Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[suffolkowner]

But what if there is a railhead, can we use that? For the donkey and mules that is

even a C130 if we must

 

[OldSolduer]

Donkeys are donkeys. A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey or so I’ve heard.
Mules are bigger. Am I correct?

 

[suffolkowner]

Donkeys are donkeys. A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey or so I’ve heard.
Mules are bigger. Am I correct?

Mules are a cross between a male Donkey or Jack and a female Horse or mare
if you want big Mules you use a big donkey and a big horse
ive even seen a mini mule a cross between a mini horse and a mini donkey

 

[markppcli]

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?

That’s a bit like saying “I’m glad we’ve procured new pistols, but in the context of Human Resources shouldn’t we have bought more laptops tops?” Yes in the of one aspect of our defence policy P8s are very important, that doesn’t override the important of other equipment and capabilities in another aspect.

 

[IKnowNothing]

That’s a bit like saying “I’m glad we’ve procured new pistols, but in the context of Human Resources shouldn’t we have bought more laptops tops?” Yes in the of one aspect of our defence policy P8s are very important, that doesn’t override the important of other equipment and capabilities in another aspect.

Is it?

The capability being discussed is engaging continental targets with explosive payload via long range missile.

Both methods involve long flights to the launch area by non combat aircraft. One requires diverting a significant proportion of the aircraft's payolad to a truck/ launch vehicle and taking the time to land, unload. The other launches from the air.

 

[Maxman1]

There's already a thread on the P-8s.

 

[markppcli]

Is it?

Yes

The capability being discussed is engaging continental targets with explosive payload via long range missile.

Gross over simplification.

Both methods involve long flights to the launch area by non combat aircraft. One requires diverting a significant proportion of the aircraft's payolad to a truck/ launch vehicle and taking the time to land, unload. The other launches from the air.

You’re conflating the fact that the HIMARs can be flown to a point t and engage, vs its actual mission. HIMARs doesn’t need to be flown, for each fire mission it’s a simply pint that it can. You’ve taken a single aspect, that goes along with its transportability, and made it raisin d’être. The P8 isn’t being purchased to fire SLAM ER, even though it can, it’s doing what’s it’s built to do which is maritime patrol and ASW. HIMARs is proving long range precision fires organic to the army. Wildly different jobs.

 

[OldSolduer]

So - if I am reading this thread correctly, tube arty was going to be discarded in favor of long range munitions and aircraft delivered munitions.

Air delivery faces its own issues - like air superiority, loitering time, time to rearm etc.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it?

The capability being discussed is engaging continental targets with explosive payload via long range missile.

Both methods involve long flights to the launch area by non combat aircraft. One requires diverting a significant proportion of the aircraft's payolad to a truck/ launch vehicle and taking the time to land, unload. The other launches from the air.

And once the launcher is on the ground it can stay there as a mute threat. It doesn't have to return to base. Unlike the P8 it is an enduring presence.

As long as it is on sovereign territory it is safe as it is in a defensive posture. It need only unmask if an enemy vessel entered Canadian waters and was construed as a threat by the government. If it did unmask and launch then it would relocate (locally by ground or regionally by air) and return to being a threat.

The point is that if it were determined that there were a risk of an unauthorised entry, a risk higher than I perceive now, the government could make clear its ability and its intention to defend its claims.

And as been noted often aicraft are subject to the weather and expensive to keep aloft.

In the meantime the arty can find othet jobs for the HIMARS to do.

 

[markppcli]

So - if I am reading this thread correctly, tube arty was going to be discarded in favor of long range munitions and aircraft delivered munitions.

Air delivery faces its own issues - like air superiority, loitering time, time to rearm etc.

No, guns are still needed we just need more of them. Rockets we also need, and air power does a seperate thing as well. Some target lend themselves more to one than the others.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Gross over simplification.

Not in the context of continental defense, which was explicitly outlined in my initial point.

You’re conflating the fact that the HIMARs can be flown to a point t and engage, vs its actual mission. HIMARs doesn’t need to be flown, for each fire mission it’s a simply pint that it can. You’ve taken a single aspect, that goes along with its transportability, and made it raisin d’être.

