Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[KevinB]

Oops on the above post and I can't seem to edit it. Mods, delete it?

Would 10-15 LBS of ultra precision HE warhead be more effective than 50-100 LBS HE warhead "nearby"? ARty gurus?

Depends on the target.

 

[markppcli]

I tend to believe that one should validate new concepts. For this, I don’t see a purpose for it than can’t be easier accomplished better by a 60, 81, or 120mm Mortar, and 105 or 155mm Arty, or a more appropriate UAS dropped/launched system.


But simply adding a pile of junk doesn’t enable and detracts from capabilities.

Very much this. Additionally when a manufacturer makes a very umm… optimistic claim about effectiveness my bullshit meter spikes. A 500lb mk 82 has a risk estimate distance of 285 m, I can’t see a something so small having 80 percent of that effect. Unless they’re presenting a broad statement built on a specific result.

 

[markppcli]

At the risk of trying to get back to the origins of the thread.

What really needs to happen is a restructure of the RCA.
Part of that needs to wait for determination of what the SSE replacement is.

I’d suggest 2x18 M109A7 Reg’ts, and at least 12 spares, and 6 for training.
1 for 1 RCHA and the supporting PRes units. Given the fact it’s tracked and large i don’t see local armory storage being viable. So Shilo, Wx or Suffield as options for Battery/Troop equipment.
2nd for 5 GangaBanga in Valcatraz, and I’m unsure of other locations for Res Troops that could work.

6 for W Bty in Gagetown (if it’s still a thing?)

That should take care of at least 6 PRes Arty units.

Moving the M777’s to Pet for a 18 gun Reg’t with 2RCHA
Using 30 RCA and the other Ont Arty units (7Tor, 49, 56 and 11th Field still around?) to fill in bodies as needed.

I’m not sure what that leaves for ADA rolls, or support for a GS Reg’t

4 GS could take the ADA roll on, add PYs from the STA Bty’s and give MUAS to the FOO dets to cut a link out of the kill chain.

 

[markppcli]

For the cost effective solutions to our IDF modernization, I quite like what the Norwegians just posted.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621046202954555393

 

[Kirkhill]

Yeah but surely I could just hit that with mortars for much cheaper ? Do I need precision loitering munitions for an area target ?

Fair point.

The Ukrainians are actually using unguided surplus rifle grenades reconfigured with 3D printed plastic fins to replicate mortar bombs that are then released from UAVs while hovering over the target.

The UAV is a $3000 recoverable consummable - the bomb is pretty close to the Buck and a half solution.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At the risk of trying to get back to the origins of the thread.

What really needs to happen is a restructure of the RCA.
Part of that needs to wait for determination of what the SSE replacement is.

I’d suggest 2x18 M109A7 Reg’ts, and at least 12 spares, and 6 for training.
1 for 1 RCHA and the supporting PRes units. Given the fact it’s tracked and large i don’t see local armory storage being viable. So Shilo, Wx or Suffield as options for Battery/Troop equipment.
2nd for 5 GangaBanga in Valcatraz, and I’m unsure of other locations for Res Troops that could work.

6 for W Bty in Gagetown (if it’s still a thing?)

That should take care of at least 6 PRes Arty units.

Moving the M777’s to Pet for a 18 gun Reg’t with 2RCHA
Using 30 RCA and the other Ont Arty units (7Tor, 49, 56 and 11th Field still around?) to fill in bodies as needed.

I’m not sure what that leaves for ADA rolls, or support for a GS Reg’t

I know you don't like 105's but the rest of the PRes artillery should get M119 or 120mm mortars and each unit stand up a AD troop, that gets a Manpad simulator and AD gun in 20-35mm with radar and optical guidance. Perhaps 1-2 units made pure AD. The Reg force can develop the AD command and control net and teach the Pres on that side, will they learn how to use the basic weapons and associated field craft.

 

[Kirkhill]

At the risk of trying to get back to the origins of the thread.

What really needs to happen is a restructure of the RCA.
Part of that needs to wait for determination of what the SSE replacement is.

I’d suggest 2x18 M109A7 Reg’ts, and at least 12 spares, and 6 for training.
1 for 1 RCHA and the supporting PRes units. Given the fact it’s tracked and large i don’t see local armory storage being viable. So Shilo, Wx or Suffield as options for Battery/Troop equipment.
2nd for 5 GangaBanga in Valcatraz, and I’m unsure of other locations for Res Troops that could work.

