• 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 said:
This is why I'm also a fan of the Avenger SHORAD system for use by reservists.

- Small wheeled vehicle easy to maintain and move around.

- Easily stored in an armory and taken to a parking lot for training.

- Sufficiently complex skills needed to make it an interesting system for a soldier.

- We desperately need something quick and dirty and relatively low cost.

- I already mentioned that the US Army National Guard has five brigades and two separate battalions of Avengers so it's easily doable.

3345615.jpg


:cheers:

I fully support some of the reserve arty units going it the Air Defense role. With Manpads simulators both at the armoury and field, you can have a troop attached to a gun battery unit as well if the recruiting numbers justify it. It give people a new skill to learn which keeps them involved. The dedicated AD units can have a troop of 81mm mortars as well to do the same the other way.

A 120mm Mortar system in a LAV solves a lot of our reg force artillery support needs with minimal foot print increase and would be very sustainable even within forseeable budgets. Along with that rerole a couple of the Reserve units to towed/portee 120mm mortars, which frees up some the Howitzers for other units.
 
Chris Pook said:
The 70mm rockets are produced in a number of countries, including Canada and Brazil.

Avibras claims that the unguided rocket in ground to ground ballistic mode, effectively area suppression, has a range of up to 12 km 
This compares to the C1 105mm at 11 km and the C3 at 18 km.

The 70 mm ballistic rockets can be converted into Precision Guided Missiles that can be launched from the same launchers as the ballistic rockets.  The converted rocket is known as the Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System II and is considered as a low cost alternative to the Hellfire ATGM.  The range of the 70 mm APKWS II in Direct Fire mode is variously given as up to 5 km.
........

Here's a comparison of Payloads (ie effects).


81mm M821 - 0.68 kg Comp B

70mm M151 - 1.0 kg Comp B4
70mm M229 - 2.2 kg Comp B4

105mm M1 - 2.1 kg Comp B

120mm M933 - 2.99 kg Comp B

And just for reference the US Army's ACERM (Advanced Capability Enhanced Range Mortar) program is looking for a 20 km 81mm mortar.  That seems to me to indicate that the Battalion's Area of Interest is getting a lot larger - in fact exceeding the current Brigade's and Artillery Regiment's Area.

The use of the 2.75" or 70mm surface to surface never caught on, and for a good reason. I think Norway was experimenting with it's use, but in a very limited way by special forces against precision targets. The weight of explosive material in the warhead is not the only measure of its terminal effects

Light rocket systems tend to be quite inaccurate, and do not have much of a payload. Sticking a guidance system on them uses up more payload, tends to reduce the effectiveness of the warhead, and the range is reduced. The thinner sides of the warhead on the rocket does result in a high charge to metal ratio, which would result in a higher velocity fragment compared to say the thicker sides of a typical 81mm HE bomb, problem is the diameter is still only 70mm. With such a small diameter you're going to be making fewer fragments and have a lower hit probability.

Another reason those type of rockets are not as effective for indirect fire, is their relatively shallow angle of fall onto the target, even at range. This shallow angle results in a more limited dispersion of fragments. This desire to get a steep angle of fall is why most gun systems have a variable charge system, so that a compromise can be achieved between balancing accuracy and the angle of fall.

These things combined is why the lethal radius of the M151 70mm rocket is somewhere around 10 metres, and somewhat better for the M229 but still less than an 81mm mortar bomb.

The sub munition versions of the rocket have to travel at a relatively slow velocity in order for them to work properly expelling their payload, which limits their range overall. This is especially true of the Illum variant (think the range is ~3km). In the area of smoke generation, they're relying on a form of phosphorus.  WP would be a non starter for the CAF, not least because of the perception of its use. RP is notorious for its ineffectiveness, particularly if the weather conditions cause ignition problems (this has certainly been true with the 81mm variant). In any case they don't have much range, and the payload doesn't result in a very large area being covered

The low trajectory of the rocket also presents some problems of crest clearance, both along the trajectory and possibly at the target if it's in complex terrain

