C3 Howitzer Replacement

[NavyShooter]

Summary time - from what I can see:

• We don't have enough troops.
• Guns are old and getting older, soon to be unsafe to fire
• Facilities are not suitable for bigger new guns and gear (both armouries and ranges)
• Overall mission and capability is not well defined.
• Ancillary skills/tasks such as AD and UAVs not well managed or equipped either.

Based on my experience with the Reserves so far, I'll suggest that getting anything more complex than a towed system for the PRes will be very difficult to maintain and sustain.

 

[KevinB]

Colin - both.
The payload of the 60mm makes the juice not worth the squeeze - as well as the limited range, and without the bipod and C2 sight (or any other sighting mechanism) it's worthless.
Not sure if BigRed is still cruising around here - but when we where in Iraq insurgents used to use them a bunch - and several folks inside 3m from one landing on CONCRETE - walked away with minor fragments - if they landed in sand or soft soil - you can almost be right on top of it.

I'm not exactly a major fan of the 40mm LV GL rounds either - but both M203 and M320 (or HK69 if you are old school cool) are significantly lighter - and can carry a lot more rounds easier, or be like BigRed and carry a M79...

Plus having carried the 60mm (and a lot of 60mm bombs) it's a wasted anchor - I'd rather bring a Mk19 in my ruck (and yeah I know how ungainly and heavy that is) than a 60mm.

Perhaps the Res Arty units should get rerolled as Inf Spt with LAV 81mm Mortar variant for LAV units, and a GMG on a light vehicle for light units.

 

[MilEME09]

Part of the reason we don't have the 60mm, is the C16, 40mm HV grenade launcher with a 2.2km effective range capable of indirect fire. Bulkier yes, but also more versatile.

 

[Kirkhill]

Part of the reason we don't have the 60mm, is the C16, 40mm HV grenade launcher with a 2.2km effective range capable of indirect fire. Bulkier yes, but also more versatile.

Now if we just had a lightweight weapons carrier that could keep up with footborne infantry in complex terrain.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Part of the reason we don't have the 60mm, is the C16, 40mm HV grenade launcher with a 2.2km effective range capable of indirect fire. Bulkier yes, but also more versatile.

An interesting description of a US Marine led battle in Iraq that utilized all these weapons. It seems that the Mk 19, used in the indirect role, was the clincher....

U.S. Marines In Battle: An-Najaf, August 2004​

U.S. Marines In Battle: An-Najaf, August 2004. [Illustrated Edition]

Includes 3 maps and 35 illustrations.The city of an-Najaf, Iraq, is a provincial and market center located on the western branch of the Euphrates River approximately 100 miles south of Baghdad....This is a “battle study” written purposely from the perspective of the Marines, soldiers, and...

books.google.ca

 

[GR66]

There are lots of ideas and options presented in this thread, but honestly until the force structure is decided how do you know what the Regular and Reserve Artillery are going to need to support and what the best weapon system(s) are to provide that support?

Like almost all the equipment discussions on this site, no logical decisions can be made on what to acquire until we define the role and structure of the CF.

 

[Kirkhill]

But Kevin, you seem to be suggesting that CCA and CRCAF talk to each other about operational matters. Can CCJOC get them and CRCN (and CCanSOFCom) all to sit down at one table and do something other than decide to divide PYs four ways?

OK. Anathema time.

The usual wail is too many GOFOs, too much rank inflation.

What if....

It is time to reintroduce the Field Marshall.

If we split the Army into 2 functional Divs then we need 2 Majors General.
If we have two Divs and 2 Majors General then we have a Corps which requires a Lt General.
Fortunately the head of our single Corps, 2 Div army is a Lt General. Sorted.

The CCA, CRCAF and CRCN are all comparable 3 star appointments

BUT

CJOC

CJOC which nominally can be called to pull all the pieces together is commanded by another Lt General meaning he/she operates on par with CRCN/CCA/CRCAF and thus can only ask and not command.

What happens if the CJOC were promoted to 4 stars? Made a full General?

The problem then is the only current 4 star is the CDS. Promote the CDS to 5 stars? Field Marshal? Admiral of the Fleet? Air Marshall?

Just need to make sure that the rest of the ranks don't follow suit and jump a grade - but then there wouldn't be the necessary gap under CJOC.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There are lots of ideas and options presented in this thread, but honestly until the force structure is decided how do you know what the Regular and Reserve Artillery are going to need to support and what the best weapon system(s) are to provide that support?

Like almost all the equipment discussions on this site, no logical decisions can be made on what to acquire until we define the role and structure of the CF.

