Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[daftandbarmy]

We only ordered 41 ACSV Troop/Cargo vehicles, 44 combat engineer vehicles, 18 engineer vehicles, and 54 maintenance and recovery vehicles, which seem rather low. We could easily increase those numbers to make up the production shortfall.

Maybe we can achieve the status of Iraq in the priority list

US Delivers Over a Thousand Refurbished M113s to Iraq - Defense Update:

The Iraqi Army is receiving 1,026 M113A2 armored personnel carriers (APC) from the U.S. Army's surplus, the delivery will be made through the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales program, after the vehicles are refurbished by an Army Materiel Command through a public-private partnership. The APCs...

defense-update.com

 

[Czech_pivo]

we can achieve the status of Iraq in the priority list

US Delivers Over a Thousand Refurbished M113s to Iraq - Defense Update:

The Iraqi Army is receiving 1,026 M113A2 armored personnel carriers (APC) from the U.S. Army's surplus, the delivery will be made through the Pentagon's Foreign Military Sales program, after the vehicles are refurbished by an Army Materiel Command through a public-private partnership. The APCs...

defense-update.com

God - imagine if these had gone to the Ukrainians last April/May.

 

[Kirkhill]

If are so inclinded I would request that you add the 500km range of Hanwoo 4-4's (sub launched). Put those circles at the entrances of the NWP. Make them yellow. Just so we can see. Thanks!

I'm not seeing fixed emplacements or land launched system being a northern priority ATT.

If there is a problem in the arctic the airforce and navy will be handling it first. Instead of focusing on land systems (yes I know IDFM thread) we should be looking to air launched Naval Strike Missiles (NSM), Long Range Anti Ship Missils (LRASM) and platforms that can carry and launch these. Those should be the main priority for continental defence aside from sensors and BMD.

Now of course land systems provide a valuable asset should that be needed but we aren't getting HIMARS for its ability to deploy to the arctic. We're getting it for its ability for deep strikes against enemy infrastructure, formations, C2 nodes etc... to enable our brigades success.

Your wish is my command, Sir! Happy to oblige.



I hope that is what you were thinking of. A patrol station in the deeps at the eastern and western entrances?

The advantage of your plan is that it is American free (kind of). I think America still has some limiting inputs on the capabilities of Korean systems.

The problem with my plan is that it is entirely dependent on the US providing us their weapons systems to provide a capability that could be used to limit their Freedom of Navigation. My basic assumption is the we are going to get over this Trump Hump with NORAD intact.

 

[Underway]

More likely they would simply use the existing M1129 design.

Only if they want TBI issues. Which is a concern highlighted in the RFI.

 

[Maxman1]

Only if they want TBI issues. Which is a concern highlighted in the RFI.

Maybe GDLS can see if a Mjölner turret will fit.

 

[Underway]

Maybe GDLS can see if a Mjölner turret will fit.

NEMO is probably the easiest and best options out there. It was already integrated into a LAV for Saudi Arabia. Its an excellent system and meets the requirements.

 

[childs56]

You can build the infrastructure to support them in the north, so they can be flown in. Hire the locals to guard and care for the physical spaces. You can build several more locations than you have launchers, but they will need an airfield to fly them in.

The majority if not all the Radars up north on the NWS have a landing strip next to or close proximity to the stations.

As I see it you need a hanger, apron, road, accommodation, power, sewage and fencing. Each base has 2-3 launch pads with surveyed points and access roads. Add some extra buildings for the Rangers to use and any visiting unit.

The majority if not all of the NWS stations already have accommodations for a handful of people when required. Or they are located close proximity to a "larger" center.... Yes I typed that with a straight face.

The problem with that is the same problem as we have in remote/rural southern Canada.... The people with the skills/apptitude for that sort of work tend to want to move to the big cities for more opportunities, and better QoL.

Locals up there are trained and working alongside their counter parts and doing fine. Not sure what the attrition rate is. But they do not seem to have an issue maintaining the current systems,.