The 70mm rockets have proven effective when they're launched from the air, at relatively short range, in a barrage. Other nations using rockets surface to surface though, tend to go with much larger calibre to achieve the desired effects. The lack of accuracy being made up for by using sub munitions or a guidance system on a large unitary warhead (Canada did have the intent to buy HIMARS about a decade ago, with plan for the detachments to mostly come from the Reserves, but it was delayed so long the concept has pretty much been disregarded now)

All this is kind of missing the point of the essential need the C3 is fulfilling; training Reservists to a certain level that minimizes the workup time when they are employed within a Reg Force Regt. Right now, there is no sign of the M777 being replaced or augmented by anything else in those Reg Force Regt's. That the M777 is limited in the types of missions it can support, right now, is a much larger issue. Maybe improvements in ammunition and communication systems can ameliorate that situation, maybe there is a need to drastically improve support through broader indirect fire modernization, but it is extremely unlikely that'll happen anytime soon. In the meanwhile, how long can the C3 hold out?

The personnel shortages in the Reg Force Artillery Regt's are likely to continue for some time, these gaps officially are supposed to be filled by Primary Reservists. Those gaps exist primarily in the Gun Bty's, and came about by the increase of tasks and capabilities for the Arty Regt's, without an increase of Reg Force positions. The effectiveness, or lack, of the Primary Reserve structure to support this, is probably a much larger issue, and is discussed in a number of other threads. In the near term, the C3 is not in good health, it has an important domestic operational role to support avalanche control, but in general it provides a low cost method of providing training that fits within the limited resources (both time and money wise) allotted to Reservists. It does, to a degree, replicate many of the challenges of deploying towed guns that the M777 faces, something deploying something like mortar or gun trucks wouldn't. It would be highly desirable that something that replaced the C3 was also operationally deployable, but it's essential role is to support those two main tasks. My recommendation would be to re-barrel the C3s with perhaps the one used on the US M119, the M20A1 ordnance. It would help, too, if they attached a digitized gun laying system that works similar to the one on the M777 (it would help if they hung an APS on the 81's too, but I digress); occupation drills are considerably different for digitized guns compared to those with only optic sights, especially at night. It would be a lower cost solution to buy time until those much larger issues get sorted out
 

Attachments

  • angle of fall effect.jpg
    angle of fall effect.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 62
:goodpost: :cheers:

Have you had any further thoughts on the ACERM project and the notion of a 20 km 81mm?  I seem to recall you talking about it a couple of years back.
 
In the very early Vietnam days, somebody in the US aviation and/or field artillery community came up with a rocket pod on a wheeled platform that was transported by helicopter to an indirect fire launcher position. It didn't take very long for somebody a bit smarter to suggest they mount the pod on the helicopter and engage the target from the air in direct fire.
 
Old Sweat said:
In the very early Vietnam days, somebody in the US aviation and/or field artillery community came up with a rocket pod on a wheeled platform that was transported by helicopter to an indirect fire launcher position. It didn't take very long for somebody a bit smarter to suggest they mount the pod on the helicopter and engage the target from the air in direct fire.

The difference, of course, being persistence.  The Ground Mount, as D&B requested of his 105 and 155 support, is available 24/7.  The helo is only available when gas and the environment permit.  On the other hand the helo can relocate quickly (weather permitting) while the Ground Mount is fixed in place.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Ca depends.
 
Petard said:
The use of the 2.75" or 70mm surface to surface never caught on, and for a good reason. I think Norway was experimenting with it's use, but in a very limited way by special forces against precision targets. The weight of explosive material in the warhead is not the only measure of its terminal effects

Light rocket systems tend to be quite inaccurate, and do not have much of a payload. Sticking a guidance system on them uses up more payload, tends to reduce the effectiveness of the warhead, and the range is reduced. The thinner sides of the warhead on the rocket does result in a high charge to metal ratio, which would result in a higher velocity fragment compared to say the thicker sides of a typical 81mm HE bomb, problem is the diameter is still only 70mm. With such a small diameter you're going to be making fewer fragments and have a lower hit probability.