And they will change their mind before the ink is dry. The Canadian Army is a expeditionary force (with some domestic tasks) to be sent into whatever conflict or potentiel trouble spot the government of the day see fit to do so, with very little rhyme or reason.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And they will change their mind before the ink is dry. The Canadian Army is a expeditionary force (with some domestic tasks) to be sent into whatever conflict or potentiel trouble spot the government of the day see fit to do so, with very little rhyme or reason.

Hey, hey hey.... 'Me Too' is a reason

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps the Res Arty units should get rerolled as Inf Spt with LAV 81mm Mortar variant for LAV units, and a GMG on a light vehicle for light units.

Continuing with this thought

The 81mm mortar - the dominant issue is the control of the fire, specifically indirect control. Is it right to think that if a Fire Controller can be trained to adjust the fire of a group of mortars they can be trained to control the fire of a group of guns? Missiles? Helicopters? Aircraft? Isn't the critical element the ability to spot and report targets and adjust fires? Regardless of the nature of the projector?

The other thought



Here you have the VSHORAD turret for the Stryker Armed with 4x Stinger, 2x Hellfire, 1x 30mm Autocannon and 1x 7.62mm GPMG.
" The package includes onboard radar system, a turreted weapon system mounting missiles, guns, and non-kinetic (jammers and Electronic attack) capabilities. This system will provide the “detect-identify-track-defeat” capability required to defeat UAS, rotary-wing and fixed-wing threats."

Aside from the fact that it looks extraordinarily like something previously known, and derided, as a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle turret, what happens if the Artillery buys into this as the basis of the Reserve Force? Not necessarily on a LAV. Perhaps some could be mounted on lighter vehicles. Or even trailers. Or fixed.

Anti-Aircraft. Drone Suppression. Observation Post. Fire Direction. Direct Fire Support. Anti-Tank. - One Operator.

That with the 81mm (or perhaps the 120mm) as the basis of a modernized Brigade Machine Gun Battalion rebadged to the Arty in a Close Support role emphasising Air Defence and Fire Control.

 

[KevinB]

OK. Anathema time.

The usual wail is too many GOFOs, too much rank inflation.

What if....

It is time to reintroduce the Field Marshall.

I have a better idea...

If we split the Army into 2 functional Divs then we need 2 Majors General.

What if you accept that you don't have 2 real Div - and only 1 -- thus 1 MGen

If we have two Divs and 2 Majors General then we have a Corps which requires a Lt General.
Fortunately the head of our single Corps, 2 Div army is a Lt General. Sorted.

I just assassinated them - and you don't have a Corps - thus 1 MGen

The CCA, CRCAF and CRCN are all comparable 3 star appointments

I say get out the Axe - West Coast Fleet 1Star, East Coast 1 Star - thus CRCN 2star Vice Admiral, same for the CRCAF

BUT

CJOC

CJOC which nominally can be called to pull all the pieces together is commanded by another Lt General meaning he/she operates on par with CRCN/CCA/CRCAF and thus can only ask and not command.

Nope 3 star LGen - but he/she outranks the others now

What happens if the CJOC were promoted to 4 stars? Made a full General?

The problem then is the only current 4 star is the CDS. Promote the CDS to 5 stars? Field Marshal? Admiral of the Fleet? Air Marshall?

Just need to make sure that the rest of the ranks don't follow suit and jump a grade - but then there wouldn't be the necessary gap under CJOC.

No need - I bled them for you

 

[Kirkhill]

I have a better idea...

What if you accept that you don't have 2 real Div - and only 1 -- thus 1 MGen

I just assassinated them - and you don't have a Corps - thus 1 MGen

I say get out the Axe - West Coast Fleet 1Star, East Coast 1 Star - thus CRCN 2star Vice Admiral, same for the CRCAF

Nope 3 star LGen - but he/she outranks the others now

No need - I bled them for you

Sheesh! Next thing you know you'll be wanting to turn Battalions over to Majors and Brigades over to Colonels and call them Regiments.

Or Captains commanding Companies. Majors commanding Combat Teams. Colonels commanding Regiments. Small Divs becoming Brigade Combat Teams under Brigadiers..... Lt Cols back to what they were. Assistant Colonels.

You're right. CJOC stays as the only 3 Star and CCA, CRCAF and CRCN revert to 2 Star.

 

[KevinB]

Sheesh! Next thing you know you'll be wanting to turn Battalions over to Majors and Brigades over to Colonels and call them Regiments.

No - but I think a Col should command a Brigade Combat Team - with the LtCol's as Bn CO's.

Frankly as far as operation effectiveness goes I'd axe deeper, as looking at how Israel used to run the show with a MG, Canada could easily too - but admittedly rank issues working with allied Mil means you need a few GOFO's spared from the axe.

 

[Kirkhill]

What if you accept that you don't have 2 real Div - and only 1 -- thus 1 MGen

But can the army keep two ideas in its head at one time and both walk and chew gum? Can it sustain both Heliportable Light Fighters and LAV/Leo types in one construct?

