• 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

IKnowNothing said:
So we're going to fly our HIMARS in and wait for the rest of the Bde to show up on their boat?
Click to expand...
Now you're being intentionally oblivious.

Maybe you fly HIMARS outoof theater to be repaired. Maybe you augment already deployed troops with an added one due to a casualty or availability issue. Maybe you just move them quickly to a coast to get on a ship.

Our army has to be able to fit into a series of C17 trips. If HIMARS fits and the Korean one doesn't, then it's in and Korea is out.

Poland can drive their missiles around the country. They aren't going anywhere. Canada needs various transport options.
 
IKnowNothing said:
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.
Click to expand...

“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?”

So yes that would imply that you would prefer more P8s at the exception of HIMARS / LRPF. Since the way your wrote your comment, in response to the amount of money being spent and reasons for its choice, shows a preference for a different option. An option which is poorly thought out.

IKnowNothing said:
So we're going to fly our HIMARS in and wait for the rest of the Bde to show up on their boat?
Click to expand...

No, obviously not? We have light forces that would benefit, we have forward deployed mechanized forces that benefit, and we have air moved LAVs and Leopards. Are you being deliberately obtuse ?
 
Canada will buy the minimum required and then add the coastal defense job. I rather have two separate platforms, so we would not rob Peter to pay Paul.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
Canada will buy the minimum required and then add the coastal defense job. I rather have two separate platforms, so we would not rob Peter to pay Paul.
Click to expand...

Where are we getting this anti ship missile task from ? Did I miss the procurement announcement or RFI? It’s certainly not something I’ve seen.
 
markppcli said:
Where are we getting this anti ship missile task from ? Did I miss the procurement announcement or RFI? It’s certainly not something I’ve seen.
Click to expand...
If the tasking comes up, which it could in the future. What I am really commenting on is having one system tasked to do two very different tasks, meaning you lose the ability to perform one task to accomplish the other. Better to have dedicated systems.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
If the tasking comes up, which it could in the future. What I am really commenting on is having one system tasked to do two very different tasks, meaning you lose the ability to perform one task to accomplish the other. Better to have dedicated systems.
Click to expand...
PRSM apparently can do an anti ship thing with HIMARS. 500km range, which is about the same as the KSS III ballistic missiles.
 
dapaterson said:
Yes.

Yes he is.
Click to expand...
No, regretably glib, but not obtuse. I'm pointing out that sometimes the CAF acts in ways that seemingly justifies the TB's level of scrutiny. The actual topic of this thread, the IFM project, for what will be potentially our only gun artillery? Mobility requirement is by c17, not Herc.. Leo's ? C17. Not herc. Lav 6? C17. Not Herc. But this one singular piece of new kit? It abaolutely MUST be Herc transportable or our whole ability to deploy across the Atlantic falls to shit. Come on.
Underway said:
Now you're being intentionally oblivious.

Maybe you fly HIMARS outoof theater to be repaired. Maybe you augment already deployed troops with an added one due to a casualty or availability issue. Maybe you just move them quickly to a coast to get on a ship.

Our army has to be able to fit into a series of C17 trips. If HIMARS fits and the Korean one doesn't, then it's in and Korea is out.

Poland can drive their missiles around the country. They aren't going anywhere. Canada needs various transport options
Click to expand...
My understanding is that Chunmoo is c17 transportable.
 
IKnowNothing said:
No, regretably glib, but not obtuse. I'm pointing out that sometimes the CAF acts in ways that seemingly justifies the TB's level of scrutiny. The actual topic of this thread, the IFM project, for what will be potentially our only gun artillery? Mobility requirement is by c17, not Herc.. Leo's ? C17. Not herc. Lav 6? C17. Not Herc. But this one singular piece of new kit? It abaolutely MUST be Herc transportable or our whole ability to deploy across the Atlantic falls to shit. Come on.

My understanding is that Chunmoo is c17 transportable.
Click to expand...
There are specific reasons for the moveable via Herc role, some have already been touched on here, and others that have not.

Frankly given Canada’s rather minuscule C-17 fleet, a lot of stuff should be looked at as moveable by Herc not just Globemaster. Clearly some items will never be able to be Herc carried (MBT’s…).
 
KevinB said:
There are specific reasons for the moveable via Herc role, some have already been touched on here, and others that have not.
Click to expand...
Given the money that needs to be spent on the CA as a whole, they must be damn good ones to justify the billion+ dollar delta.

A sole source to the US for the significantly more expensive option, in this political and economic climate, is going to use up A LOT of the CAF's newfound public goodwill
 
www.janes.com

Hanwha fleshes out wheeled K9 concept, hopes for UK rethink on artillery supply

Hanwha Aerospace has given more details to Janes about its wheeled K9 self-propelled howitzer (SPH), after a photo emerged of it on a previously unseen wheeled chassis...
www.janes.com www.janes.com

www.defensenews.com

What’s next for Army artillery modernization? More demos

An Army demonstration next year will help carve out the service's fires strategy and determine a way forward for the future of its artillery formations.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

South Korea has developed a wheeled K9 based on some of the requirements that the US Army is looking at.
 
Fabius said:
www.janes.com

Hanwha fleshes out wheeled K9 concept, hopes for UK rethink on artillery supply

Hanwha Aerospace has given more details to Janes about its wheeled K9 self-propelled howitzer (SPH), after a photo emerged of it on a previously unseen wheeled chassis...
www.janes.com www.janes.com

www.defensenews.com

What’s next for Army artillery modernization? More demos

An Army demonstration next year will help carve out the service's fires strategy and determine a way forward for the future of its artillery formations.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

South Korea has developed a wheeled K9 based on some of the requirements that the US Army is looking at.
Click to expand...
Excellent article. Not to say I told you so but the US Army has it right in looking at these systems from a holistic point of view with limber vehicles and ammo resupply playing a key factor. This is what I constantly harp on with the European wheeled systems - they seem to be built for a firing range exercise rather than a war scenario.

As for the wheeled K9 - meh - They have a viable tracked one. I can see them building a viable wheeled one for those folks who think wheels matter more than tracks. The turret looks a little RCHish but that's just the steel. The guts that go inside the box are already working well and big trucks are no brainers. The little outriggers look a little anti-shoot-and-scoot though.

🍻
 
Colin Parkinson said:
If the tasking comes up, which it could in the future. What I am really commenting on is having one system tasked to do two very different tasks, meaning you lose the ability to perform one task to accomplish the other. Better to have dedicated systems.
Click to expand...

Again nothing speaking about anti ship missiles, and we have multiple systems that can already do that. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen any thing ever discussing an anti ship missile capability for the Canadian Army.


IKnowNothing said:
Given the money that needs to be spent on the CA as a whole, they must be damn good ones to justify the billion+ dollar delta.
Click to expand...

The Polish procurement is a poor example because of how our accounting covers full lifecycle. Comparisons are largely impossible. I assume however based on your comment you have in depth analysis of this to point out the billion dollar life cycle delta?

IKnowNothing said:
A sole source to the US for the significantly more expensive option, in this political and economic climate, is going to use up A LOT of the CAF's newfound public goodwill
Click to expand...

The public doesn’t know what it’s talking about. We’re buying the system is most use with our allies, with the largest industrial base supporting it. I agree that we should look outside the US but being transportable by here makes sense when that’s the majority of our airlift, and means we can free up more C17s for other assets. All of this is a clear plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top