Another reason those type of rockets are not as effective for indirect fire, is their relatively shallow angle of fall onto the target, even at range. This shallow angle results in a more limited dispersion of fragments. This desire to get a steep angle of fall is why most gun systems have a variable charge system, so that a compromise can be achieved between balancing accuracy and the angle of fall.

These things combined is why the lethal radius of the M151 70mm rocket is somewhere around 10 metres, and somewhat better for the M229 but still less than an 81mm mortar bomb.

The sub munition versions of the rocket have to travel at a relatively slow velocity in order for them to work properly expelling their payload, which limits their range overall. This is especially true of the Illum variant (think the range is ~3km). In the area of smoke generation, they're relying on a form of phosphorus.  WP would be a non starter for the CAF, not least because of the perception of its use. RP is notorious for its ineffectiveness, particularly if the weather conditions cause ignition problems (this has certainly been true with the 81mm variant). In any case they don't have much range, and the payload doesn't result in a very large area being covered

The low trajectory of the rocket also presents some problems of crest clearance, both along the trajectory and possibly at the target if it's in complex terrain

The 70mm rockets have proven effective when they're launched from the air, at relatively short range, in a barrage. Other nations using rockets surface to surface though, tend to go with much larger calibre to achieve the desired effects. The lack of accuracy being made up for by using sub munitions or a guidance system on a large unitary warhead (Canada did have the intent to buy HIMARS about a decade ago, with plan for the detachments to mostly come from the Reserves, but it was delayed so long the concept has pretty much been disregarded now)

All this is kind of missing the point of the essential need the C3 is fulfilling; training Reservists to a certain level that minimizes the workup time when they are employed within a Reg Force Regt. Right now, there is no sign of the M777 being replaced or augmented by anything else in those Reg Force Regt's. That the M777 is limited in the types of missions it can support, right now, is a much larger issue. Maybe improvements in ammunition and communication systems can ameliorate that situation, maybe there is a need to drastically improve support through broader indirect fire modernization, but it is extremely unlikely that'll happen anytime soon. In the meanwhile, how long can the C3 hold out?

The personnel shortages in the Reg Force Artillery Regt's are likely to continue for some time, these gaps officially are supposed to be filled by Primary Reservists. Those gaps exist primarily in the Gun Bty's, and came about by the increase of tasks and capabilities for the Arty Regt's, without an increase of Reg Force positions. The effectiveness, or lack, of the Primary Reserve structure to support this, is probably a much larger issue, and is discussed in a number of other threads. In the near term, the C3 is not in good health, it has an important domestic operational role to support avalanche control, but in general it provides a low cost method of providing training that fits within the limited resources (both time and money wise) allotted to Reservists. It does, to a degree, replicate many of the challenges of deploying towed guns that the M777 faces, something deploying something like mortar or gun trucks wouldn't. It would be highly desirable that something that replaced the C3 was also operationally deployable, but it's essential role is to support those two main tasks. My recommendation would be to re-barrel the C3s with perhaps the one used on the US M119, the M20A1 ordnance. It would help, too, if they attached a digitized gun laying system that works similar to the one on the M777 (it would help if they hung an APS on the 81's too, but I digress); occupation drills are considerably different for digitized guns compared to those with only optic sights, especially at night. It would be a lower cost solution to buy time until those much larger issues get sorted out

Ironically the artillery is one of the best units to join in the Reserves as you get to do the exact same job as the Reg forces. It however was one of the worst trades to get into as a private solider due to the terrible posting opportunities. I looked at going Reg force as a Combat Engineer, but they said they needed artillery people and I said yea, no not living in Shilo in the 1980's.
Licence build of the M119 by GDLS using a slow production rate interspersed between their other work would solve the howitzer problem and give steady work and improve our defense capabilities. Likely we could also sell some to our allies as well. Combined with a 120mm mortar buy with some mounted in LAV's gives us more tubes and rebirths a SPG capability also for minimal money. The goal should be to have each Reserve battery equipped with 6 tubes either Howitzer or 120mm mortar. The 81mm mortar in the artillery should be seen as a training tool, whereas in the infantry, a operational organic weapon. Also buy some new 60mm mortars for them as well.     
 