 

[KevinB]

But can the army keep two ideas in its head at one time and both walk and chew gum? Can it sustain both Heliportable Light Fighters and LAV/Leo types in one construct?

3 Regular Inf "Regiments" - wait are those still minus Cbt Spt Coy - and manned to 70%?
Probably the wrong thread for this - but I think there are realistically 6 Reg Force In Bn's if all the PY's are filled
That's not even a Div - it is a Div with Res Augmentation (heavy Augmentation).
You may be able to cheat the system a bit in a LAV BN -but in a Light BN you need a fully formed Cbt Spt Coy, at least if you want to do anything but gate guard missions.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree that it is all about the weapons. Not so much the boots?

How many boots do you really need in a LAV Unit? Hard question I think. But easier than how many boots do you need in a Light Infantry Battalion/Company/Platoon/Section.

 

[Loch Sloy!]

The payload of the 60mm makes the juice not worth the squeeze - as well as the limited range, and without the bipod and C2 sight (or any other sighting mechanism) it's worthless.

Kevin, nice to see you back on the forum.

I agree to the extent that this describes our old mortars, however IMO any light infantry platoon commander worth their salt would love to have one with the following (existing) capability;

• lightweight modern tube
• electronic "sights" (some have first round hit capability even without a bipod and are no bigger than an iphone) , and

-smarter ammunition including fuzes which have user selectable prox settings .

Light mortars are especially valuable in mountains and other complex terrain, and its worth noting that the Brits brought back the 60mm under an UOR for Afghanistan.

The whole 60mm exchange for AGLS was just slieght of hand for the Treasury Board, they are really not comparable weapons systems. There is no substitute for the speed at which a platoon can utilize an organic indirect fire weapon vs calling up to higher and needing to wait for the JAG to sign off etc... but perhaps that's the real reason they took them away from the infantry

 

[GR66]

Continuing with this thought

The 81mm mortar - the dominant issue is the control of the fire, specifically indirect control. Is it right to think that if a Fire Controller can be trained to adjust the fire of a group of mortars they can be trained to control the fire of a group of guns? Missiles? Helicopters? Aircraft? Isn't the critical element the ability to spot and report targets and adjust fires? Regardless of the nature of the projector?

The other thought

View attachment 66298

Here you have the VSHORAD turret for the Stryker Armed with 4x Stinger, 2x Hellfire, 1x 30mm Autocannon and 1x 7.62mm GPMG.
" The package includes onboard radar system, a turreted weapon system mounting missiles, guns, and non-kinetic (jammers and Electronic attack) capabilities. This system will provide the “detect-identify-track-defeat” capability required to defeat UAS, rotary-wing and fixed-wing threats."

Aside from the fact that it looks extraordinarily like something previously known, and derided, as a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle turret, what happens if the Artillery buys into this as the basis of the Reserve Force? Not necessarily on a LAV. Perhaps some could be mounted on lighter vehicles. Or even trailers. Or fixed.

Anti-Aircraft. Drone Suppression. Observation Post. Fire Direction. Direct Fire Support. Anti-Tank. - One Operator.

That with the 81mm (or perhaps the 120mm) as the basis of a modernized Brigade Machine Gun Battalion rebadged to the Arty in a Close Support role emphasising Air Defence and Fire Control.

That Moog RIwP (Reconfigurable Integrated-Weapons Platform) on the IM-SHORAD can take a pretty wide variety of different weapons on a wide variety of platforms which means you could fulfill a number of different roles with a single RWS system.

Don't want to add another weapon/calibre of ammo to the supply chain? You can replace the 30mm cannon with the same M242 Bushmaster as is on the LAV. I'm not sure what the availability of airburst ammo is like for the M242 so maybe you'd prefer to go with the M134 Minigun instead for short range AD vs. UAVs. We don't use Hellfire missiles? Double up on the Quad-Stinger launchers for the AD version. For anti-tank versions you can have TOW or Javelin. If you go with a Stinger/Javelin combination you could use the same pair of missiles for your MANPAD AD solution and your hand-held AT option using the same Control Unit.

LAV-SHORAD and LAV-AT units using the RIwP for the Reg Force Heavy/Medium Brigades. Same RIwP combos on the TAPV for the Reserve Artillery-AD Regiments and Reserve Armoured Regiments. And for the Light/Air-Mobile Brigade you can again mount the same RIwP on a light vehicle like the JLTV

Standard equipment and training across all Brigade types (Light/Medium/Heavy) and for both the Reg Force and the Reserves. With the right weapon combos you even stadardize with the dismounted weapons.

 

[KevinB]

Kevin, nice to see you back on the forum.