 

[Furniture]

The majority if not all the Radars up north on the NWS have a landing strip next to or close proximity to the stations.
The majority if not all of the NWS stations already have accommodations for a handful of people when required. Or they are located close proximity to a "larger" center.... Yes I typed that with a straight face.

No they don't...

Some of the sites have accommodations for people who rotate in and out of the site. Most sites have a helo landing pad, and have emergency quarters and food/water supplies in the event a crew gets stranded due to weather.

Locals up there are trained and working alongside their counter parts and doing fine. Not sure what the attrition rate is. But they do not seem to have an issue maintaining the current systems,.

Thales lost the maintenance contract to Nasittuq a few years back, but the majority of the technical staff are southerners who rotate in and out like people do in Alert, or in the mines/oilfield.

 

[KevinB]

NEMO is probably the easiest and best options out there. It was already integrated into a LAV for Saudi Arabia. It’s an excellent system and meets the requirements.

Keep in mind that we build the LAV/Stryker down here, GDLS-Canada may not have done those, but yes that’s the better option for a LAV based Mortar.

 

[childs56]

No they don't...

Yes they do.

Some of the sites have accommodations for people who rotate in and out of the site. Most sites have a helo landing pad, and have emergency quarters and food/water supplies in the event a crew gets stranded due to weather.

Just like I said they can house a handful of people.

Thales lost the maintenance contract to Nasittuq a few years back, but the majority of the technical staff are southerners who rotate in and out like people do in Alert, or in the mines/oilfield.

They have locals still working the sites doing maintenance and assisting.
Heck even the Canadian Navy, Airforce and Army have Technical experts who fix the specific parts.

Point is the sites are accessible, have limited accommodation for stop overs if required.
One could deploy containerized missile systems up north and maintain them alongside the Radar sites.

 

[Maxman1]

Would there be a case for a dedicated artillery forward observer variant of the ACSV?

 

[Furniture]

Yes they do.

A few do, most are only accessible by helicopter. I know this because I planned inspection trips to the sites, and didn't just read a few lines on a website.

Just like I said they can house a handful of people.

Being able to survive in a space is not the same as being "housed" there. The "housing" apart from the few LSS is cots in the generator shed.

They have locals still working the sites doing maintenance and assisting.
Heck even the Canadian Navy, Airforce and Army have Technical experts who fix the specific parts

Pretty much every technician is a southerner rotating in and out, or a person who moved north for a few years.

What is you experience with the NWS? It comes across as of you've read a little about it and are making sweeping generalizations with little basis in reality.

Point is the sites are accessible, have limited accommodation for stop overs if required.
One could deploy containerized missile systems up north and maintain them alongside the Radar sites.

My point is the sites aren't all that accessible, and just keeping the radars running is a major effort already. Adding more even more finicky systems up there is a huge issue. There is also the reality that you can't park a bunch of missiles in the middle of nowhere with no security.
The high arctic is hard to reach, but far from impossible.

 

[childs56]

A few do, most are only accessible by helicopter. I know this because I planned inspection trips to the sites, and didn't just read a few lines on a website.

You know a few of the pilots and maintenance people I do.

Being able to survive in a space is not the same as being "housed" there. The "housing" apart from the few LSS is cots in the generator shed.

Again they can send in a crew to fix,inspect and or maintain them. Move them around.

Pretty much every technician is a southerner rotating in and out, or a person who moved north for a few years.

What is you experience with the NWS? It comes across as of you've read a little about it and are making sweeping generalizations with little basis in reality.

I have a few friends who work the area.

My point is the sites aren't all that accessible, and just keeping the radars running is a major effort already. Adding more even more finicky systems up there is a huge issue. There is also the reality that you can't park a bunch of missiles in the middle of nowhere with no security.
The high arctic is hard to reach, but far from impossible.

Nothing is that accessible in the north. Heck Yellowknife isn't that accessible when one thinks about it.

I wonder with the new supposed radar systems we are supposed to get if the various radar sites will be required. Or if they will be more centralized.

 

[lenaitch]

Just an outsider looking in but I don't see a ton of parallels between remotely maintaining a radar site and keeping a weapons system in a state of operational readiness. The radars are operating except during a fault or down for PM. Contractors maintain the physical plant and either CAF members or contractors maintain the electronics; otherwise, it just keeps working.