Colin P said:
... not living in Shilo in the 1980's. 

Those were some of the best years to live in Shilo. M109s and the low road to Brandon was repaved.

;D
 
Colin P said:
Ironically the artillery is one of the best units to join in the Reserves as you get to do the exact same job as the Reg forces. It however was one of the worst trades to get into as a private solider due to the terrible posting opportunities. I looked at going Reg force as a Combat Engineer, but they said they needed artillery people and I said yea, no not living in Shilo in the 1980's.
Licence build of the M119 by GDLS using a slow production rate interspersed between their other work would solve the howitzer problem and give steady work and improve our defense capabilities. Likely we could also sell some to our allies as well. Combined with a 120mm mortar buy with some mounted in LAV's gives us more tubes and rebirths a SPG capability also for minimal money. The goal should be to have each Reserve battery equipped with 6 tubes either Howitzer or 120mm mortar. The 81mm mortar in the artillery should be seen as a training tool, whereas in the infantry, a operational organic weapon. Also buy some new 60mm mortars for them as well.   


Agreed.

Staying with the original topic of this thread, re: C3 replacement. 

Something that is fairly cheap to acquire and sustain, and easy to train gunners on.  But also something that could be put to effective use in a modern conflict low to mid-intensity conflict.  Produced domestically, under license, should be a win-win as the systems can be fairly affordable while supporting domestic industry.



I'll leave the towed vs. wheeled debate aside, I do feel something like the Hawkeye would be ideal as it's a simple system that I think could be very useful in a lot of little hot spots.

Yes, pros and cons to both towed vs. wheeled, and without knowing where it will be used, good arguments for & against can be made. 

But something that's affordable to acquire and sustain, easy to train troops on, that could be used to support low to mid level conflicts would be ideal IN REGARDS specifically to a C3 replacement.


If we need something more advanced to support more advanced operations, I believe that is a different capability altogether & possibly an entirely separate discussion.  :2c:
 
CBH99 said:
... Produced domestically, under license, should be a win-win as the systems can be fairly affordable while supporting domestic industry.
...
Yes, pros and cons to both towed vs. wheeled, and without knowing where it will be used, good arguments for & against can be made. 

But something that's affordable to acquire and sustain, easy to train troops on, that could be used to support low to mid level conflicts would be ideal IN REGARDS specifically to a C3 replacement.
..

You know all the complicated bits, tube, breach, recoil, fire control and traversing mechanisms could be standard to both a wheeled and towed version. You could create a limited number of towed guns for the airmobile role and a greater number of wheeled SPs for the standard light (maybe even medium) infantry support role if you local manufacture.
 
Chris Pook said:
Have you had any further thoughts on the ACERM project and the notion of a 20 km 81mm?  I seem to recall you talking about it a couple of years back.

It has a somewhat limited payload problem too, but would be a good add on for the Infantry units now taking on the 81 role. The 81s they're using are quite old, and due for replacement soon, so a better barrel for them would increase the options for firing better ammunition

I'd say it would be better for P Res Arty units to use 120 mortars with a digitized laying system. Although it wouldn't replicate the problems of towed artillery, it would focus instead on the procedures involved with digitized fire control, it would also provide an operational useful system. Some of the units could keep the C3 for gun salutes and Avcon duty. It wouldn't require new or re-purposed vehicles (of which the army is short of). The only reason I don't think that'll be accepted, is the enormous cost of qualifying 120mm mortar ammunition for Cdn service. The re-barrel solution, although not cheap either, would still be less than buying new 105s or qualifying new ammunition, and it uses the vehicles we already have.

The digitization thing could solve another urgent problem: the lack of CP's. Most solutions could be set up in just about any type of vehicle. The bare minimum could be something for passing fire orders, using COTS hardware, but ideally an APS on the gun or mortar would help train Reservists on that aspect too, minimizing the training delta.

