Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[PuckChaser]

With them being trucks, the qualifications for reservists is much easier too. They can also drive non-gun mounted vehicles to qualify, saving wear and tear on the gun mechanisms.

 

[FJAG]

Also included is some stats on their survivability. The 80kph requirement seems to line up with Ukraine's shoot and scoot tactics and the CAF wanting to focus on that doctrine vice a SPG stationary system.

Shoot and scoot tactics existed long before wheeled SPs.

The K9 does 67kmph as per the Wiki page. Archer on the Volvo does 70kph - that's not a difference and K9 will eat Archers lunch cross country.

Archer on the Rheinmetall chassis is touted to do 90kph. Okay, that's a difference but I highly doubt that it makes a difference during shoot and scoot tactics. It's not like you are displacing 50 kms down a highway. You generally move to a new AMA or a hide maybe 1 to 3 kms. Your lucky if there is an undamaged road to connect the two.

Admittedly, I'll never be on a gun line again in my life, but I can see a real value in Caesar as the primary SPG, and a tracked SPG like the M190 or K9 for armoured forces.

With the Caesar costing 1/3 the price of an Archer, we can buy a lot more of them to make sure we have enough for the Reg and Res gunners. The simpler mechanisms also allows for easier maintenance, which means the ResF is more likely to have more of them functional.

I work on what I call the backtrack principle. For artillery the first, the primary requirement is that there are projectiles in our inventory that create the effect that we want. Second is that the delivery system has the highest possible "in action" time to get as many of the selected projectiles downrange as are needed. Third is that there are sufficient stocks for mass, sustainment and training to meet our operational objectives.

Caesar is right out of it for me because crews have to work in the open and standing up. It's the equivalent, when its in action, of having folks driving through minefields in an Iltis. It does have an armoured cab, which is fine while moving, and you can always dig it in but that takes away from its time in action (time in action = guaranteed fire support for the supported arms) if folks have to leave their posts to take cover. Armoured cabs can carry on under hostile fire if needed. Caesar fails the second requirement for me.

As to cost; I don't take much stock in internet pricing - you never know how it was arrived at, but I just did a quick search and found K9 at $11 million; Archer at $10.4 million and Caesar at $6 million. Caesar was designed for the export market at the end of the 90s to keep GIAT (now KNDS) in business as its other artillery lines shut down. It's design was basically directed at being cheap to produce.

I'm looking at this acquisition as a once in a generation thing (more like four generations if you take into consideration the C3s) The army will have one chance to get it right because it will be living with this choice, peace or war, for at least the next thirty years. This is not the time to buy "what Canada can afford," - it can afford anything it wants - but "what the army needs."

I know I sound somewhat pedantic and resistant to what appear to be logical arguments, but I ask myself a simple question: what equipment would I want my gunners to go to war with? What is the gun that provides the highest "up time" and the least risk for my gunners? IMHO, every gun we own ought to be capable of going to war - reg or res. Caesar is far down the list of options for me.

 

[OldSolduer]

FJAG - The Artillery is truly the King of Battle therefore it needs the proper equipment.

Shit or get off the pot is what people need to be telling procurement wizards.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I know I sound somewhat pedantic and resistant to what appear to be logical arguments, but I ask myself a simple question: what equipment would I want my gunners to go to war with? What is the gun that provides the highest "up time" and the least risk for my gunners? IMHO, every gun we own ought to be capable of going to war - reg or res. Caesar is far down the list of options for me.

The best 'gun' might be a rocket

 

[FJAG]

The best 'gun' might be a rocket

View attachment 92074

No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.

The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.

I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.

 

[daftandbarmy]

No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.

The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.

I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.

 

[Furniture]

I work on what I call the backtrack principle. For artillery the first, the primary requirement is that there are projectiles in our inventory that create the effect that we want. Second is that the delivery system has the highest possible "in action" time to get as many of the selected projectiles downrange as are needed. Third is that there are sufficient stocks for mass, sustainment and training to meet our operational objectives.

Caesar is right out of it for me because crews have to work in the open and standing up. It's the equivalent, when its in action, of having folks driving through minefields in an Iltis. It does have an armoured cab, which is fine while moving, and you can always dig it in but that takes away from its time in action (time in action = guaranteed fire support for the supported arms) if folks have to leave their posts to take cover. Armoured cabs can carry on under hostile fire if needed. Caesar fails the second requirement for me.

As to cost; I don't take much stock in internet pricing - you never know how it was arrived at, but I just did a quick search and found K9 at $11 million; Archer at $10.4 million and Caesar at $6 million. Caesar was designed for the export market at the end of the 90s to keep GIAT (now KNDS) in business as its other artillery lines shut down. It's design was basically directed at being cheap to produce.

I'm looking at this acquisition as a once in a generation thing (more like four generations if you take into consideration the C3s) The army will have one chance to get it right because it will be living with this choice, peace or war, for at least the next thirty years. This is not the time to buy "what Canada can afford," - it can afford anything it wants - but "what the army needs."