6 for W Bty in Gagetown (if it’s still a thing?)

That should take care of at least 6 PRes Arty units.

Moving the M777’s to Pet for a 18 gun Reg’t with 2RCHA
Using 30 RCA and the other Ont Arty units (7Tor, 49, 56 and 11th Field still around?) to fill in bodies as needed.

I’m not sure what that leaves for ADA rolls, or support for a GS Reg’t

Respectfully we never left the topic

Don't know if this is current but

ROLE OF THE FIELD ARTILLERY
The role of the field artillery is to assist
in defeating the enemy with indirect fire
as part of the all arms battle. The field
artillery consists of gun, rocket and
missile units which provide surface-tosurface
fire support for the field force.
It also includes field locating artillery
and equipment, which provide target
acquisition, combat surveillance, and
artillery intelligence.

B-GL-300-007 Firepower, which was
introduced recently, addressed
Firepower doctrine and set the stage for
developing Field Artillery doctrine.
B-GL-371-001 Field Artillery Doctrine
outlines tactical doctrine for the
employment of field artillery in battle,
including the role of the field artillery
and its employment in all operations
of war.

Taken from

THE ARMY DOCTRINE AND TRAINING BULLETIN Vol 3 No.1 Spring 2000​

From the same source

ROLE
The role of AD Artillery is to prevent
the enemy from interfering from the air
with our operations on the ground. This
role encompasses many aspects, from
protection of the force through passive
measures to the protection afforded by
the destruction of enemy air assets.

DEFINITIONS

AD Artillery. This includes all
artillery weapons, both guns and
missiles, which are designed primarily
to destroy or neutralize enemy air
vehicles, either to protect installations,
designated areas and personnel, or to
deny the enemy the use of airspace. It
also includes equipment necessary for
the effective employment of AD
weapons, such as equipment provided
for target acquisition, fire distribution
and control, communications and
mobility.

In September 1999 the new manual on
Air Defence—B-GL-372-001 Air
Defence Artillery Doctrine—was
approved. Air Defence Artillery
Doctrine is the keystone manual for Air
Defence and builds upon the already
published B-GL-300-007 Firepower
manual. Air Defence Artillery Doctrine
is available at the Army Electronic
Library at the Land Force Doctrine and
Training System (LFDTS) site (lfdts-
6a.d-kgtn.dnd.ca/ael) of the Defence
Information Network.

There is an awful lot of work for Artillerists (to use fashionable terminology) to do and an awful lot of tools available to them to get the jobs done.

Are the limited numbers of artillerists available best employed manning guns or are they more valuable to the over all effort doing other stuff?

 

[Kirkhill]

I know you don't like 105's but the rest of the PRes artillery should get M119 or 120mm mortars and each unit stand up a AD troop, that gets a Manpad simulator and AD gun in 20-35mm with radar and optical guidance. Perhaps 1-2 units made pure AD. The Reg force can develop the AD command and control net and teach the Pres on that side, will they learn how to use the basic weapons and associated field craft.

I'll go one step further Colin -

I saw a bank of Challenger simulators in the UK which the Ukrainians are going to be trained in. A note in the article reminded me that some of the training now bridges the real and the virtual worlds. Simulators can be operational assets - the rookie CC in a tank can have a real aide riding a virtual seat in the real life mission with him.

Simulators should not be additional parts of the system. They should be the C&C system.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't hold your faith in remote control just yet, it's one think to fly a drone remotely (where the drone is doing the actual flying) and another to drive a vehicle cross country. Even the countries that are looking hard at it like Israel are using them along border fences in areas that have been groomed and free of hazards. Currently remote control land vehicles will be niche vehicles for the foreseeable future. Elon Musk did a good talk on the challenges facing self driving cars. The computer processing capability is not there yet. It's hard enough for humans inside an AFV to maintain situational awareness, that's going to double for a AFV used remotely. When it gets stuck then you have retrieve it and I haven't seen any attempts at making remotely control ARV's.

