• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

KevinB said:
Keep in mind the C-130 doesn’t need a runway in a lot of places. You can have a low viz team locate a target and another Det can be working on a LZ loc.
Click to expand...

Especially if you have a lot of snow and frozen water, on land, lake or sea.
 
Fabius said:
In terms of MND North, it will be interesting to see if the Dane and Cdn LRPF batteries get integrated into the Latvia Bn ( I assume they will have a dedicated Bn for their HIMARS).
Alternatively if there is a second MN Arty Bn formed with the LRPF batteries all in it with all the guns staying in the current Mn Arty Bn.

I suspect the most likely option is the Cdn LRPF gets added to the current Mn Arty Bn inside the MNB. I suspect that is most likely due to Cdn C2 and CSS concerns . There are various capabilities across the MNB and MNBG that don’t really belong where they are by doctrine but for various national C2 and CSS reasons are where they are.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I've got no insight into this at all. I've got a general touch on the arty's thinking at this time but it doesn't extend to that.

🍻
 
Northwest Passage.jpg

What could I do as king of the world with airportable LRPF?

One battery of 6 HIMARS-Autonomous Multi-Domain Launchers split into 3 troops of 2 launchers each mounting 2 PrSM-LBASMs with 1000 km range. The Precision Strike Missile Increment 2 - Land Based Anti-Ship Missile is supposed to be fielded in 2028.

I don't think there are going to be many targets in the north but it is not impossible that some targets might present themselves. Those could be engaged by air, if the weather permits. They could be engaged by ship or sub, if we had any in the area.

The HIMARs presents an all weather response option that can be flown into position if and when a need presents. That would fit in with the US concerns about the North being a vulnerability. In the meantime those same systems can be used domestically for tactical training and internationally, both tactically and strategically, to bolster expeditionary forces.

There is little point getting larger vehicles that require C17s that we don't have and can't buy or ships that we also lack and take weeks to make the move.
 
Fabius said:
Why do we need the ability to move the LRPF by air?

Is it deploying via air inside Canada or in an expeditionary capacity?

Are we repositioning it inside an theatre AOR that can be reached by tactical airlift ( ie operational level manoeuvre)?

Are we wanting to reposition it between theatre AORs, meaning we need either strategic airlift or the time and space to use tactical airlift?
Click to expand...

If we answered these questions then we could have an understanding of what we are looking at needing.

markppcli said:
Have you considered the lack of rail infrastructure in the Baltics? Or that we may want it to roll off further away then we can fly it in? Having the ability to move an asset as many ways as possible in an obvious advantage.
Click to expand...
Having the ability to move an asset in as many ways as possible to include by air is a specific criteria that comes with other trade offs that may or may not be worth investing in.

Without defining the specific high level mandatory requirements to enable the equipment to meet the operational employment concept of the equipment in line with the doctrine of our forces, no it’s not an obvious advantage.

For the Baltics will the theatre be permissive enough to fly C130s wherever we want or will the systems need to be self deployable by road.

Ultimately yes, the HIMARS will be capable of being deployed by the RCAF. Exactly the same as our MBTs and LAVs.

Overall the US HIMARS does have a wider array of munitions that offer more flexibility for echelons above Bde and with the PRSM in support of both air and naval forces than the K239
 
OldSolduer said:
Ques

Question from a red crayon eater:

What was the mode of transport? Who or what packed it?
Click to expand...
Mules were the prime mover in Italy. 1st Mtn Artillery had nine four-gun batteries of which only one was motorized (their AMF(L) battery) while the other eight only had mules. Each battery had eighty mules. The L5 is built to be broken into 12 pack loads. There are special saddle/harnesses designed for the specific parts (Canada didn't buy those) The balance of the mules carried ammo - saddles for those too (six rounds per mule if I remember correctly). Fun fact. It took the Italian army longer to train a mule driver conscript than ones selected as 2nd lieutenants or sergeants.

In Canada we used three prime movers in my day. The Airborne used the 3/4 ton cargo followed by the 5/4 ton. In 3 RCHA (and I think 5 RALC too) we had a 2 1/2 ton with a special portee kit so that the gun could be loaded in the back of the truck rather than towed. We usually towed them and rarely portee'd them except for road moves to Wainwright. In D Battery 2 RCHA which had the AMF(L) role, the prime mover was an M548 (the whole battery was tracked). The M548 also had a portee kit for carrying the gun internally. L5s were tricky to tow for two reasons: their wheel base is narrower than the tow vehicles which means they could fall into one rut or the other and tumble; and they didn't have wheel bearings just grease packed axle bushings which made high speed or long distance towing risky.

markppcli said:
How are we getting the donkeys there?
Click to expand...
Mules. Although the Airborne battery once rented a donkey in Jamaica as a prime mover to tow one once. That metal stuff on the front top of the shield is actually a yoke that mounts on the folded trail rather than a towing eye to allow an donkey or mule or horse be harnessed to the gun.

:giggle:
 
Not questioning the necissity or importance of LRPF, but in the context of continental defense the concept of flying a HIMARS into the north with 1-2 long range missiles seems l superficially really cool. But on second look, would we not be better served with more P8's with the right weapons?
 
still a thing my son was down in Oklahoma for a few months at horseshoeing school, lots of US Army guys there
FJAG said:
Mules were the prime mover in Italy. 1st Mtn Artillery had nine four-gun batteries of which only one was motorized (their AMF(L) battery) while the other eight only had mules. Each battery had eighty mules. The L5 is built to be broken into 12 pack loads. There are special saddle/harnesses designed for the specific parts (Canada didn't buy those) The balance of the mules carried ammo - saddles for those too (six rounds per mule if I remember correctly). Fun fact. It took the Italian army longer to train a mule driver conscript than ones selected as 2nd lieutenants or sergeants.

In Canada we used three prime movers in my day. The Airborne used the 3/4 ton cargo followed by the 5/4 ton. In 3 RCHA (and I think 5 RALC too) we had a 2 1/2 ton with a special portee kit so that the gun could be loaded in the back of the truck rather than towed. We usually towed them and rarely portee'd them except for road moves to Wainwright. In D Battery 2 RCHA which had the AMF(L) role, the prime mover was an M548 (the whole battery was tracked). The M548 also had a portee kit for carrying the gun internally. L5s were tricky to tow for two reasons: their wheel base is narrower than the tow vehicles which means they could fall into one rut or the other and tumble; and they didn't have wheel bearings just grease packed axle bushings which made high speed or long distance towing risky.


Mules. Although the Airborne battery once rented a donkey in Jamaica as a prime mover to tow one once. That metal stuff on the front top of the shield is actually a yoke that mounts on the folded trail rather than a towing eye to allow an donkey or mule or horse be harnessed to the gun.

:giggle:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top