I know I sound somewhat pedantic and resistant to what appear to be logical arguments, but I ask myself a simple question: what equipment would I want my gunners to go to war with? What is the gun that provides the highest "up time" and the least risk for my gunners? IMHO, every gun we own ought to be capable of going to war - reg or res. Caesar is far down the list of options for me.

Absolutely fair points, and I can't really disagree, having spent time in action on guns while rounds were incoming. There is a degree of pucker factor when standing up at a gun when you know rounds are incoming.

My only concern is that we tie ourselves exclusively to a complex system that is a maintenance pig, just because it has better armour. The Germans did that in WWII with Tiger1, Tiger II, and Panther... The "Tommy Cooker" was by all stats inferior, apart from the fact the Allies could make a lot and keep them running.

We might fight the Chinese or Russians in a total war soon, or we might revert back to small scale ops that lend themselves well to a lighter an, cheaper, and easier to maintain SPG. As I said, I'm not for going all Caesar, but I am thinking a "hi/lo" mix might be smart... Just like the RCN is planning with RCD and CMMC.

Again, I'm not suggesting I'm right, I'm just presenting a hi/lo option that might meet our needs, and get us more "bang" for our buck. Money is always a consideration, even in total war, hence the Sherman over the Comet, and escort carriers rather than all fleet carriers.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Absolutely fair points, and I can't really disagree, having spent time in action on guns while rounds were incoming. There is a degree of pucker factor when standing up at a gun when you know rounds are incoming.

My only concern is that we tie ourselves exclusively to a complex system that is a maintenance pig, just because it has better armour. The Germans did that in WWII with Tiger1, Tiger II, and Panther... The "Tommy Cooker" was by all stats inferior, apart from the fact the Allies could make a lot and keep them running.

We might fight the Chinese or Russians in a total war soon, or we might revert back to small scale ops that lend themselves well to a lighter an, cheaper, and easier to maintain SPG. As I said, I'm not for going all Caesar, but I am thinking a "hi/lo" mix might be smart... Just like the RCN is planning with RCD and CMMC.

Again, I'm not suggesting I'm right, I'm just presenting a hi/lo option that might meet our needs, and get us more "bang" for our buck. Money is always a consideration, even in total war, hence the Sherman over the Comet, and escort carriers rather than all fleet carriers.

Sticking with the 'hi/lo' idea - what are the thoughts of this mix being tracked/wheeled - meaning say the 'hi' is tracked but the 'low' is wheeled. Do we need to look at both being tracked or both being wheeled if we go with the 'hi/lo' mix.

 

[FJAG]

My only concern is that we tie ourselves exclusively to a complex system that is a maintenance pig, just because it has better armour. The Germans did that in WWII with Tiger1, Tiger II, and Panther... The "Tommy Cooker" was by all stats inferior, apart from the fact the Allies could make a lot and keep them running.

Fair points and they should be of concern. SPs, whether tracked or wheeled need to be properly resourced with maintainers and a helthy stock of spare parts. Most equipment has known fail points and these ought to be properly covered. My guess, from everything that I hear and read, is that the army is not currently structured for success in this area. That needs to change for both RegF and ARes if there is any intent to ever give them equipment.

We might fight the Chinese or Russians in a total war soon, or we might revert back to small scale ops that lend themselves well to a lighter an, cheaper, and easier to maintain SPG. As I said, I'm not for going all Caesar, but I am thinking a "hi/lo" mix might be smart... Just like the RCN is planning with RCD and CMMC.

I'll actually go a step further because I too believe that we'll probably see smaller scale operations rather than "the big one." That's why I think that divesting the M777 is a huge mistake. We should keep it exactly for that. We could equip two 12-gun regiments (and I think one of those needs to be a hi-readiness RegF one) with the stock we have which could easily support a rotational light battlegroup or even a LAV battlegroup on low intensity ops leaving the SPs alone. There's a lesson to remember out of Afghanistan - things that use roads are suspectable to poor-man's IED while things that fly aren't. Yup I like the range of a Caesar's L52 barrel but I like the range of a Hook even more. And those M777s won't cost us another nickel to acquire.

 

[Kirkhill]

No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.

The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.

I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.

Which would you rather have? A rocket today or a bullet tomorrow?

 

[OldSolduer]

No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.

The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.

I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.

Red crayons are tasty but fwiw I see your point.
A rocket system is a hammer.
A nice belt of fire from 155s are more knife like

 

[Furniture]

Red crayons are tasty but fwiw I see your point.
A rocket system is a hammer.
A nice belt of fire from 155s are more knife like

Also, the troop shooting guns can easily adjust fire and keep it coming.

Reloading a 155 is a pretty quick job, reloading a HIMARS requires a crane.

 

[markppcli]

Just had a quick look at Google maps and there seems to be a new maint facility already near 1 RCHA and 2 PPCLI. If it was built to handle LAVs it should probably be able to handle RCHs and quite possibly K9s.

I've never been in the new 1 RCHA facility but since we used to be able to handle 12 M109s in the old, much smaller gun shed, my guess is they can handle 18 K9s or RCHs. @markppcli would have a better handle on that.

We can definitely get 18 trucks in there if someone takes the TAPVs off our hands.