I have to believe keeping a complex weapons system in a state of constant readiness requires more than the occasional visit to check the batteries. Unless there is an intent to turn Rangers into weaponeers, CAF members would still have to be flown in to operate the weapons.

 

[Kirkhill]

On board a ship, what checks of the ESSMs in the Mk48 VLS are necessary? How about the Harpoons?

Here is the expectation of the SM6 as deployed aboard USN ships.

O&S Cost Notes:
Since the SM-6 is a wooden round (a concept that pictures a weapon as being completely reliable and, while deployed on board a ship, having an infinite shelf life while at the same time requiring no special handling, storage. surveillance, or maintenance by ships force personnel). Personnel Costs are unnecessary for missile operation.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2021_SARS/22-F-0762_SM6_SAR_2021.pdf

Wooden round is a concept applied to all the US forces missiles. There is no field maintenance. At intervals they are returned to depot for inspection and/or disposal.

Regardless if the launcher were a HIMARs style pod or a Mk70 PDS or an Harpoon/NSM style tube, and it were determined that a permanent presence were necessary then the local force wouldn't be interacting with the round anymore than they would on board a ship. My understanding is that if a PDS were deployed in a parking lot behind a locked fence then the only intervention would be when the gate was opened to remove or swap containers. And that would require an ammo tech.

With Co-Operative Engagement Capability the ship's crew is not necessarily involved in the firing sequence.

I would assume something similar for the HIMARs/AMD/ROGUE/NMESIS systems.

 

[Furniture]

On board a ship, what checks of the ESSMs in the Mk48 VLS are necessary? How about the Harpoons?

Here is the expectation of the SM6 as deployed aboard USN ships.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2021_SARS/22-F-0762_SM6_SAR_2021.pdf

Wooden round is a concept applied to all the US forces missiles. There is no field maintenance. At intervals they are returned to depot for inspection and/or disposal.

Regardless if the launcher were a HIMARs style pod or a Mk70 PDS or an Harpoon/NSM style tube, and it were determined that a permanent presence were necessary then the local force wouldn't be interacting with the round anymore than they would on board a ship. My understanding is that if a PDS were deployed in a parking lot behind a locked fence then the only intervention would be when the gate was opened to remove or swap containers. And that would require an ammo tech.

With Co-Operative Engagement Capability the ship's crew is not necessarily involved in the firing sequence.

I would assume something similar for the HIMARs/AMD/ROGUE/NMESIS systems.

I'm not an expert, but I know our WEng Techs do planned and corrective maintenance on all of the weapons systems.

Realistically, all rockets/missiles require people to pop by and make sure they are physically fit for firing.

 

[OldSolduer]

I'm not an expert, but I know our WEng Techs do planned and corrective maintenance on all of the weapons systems.

Realistically, all rockets/missiles require people to pop by and make sure they are physically fit for firing.

When I was in every year the bn underwent an Annual Technical Inspection and Staff Inspection.
The techs were generally 1 Svc Bn pers designated to inspect vehicles, weapons etc

 

[AmmoTech90]

Having worked with wooden rounds, the inspection requirements vary.

They can include environmental data loggers that have to be checked weekly or monthly. These can log temperature, humidity, and/or vibration. That data collected depends on the weapon and the environment. Hot can mean reduced stabilizer life, cold can mean frozen energetics and potential cracks. Temperature fluctuations can lead to condensation and cracking or corrosion.

Eryx launch motors needed monitoring later in life because they could have a cracked launch propellant pellet, which lead to the little ballistic blanket being used towards the end.
I destroyed hundreds of CRV7 motors in Afghanistan that had reached their flown hours. A few Hellfire as well.

 

[KevinB]

On board a ship, what checks of the ESSMs in the Mk48 VLS are necessary? How about the Harpoons?

Here is the expectation of the SM6 as deployed aboard USN ships.

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Selected_Acquisition_Reports/FY_2021_SARS/22-F-0762_SM6_SAR_2021.pdf

Wooden round is a concept applied to all the US forces missiles. There is no field maintenance. At intervals they are returned to depot for inspection and/or disposal.

