiness level.

Jobs that can be done locally on a part time basis.
 
Top