 

[KevinB]

I don't hold your faith in remote control just yet, it's one think to fly a drone remotely (where the drone is doing the actual flying) and another to drive a vehicle cross country. Even the countries that are looking hard at it like Israel are using them along border fences in areas that have been groomed and free of hazards. Currently remote control land vehicles will be niche vehicles for the foreseeable future. Elon Musk did a good talk on the challenges facing self driving cars. The computer processing capability is not there yet. It's hard enough for humans inside an AFV to maintain situational awareness, that's going to double for a AFV used remotely. When it gets stuck then you have retrieve it and I haven't seen any attempts at making remotely control ARV's.

Combat vehicles are significantly easier than civilian cars - as you aren’t worried about certain aspects.

I’ve seen some AI vehicle demos, and even on a blind course (the system hasn’t seen it before) it’s pretty slick.

But the main aspect I see for uncrewed ground systems is short range remote operation. A lot of route, bridge, and other obstacles can be examined without sending a human into direct danger.

Like @Kirkhill I see a massive advantage in simulators and simulations, provided they are accurate and realistic.
There is very little in life that cannot be simulated at this point - even the loading of heavy shells.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't hold your faith in remote control just yet, it's one think to fly a drone remotely (where the drone is doing the actual flying) and another to drive a vehicle cross country. Even the countries that are looking hard at it like Israel are using them along border fences in areas that have been groomed and free of hazards. Currently remote control land vehicles will be niche vehicles for the foreseeable future. Elon Musk did a good talk on the challenges facing self driving cars. The computer processing capability is not there yet. It's hard enough for humans inside an AFV to maintain situational awareness, that's going to double for a AFV used remotely. When it gets stuck then you have retrieve it and I haven't seen any attempts at making remotely control ARV's.

I am not yet in the autonomous/AI/remote camp. As I have said before I would sooner my four tankers were spread over four tanks with internal artificial intelligence assisting them and local comms amongst them than having the four of them in one vehicle and 3 AI/Autonomous Wing Men. I don't see that as a valid course of action - now or in the forseeable future. Autonomous UAVs are another thing entirely. I think that there are real nearterm possibilities there.

As to the tying of virtual simulators and realworld tanks - my thinking there is not that the guy in the simulator is in charge. I am thinking that that person, who is not being shot at, and can bring another pair of eyes to the screens the onboard crew has available to them, can be a flea in the ear of the CC. Acting like a Platoon Warrant advising the youngster in charge.

 

[Kirkhill]

But the main aspect I see for uncrewed ground systems is short range remote operation. A lot of route, bridge, and other obstacles can be examined without sending a human into direct danger.

Is it too early to include Base Defences and other static systems that would benefit from being relocated occasionally? I'm thinking APERS/AT/AD sensors and effectors with the ability to constantly relocate a half a kilometer or so.

 

[KevinB]

For the cost effective solutions to our IDF modernization, I quite like what the Norwegians just posted.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1621046202954555393

I'd rather the Mortar be in the vehicle - and ammo be separate, as in a pinch if you need to bail, the tube comes with you.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am thinking that that person, who is not being shot at, and can bring another pair of eyes to the screens the onboard crew has available to them, can be a flea in the ear of the CC. Acting like a Platoon Warrant advising the youngster in charge.

We use that system in rescue diving, ie the Dive Master. However in the army context, I see a lot of micro-managing going on, with a TC being 2nd guessed and slowing down the tanks OODA loop. I also don't agree with the idea of spreading the crew out among the vehicle, there are psychological issues involved of people being shot at and a "crew" will help people stay in one piece as opposed to an individual in a armoured box. Yes you can argue the pilot does that, but in general your pilot and your armoured crewman are different type of folks and your not likely to get many who are well adjusted to what you propose, and do it for a significant period of time. Plus now you have 4 people doing maintenance on 4 vehicles and pulling guard duty and preparing food and digging slit trenches.

 

[KevinB]

Is it too early to include Base Defences and other static systems that would benefit from being relocated occasionally? I'm thinking APERS/AT/AD sensors and effectors with the ability to constantly relocate a half a kilometer or so.

Honestly I am not sure - most of the Recon Robots I am familiar with are generally 200m and in systems - with most with dual operating modes - either via LPI Radio or Tethers. Static System can use much larger EIO sensors, and 500m would just be a drop in the bucket - plus I tend to want to be able to have direct eyes on things like that so they don't get hijacked.