Regardless if the launcher were a HIMARs style pod or a Mk70 PDS or an Harpoon/NSM style tube, and it were determined that a permanent presence were necessary then the local force wouldn't be interacting with the round anymore than they would on board a ship. My understanding is that if a PDS were deployed in a parking lot behind a locked fence then the only intervention would be when the gate was opened to remove or swap containers. And that would require an ammo tech.

With Co-Operative Engagement Capability the ship's crew is not necessarily involved in the firing sequence.

I would assume something similar for the HIMARs/AMD/ROGUE/NMESIS systems.

Missing is the part about the ship being a secure area.

Security requirements for emplacement of ground missiles, especially any LR or ABM systems is going to be significantly above what that sites you suggest have, or can practical accommodate.

 

[Kirkhill]

Missing is the part about the ship being a secure area.

Security requirements for emplacement of ground missiles, especially any LR or ABM systems is going to be significantly above what that sites you suggest have, or can practical accommodate.

Missing in most descriptions about Arctic security is the Arctic

‘The Arctic will humble you’​

“The biggest challenge we had was how to use our phones,” he said. In the minus 40 degrees C temperature, his hand went numb within 30 seconds of taking off his glove. “I couldn’t even grip the handlebar on my snowmobile.”

“You can be humbled very quickly,” he added. “But then humbled again by seeing a local kid walking around in a T-shirt.”

The biggest threat to security is the locals, the same people that are best equipped to supply security.

And if you go with permanent silos then you have to maintain the silos and unload and reload them at regular intervals. Conversely, slinging in a new container every year or two will keep the rounds refreshed and the depot level maintenance will be done in a nice warm place like Dundurn or some such.

And if the discussion about ice breaking missile platforms is right then I could supply loaded Mk70 PDS systems with 2 SM6 and 8 ESSMs each at every National Airport and Port for less than the price of one of those ships. Those would provide air defence coverage to over 95% of the population if netted in with NAVCAN and NORAD in a CEC environment and, concurrently, supply coastal defence out to the "Classified but greater than 500 km" range. By parking the PDS in recognized airports and ports you are already doing a lot of the security work.

Add in a couple of pods of Maritime Strike Tomahawks Block Vb and you have national coverage against the improbable but not impossible.

If a high volume / high mass threat arrives that depletes local magazine capacity then echelon 2 is the RCAF flying in SM6s/AIM-120s/AIM9s on their F-18/F-35 wings or in more PDSs in C-130/C-17s. Or even civilian B747F freighters.

Or by rail, or road if the situation gets really dire.

The same containers and missiles could also be supplied to any of His Majesty's Canadian Ships, or Expeditionary Forces, or Allies.






Comparing this laydown to the HIMARS laydown posted previously I am leaning strongly towards this solution and leave the HIMARS strictly for the RRCA / Expeditionary Force.

All told there are 30 sites (26 National Airport System and 4 others - Prince Rupert, Churchill, Inuvik and Resolute) each with 4 cells. That equates to 120 cells or the number of cells in 5 of the 15 RCD and loaded with 60 SM6 (SAM/ABM/Anti-Shipping) and 240 ESSMs. Both rounds are used by the Navy. The ESSMs are compatible with NASAMs and the SM6s have a sister version suitable for carriage on wing pylons for the RCAF.

Add in one or two PDS loaded with Tomahawks for the Arctic and, in my opinion, you have the firm basis for a strong system of National Defence.

Guarding against the improbable but not impossible.

And it relies on increasing the number of rounds already in service which should be a priority call in any event. Effectively the proposal increases the number of rounds in inventory but warehouses them in multiple locations in ready to fire condition.

OS Info

All rounds are Active Radar rounds with autonomous onboard terminal homing.

ESSM - 50 km anti-aircraft
SM6 - 240-370 km anti-ballistic missile, up to 500 km in the anti-aircraft role and much more in the surface to surface anti-ship mode.
Tomahawk Vb MST - >1666 km in the anti-ship mode.