That fact was being used to expand the potential employment envelope as a part of the argument to justify requirements.

The P8 isn’t being purchased to fire SLAM ER, even though it can, it’s doing what’s it’s built to do which is maritime patrol and ASW. HIMARs is proving long range precision fires organic to the army. Wildly different jobs.

"LRPF isn't being purchased to be flown in to defend the North via Increment II PrSM, even though it could. It doing what it's built to do which is providing long range precision fires organic to the Army. "

Unlike the P8 it is an enduring presence.
And as been noted often aicraft are subject to the weather and expensive to keep aloft.

Both granted

In the meantime the arty can find othet jobs for the HIMARS to do.

And there's the crux of it. There's no mean time, there's just other, very real, very important jobs the LRPF needs to be doing. Chances are- most geopolitical situations that call for missiles in the North will also call for missiles elsewhere, for tactical airlift elsewhere.

If we want/need to be able to count on these systems to be in the North when we need them, we need to have a dedicated allocation. If we need to have a dedicated allocation, why are we keeping it in the South at all? If we're keeping a dedicated allocation in the North rather than scrambling them up as tensions rise, do they need to be mobile by 130, or can we do the one time transport to their operating areas some other way? If we're keeping a dedicated allocation in the North, are we even talking about the LRPF project any more?

 

[Kirkhill]

Not in the context of continental defense, which was explicitly outlined in my initial point.

That fact was being used to expand the potential employment envelope as a part of the argument to justify requirements.

"LRPF isn't being purchased to be flown in to defend the North via Increment II PrSM, even though it could. It doing what it's built to do which is providing long range precision fires organic to the Army. "


Both granted

And there's the crux of it. There's no mean time, there's just other, very real, very important jobs the LRPF needs to be doing. Chances are- most geopolitical situations that call for missiles in the North will also call for missiles elsewhere, for tactical airlift elsewhere.

If we want/need to be able to count on these systems to be in the North when we need them, we need to have a dedicated allocation. If we need to have a dedicated allocation, why are we keeping it in the South at all? If we're keeping a dedicated allocation in the North rather than scrambling them up as tensions rise, do they need to be mobile by 130, or can we do the one time transport to their operating areas some other way? If we're keeping a dedicated allocation in the North, are we even talking about the LRPF project any more?

Respectfully everybody always needs more of everything all the time, starting with more money.

Thus threat appreciations, commanders and priorities.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not sure HIMARS is the best choice for continental defense. I know that the US Marines are testing the NSM on a HIMARs like platform. But I think a dedicated mobile Coastal defense platform with the supporting mobile equipment would be better, otherwise you will have to gut one capability to support the other in a time of conflict.
The coastal defense platform does not need a tactical truck and can be based mostly on Commercial vehicles. You need to prepare launch points along the coast though.

 

[Underway]

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?

You forgot the notional ballistic missiles the not yet purchased KSS III carries. 500km range. 2000lb payload. 10 launchers per submarine. Or the notional tomahawks for the River Class.

The P8's would be doing submarine hunting. That's their main job. If you want a long range strike they would have to be equipped with LRASM at a minimum as they are not going close enough to use NSM.

You're not wrong in assuming the Arctic is the realm of the airforce moreso than the army. The way it seems to be shaping up the dominant forces for the various regions will be:

Airforce: domestic and arctic (secondary is Pacific)
Army: European theatre (secondary is domestic)
Navy: Pacific theatre (secondary is arctic)

As such HIMARS needs to be air deployable, to where its likely needed. If that happens to be domestically because I dunno aliens invade then so be it.

 

[markppcli]

Not in the context of continental defense, which was explicitly outlined in my initial point.

Which is a stipulation only who applied to it. In the context of something we aren’t really designed to do as an army how does this fit into it? That’s the framing.

That fact was being used to expand the potential employment envelope as a part of the argument to justify requirements.