Thx

I agree to the extent that this describes our old mortars, however IMO any light infantry platoon commander worth their salt would love to have one with the following (existing) capability;

• lightweight modern tube
• electronic "sights" (some have first round hit capability even without a bipod and are no bigger than an iphone) , and

-smarter ammunition including fuzes which have user selectable prox settings .

My main issue is the payload aspect - like many explore weapons they look cool - and can have an effect on less experienced forces - but I've seen a bunch of outgoing 60mm from new mortars with some nifty sights - do absolutely jack and sh*t -

Light mortars are especially valuable in mountains and other complex terrain, and its worth noting that the Brits brought back the 60mm under an UOR for Afghanistan.

Again - IMHO juice does not justify the squeeze. UOR doesn't always mean right or proper - it often means when know this and are comfortable - rather than we evaluated all the options and this is best.

I'd rather carry a direct-able 40mm launched "UAV Bomb"

The whole 60mm exchange for AGLS was just slieght of hand for the Treasury Board, they are really not comparable weapons systems. There is no substitute for the speed at which a platoon can utilize an organic indirect fire weapon vs calling up to higher and needing to wait for the JAG to sign off etc... but perhaps that's the real reason they took them away from the infantry

Since its gone -- I'd suggest there are better organic fire aspects available, than a new mortar.

 

[FJAG]

Perhaps the Res Arty units should get rerolled as Inf Spt with LAV 81mm Mortar variant for LAV units, and a GMG on a light vehicle for light units.

No. See my 234,414 previous posts on this topic.

There's a fundamental difference between battalion mortars and artillery. A battalion commander owns his mortars and will never lose their support. Artillery, even close support artillery, can be reallocated at the whim of whatever commander--corps, div, bde--who owns them if he sees a higher priority. Just because they are indirect fire doesn't mean they need to be handled by artillery. They are an infantry weapon and need to belong to and be operated by the infantry.

There are lots of ideas and options presented in this thread, but honestly until the force structure is decided how do you know what the Regular and Reserve Artillery are going to need to support and what the best weapon system(s) are to provide that support?

Bingo. The missing word here and within the CF is doctrine. Based on government direction, the military must build doctrine.

Doctrine is the unifying force of a military. It is more than just principles of warfare: it also involves application, which includes method, structures, procedures and even rules. To view doctrine as “a mindset” is to perceive only its conceptual or cognitive quality: doctrine in its proper form must be much more comprehensive. It has cognitive, procedural, organizational, material and moral components.

Information archivée dans le Web | Information Archived on the Web at page 20

Doctrine will define how we are organized and how we are equipped. Our current fetish with randomly shedding and acquiring capabilities is without a unified goal. To simply buy a training gun because the old ones are running out of time is a waste of resources - instead, develop a doctrine and organize the force and acquire the weapon systems needed for that. To decide which gun or weapon system to buy or not buy based on how big our armories' doors are beggars the imagination. Unfortunately that's exactly what we've done over and over again.

What happens if the CJOC were promoted to 4 stars? Made a full General?

Not just no! Hell! No! CJOC doesn't run the military. He/she runs operations on behalf of the military hierarchy. He's a servant and not the master.

Aside from the fact that it looks extraordinarily like something previously known, and derided, as a Multi Mission Effects Vehicle turret, what happens if the Artillery buys into this as the basis of the Reserve Force? Not necessarily on a LAV. Perhaps some could be mounted on lighter vehicles. Or even trailers. Or fixed.

I actually like the concept for air defence. I'd like to see it on a TAPV (although I'm not sure how much it would limit carrying onboard reloads)

You've all heard my previous opinions on multi-mission effects systems. It's not the fact that the weapon system can't do it, its that air defence and anti-armour are employed and deployed differently. The operator skill sets are different. It can be done but not without an unnecessary complexity which will degrade combat efficiency. I'd say the probabilities are high that in a serious fight you'd need the air defence capability exactly when you are engaging tanks to your front.

Don't want to add another weapon/calibre of ammo to the supply chain? You can replace the 30mm cannon with the same M242 Bushmaster as is on the LAV. I'm not sure what the availability of airburst ammo is like for the M242 so maybe you'd prefer to go with the M134 Minigun instead for short range AD vs. UAVs.

The US uses the 30mm because that's the same for their Stryker Dragoon while we use the same M242 as is currently on the Bradley. My guess is that if you wanted to substitute the 25 mm for the 30 mm you'd double the price of the turret because of the physical and software changes needed to tie it into the other on-board electronics. (There's a 30% parts difference and 50% increased hitting power at longer ranges and with an air burst capability with the Mk44 which is not available with the M242). It might well be worth having both calibres (at least until we upgrade the LAV 6.0 turrets).