 

[Kirkhill]

We use that system in rescue diving, ie the Dive Master. However in the army context, I see a lot of micro-managing going on, with a TC being 2nd guessed and slowing down the tanks OODA loop. I also don't agree with the idea of spreading the crew out among the vehicle, there are psychological issues involved of people being shot at and a "crew" will help people stay in one piece as opposed to an individual in a armoured box. Yes you can argue the pilot does that, but in general your pilot and your armoured crewman are different type of folks and your not likely to get many who are well adjusted to what you propose, and do it for a significant period of time. Plus now you have 4 people doing maintenance on 4 vehicles and pulling guard duty and preparing food and digging slit trenches.

8 infanteers in a section can feel awfully lonely sometimes as well. Sometimes they feel like 8 individual targets.

What constitutes a crew? 2 men in a Ferret? Or 4 men in 2 Ferrets in a Patrol?

How about the driver in an AFV? It strikes me that that driver can get to feel kind of isolated down there all on her lonesome. Her only form of interaction is through her headset and periscopes.

As to micromanaging - That is a risk no matter what. The simple answer is

Control - 11A Wait Out!.

 

[Kirkhill]

Honestly I am not sure - most of the Recon Robots I am familiar with are generally 200m and in systems - with most with dual operating modes - either via LPI Radio or Tethers. Static System can use much larger EIO sensors, and 500m would just be a drop in the bucket - plus I tend to want to be able to have direct eyes on things like that so they don't get hijacked.

My thinking is that in a base defence situation then a troop of 4x 35mm Millenium guns and a pair of NASAMS launchers, plus a radar, operating under the control of a Fire Direction Centre - are going to be fairly widely dispersed in any event. If they are just dropped in place (uninhabited) then they can be targeted. On the other hand if they are on tracks or wheels then they can be constantly relocated making targeting harder.

As for separation - in a C-RAM system on a base the guns can be separated by a kilometer or two (opposite ends of the landing strip with one FDC). In a NASAMS situation separation between FDC and launchers can be up to 25 km. In both cases the weapons are uninhabited. You might want to collocate them with a Defended Locality but the weapons are still managed remotely.

Which brings me back to the RCN's Combat Information Centre form of Battle Management.

How much can the RRCA accomplish remotely before the Cavalry and the Infantry have to be engaged?

 

[Kirkhill]

Israeli AFV Helmet

Israeli AFV crew station

Predator Flying Station

NASAMs FDC


Spanish F110 CIC - 26 Stations when fully manned - are they all fully manned all the time?




Three ships - 78 Stations when fully manned - again, are they all fully manned all the time?


Task Group of F110 CICs - weapons and sensors to co-ordinate

Sensors and processing systems	3x AN/SPY-7(V)1 Derivative Radar[3]
Armament	3 x Leonardo 127 mm/64 cal. gun[4] 48 x Mk 41 VLS cells surface-to-air missile for SM-2 (48) and RIM-162 ESSM (192) - or JSMs or Tomahawks or SM3 or SM 6 or..... 6 × 30 mm and .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns 6 × quadruple Naval Strike Missile missile canisters SSM 6 × Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes
Aircraft carried	3 × SH-60 Seahawk or NH-90 or UAVs

 

[Kirkhill]

And at the other end of the spectrum

What can be done without Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and LocMart for a Buck and a Half.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/10rm7yy

 

[GR66]

There is an awful lot of work for Artillerists (to use fashionable terminology) to do and an awful lot of tools available to them to get the jobs done.

Are the limited numbers of artillerists available best employed manning guns or are they more valuable to the over all effort doing other stuff?

Yes. You need some of Column A and some of Column B. As always it the ratio between the Columns that causes the debates.

If we go off the assumption that at minimum Canada should be able to field a Brigade Group then as a start I think you need to focus first on the following:

• Enough artillery to provide direct fire support for the Brigade.
• Enough mobile SHORAD to provide air defence for the Brigade
• Enough MRAD to provide air defence for the port/airport the Brigade is deploying/being supported from

You'll need enough depth of Reserves to sustain those capabilities in combat.

If there are still Artillerists available after those requirements are filled then I think you can start looking at what additional capabilities you can add. (General Support Artillery/Rockets/Long Range Precision Fires, Loitering Munitions, etc.).

The first three priorities I think are the absolute MINIMUM the RRCA needs to be able to provide. The question is how many of the additional capabilities can you afford to add within the available personnel/equipment budgets without impacting the minimum requirements of the other branches?