"LRPF isn't being purchased to be flown in to defend the North via Increment II PrSM, even though it could. It doing what it's built to do which is providing long range precision fires organic to the Army. "

Yea exactly, it could but it’s going to be doing a lot more. Comparing it to a P8 is silly. I also wouldn’t expect the P8 to spend much if any of its time in conflict firing SLAM ER or anti ship missiles in the arctic.

Both granted

And there's the crux of it. There's no mean time, there's just other, very real, very important jobs the LRPF needs to be doing. Chances are- most geopolitical situations that call for missiles in the North will also call for missiles elsewhere, for tactical airlift elsewhere.

Is it a very real job?

If we want/need to be able to count on these systems to be in the North when we need them, we need to have a dedicated allocation. If we need to have a dedicated allocation, why are we keeping it in the South at all? If we're keeping a dedicated allocation in the North rather than scrambling them up as tensions rise, do they need to be mobile by 130, or can we do the one time transport to their operating areas some other way? If we're keeping a dedicated allocation in the North, are we even talking about the LRPF project any more?

We keep them in the south because a) that’s where we have people living, b) that’s where our transportation hubs are, c) that’s where our training areas are, and d) because northern security is just one facet of our duty. Defence of the Arctic is going to fall in the RCAF and the RCN, which doesn’t mean the Army ought be starved of capacity it just means it doesn’t different things.

 

[CountDC]

Airforce: domestic and arctic (secondary is Pacific)
Army: European theatre (secondary is domestic)
Navy: Pacific theatre (secondary is arctic)

and the Atlantic/east coast goes away!!

Ok seriously - where do you see that fitting?

 

[IKnowNothing]

Defence of the Arctic is going to fall in the RCAF and the RCN,

Agreed

which doesn’t mean the Army ought be starved of capacity it just means it doesn’t different things.

Who said it should? For me this all comes back to Chunmoo vs HIMARS and the justification for that decision. We're going to spend significantly more, wait significantly longer (unless we get them out of US stocks), and put more eggs in the US basket, all for less payload. If C130 transportability and PrSM are driving that- the employment concepts and justification of their importance need to be pretty airtight.

 

[markppcli]

Agreed

Who said it should? For me this all comes back to Chunmoo vs HIMARS and the justification for that decision. We're going to spend significantly more, wait significantly longer (unless we get them out of US stocks), and put more eggs in the US basket, all for less payload. If C130 transportability and PrSM are driving that- the employment concepts and justification of their importance need to be pretty airtight.

You when you suggest the capability could be replaced by more P8s. Chunmoo is an overseas pipeline, and has been procured by countries who don’t face the requirement of having to deploy their army across the Atlantic or Pacific.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not sure HIMARS is the best choice for continental defense. I know that the US Marines are testing the NSM on a HIMARs like platform. But I think a dedicated mobile Coastal defense platform with the supporting mobile equipment would be better, otherwise you will have to gut one capability to support the other in a time of conflict.
The coastal defense platform does not need a tactical truck and can be based mostly on Commercial vehicles. You need to prepare launch points along the coast though.

And now you have another platform and system to buy and support and man and train on...

Everything is possible if cash.

HIMARS with its current range of munitions and forthcoming ones is an infinitely flexible platform.

It can also launch NSMs and the Poles and Swedes are keeping their coastal defences on trucks.

If we want more launchers the make like the Poles and buy them by the hundreds.

Alternately drop the pods off on to ground-mounts. Again the Scandinavians have leading there.

HIMARS, NASAMS, Coastal Dfence and Air Defence variants, as well as Skynex are all compatible with 6x6 medium trucks that can be conveniently moved but multiple means including Hercs.

They can also be deployed to fixed positions if so desired. One system that can be fired from the ground, from trucks or from ships.

 

[IKnowNothing]

You when you suggest the capability could be replaced by more P8s.

Categorically false. I actually explicitly endorsed the importance of the overall capability and project while suggesting that a specific niche effect/ employment scenario could more sensibly be covered off by another means.

Chunmoo is an overseas pipeline, and has been procured by countries who don’t face the requirement of having to deploy their army across the Atlantic or Pacific.

So we're going to fly our HIMARS in and wait for the rest of the Bde to show up on their boat?