One option might well see just the infantry with their 81s, and only the P Res Arty units at saluting bases retaining their C3s. The P Res Arty units not at saluting bases being re-rolled or disbanded, so that their C3's could be used to sustain the remaining fleet through cannibalization. The big draw back of that, besides the diminishing returns of cannibalization, is it doesn't provide a very large pool of Reservists to draw from to fill those gaps

My suggestions, for the short term, have been based on assumptions I've made on what constraints can be expected, but who knows what the future might look like. I'd say something does need to be done sooner than later to deal with the C3, whatever it is it'll need to be part of the longer term solution that gets the Army to where in can do indirect fire modernization as a whole.
 
Petard,

You mentioned that qualifying ammunication for Canadian service would be expensive, re: the 120mm mortar option.


How so?  And if you don't have the details, it's fine - I'd just never thought of that aspect to be honest.
 
Chris Pook said:
The difference, of course, being persistence.  The Ground Mount, as D&B requested of his 105 and 155 support, is available 24/7.  The helo is only available when gas and the environment permit.  On the other hand the helo can relocate quickly (weather permitting) while the Ground Mount is fixed in place.  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?  Ca depends.

Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to enjoying air supremacy as well as fighting enemies that lack competent/advanced indirect fire. I don't think any credible adversary will allow us to rule the skies or operate from fixed positions on the ground.
 
CBH99 said:
Petard,

You mentioned that qualifying ammunication for Canadian service would be expensive, re: the 120mm mortar option.


How so?  And if you don't have the details, it's fine - I'd just never thought of that aspect to be honest.

1st there is the cost of conducting the safety and suitability assessment (and trials) for service that would need to happen. Although the ammunition has been in service with other NATO countries, for long term service it would need to be done within Canadian context, taking into account storage and transportation conditions for example. There have been exceptions to this, with extraordinary exemptions being granted for operational reasons, which happened when the M777 came into use for mission specific purposes. Eventually it would still need to be done. Then there is the cost to build up a suitable amount of stock for training and operations; this alone would be quite a burden on the already limited operating budget
 
And don't overlook ammunition storage.  Current facilities would have to be assessed as to whether they could safely accommodate a new nature, or if they would require new construction.
 
reverse_engineer said:
Unfortunately, we have become accustomed to enjoying air supremacy as well as fighting enemies that lack competent/advanced indirect fire. I don't think any credible adversary will allow us to rule the skies or operate from fixed positions on the ground.

Well, you can't stay in place.  You can't fly in support.  And I will argue that you can't build an armoured vehicle that will be able to go anyplace the infantry can and outrun a missile/bullet.

Kind of like the Covid virus.  We're just going to have to learn to live with casualties.

 
Petard said:
1st there is the cost of conducting the safety and suitability assessment (and trials) for service that would need to happen. Although the ammunition has been in service with other NATO countries, for long term service it would need to be done within Canadian context, taking into account storage and transportation conditions for example. There have been exceptions to this, with extraordinary exemptions being granted for operational reasons, which happened when the M777 came into use for mission specific purposes. Eventually it would still need to be done. Then there is the cost to build up a suitable amount of stock for training and operations; this alone would be quite a burden on the already limited operating budget

There are 81mm sub calibre sleeve inserts for some 120mm mortars that allow training with the cheaper 81mm round. e.g. https://pmmortars.army.mil/pmmortars/Products/120mm/M313-Training.aspx

:cheers:
 
dapaterson said:
And don't overlook ammunition storage.  Current facilities would have to be assessed as to whether they could safely accommodate a new nature, or if they would require new construction.

Well that is just nuts. I mean, what kind of professional military would we be if we just let our third line ammo storage facilities rot into the ground through neglect....
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Well that is just nuts. I mean, what kind of professional military would we be if we just let our third line ammo storage facilities rot into the ground through neglect....

A Canadian one, sounds like a way to stimulate the economy through construction projects.
 
Almost as ludicrous as a nation that would divest it's air defence artillery.
 
dapaterson said:
Almost as ludicrous as a nation that would divest it's air defence artillery.

Or .50 Cal's, 60mm motors, TOW missiles, AOR's, and destroyers without replacement.
 
Back
Top