Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[PrairieFella]

The Army Reserve needs to lose a lot of its history and embrace the future instead.

Units need to have training areas within reasonable proximity. There needs to be a force structure designed for outputs, not perpétuation of fictional tales of heroism from the world wars. There needs to be institutional commitment to members, and member commitment to the institution.

Why? Why demoralize the Reserves even further without tangible benefit? There's no kit, no institutional support, limited training budgets, crumbling infrastructure, a lack of communications equipment, poor quality personal kit and few plans for actually addressing this for the next decade but the problem is reservists need to embrace the future and ditch the history (whatever that means)?

My brother in Christ, the only thing holding together most combat arms reserve units is esprit de corps and Ottawa seems to like it that way. Cheap.

 

[dapaterson]

Montreal is three hours from Valcartier. Toronto two hours from Borden.

Vancouver? Train infantry, sustainers and Provost Corps.

It's not rocket science. Perpetuation of generations of failure should not be the go to solution.

 

[ytz]

Why? Why demoralize the Reserves even further without tangible benefit? There's no kit, no institutional support, limited training budgets, crumbling infrastructure, a lack of communications equipment, poor quality personal kit and few plans for actually addressing this for the next decade but the problem is reservists need to embrace the future and ditch the history (whatever that means)?

My brother in Christ, the only thing holding together most combat arms reserve units is esprit de corps and Ottawa seems to like it that way. Cheap.

You don't need to get rid of unit history. But there's no reason the role should be so firmly rooted in history. If a former armour unit needs to become a transport unit so be it. We have RCAF squadrons flying transports that used to be bomber squadrons and a helicopter squadron that used to be a fighter squadron.

I also think the pride of your branches suffers because your regiments are so big. Each of the infantry regiments need to be broken up so that each of the battalions ends up a regiment in its own right. This way your unit ID becomes like it is in the air force or army and your branch affiliation becomes more important. Just like it it for most of the CAF.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Montreal is three hours from Valcartier. Toronto two hours from Borden.

Vancouver? Train infantry, sustainers and Provost Corps.

It's not rocket science. Perpetuation of generations of failure should not be the go to solution.

Vancouver troops spend most of their time on exercise in Chilliwack pretending to be fighting in the Fulda Gap on tiny postage stamp sized parcels of flat land surrounded by 8000ft mountains and primeval rainforest.

This is the way

 

[markppcli]

I also think the pride of your branches suffers because your regiments are so big.

By bran h you mean corps / branches or do you mean army as a branch?

Each of the infantry regiments need to be broken up so that each of the battalions ends up a regiment in its own right. This way your unit ID becomes like it is in the air force or army and your branch affiliation becomes more important. Just like it it for most of the CAF.

Objectively not the case. People are proud of their branches and what they do. If you broke up the 3 regular infantry regiments and frankly wed just replace one tribalism for another, and have just as many people working in career shops while having more time spent on regimental accoutrements.

 

[Underway]

That's my problem. The RFI was entirely too limiting and seemed pointed at something wheeled. I don't know why the Canadian army has this fetish for air transportability, road speed and wheels.

Its an RFI. If the RFP is the same then you can start complaining. The RFI is sent out to see what industry has to offer. If the Korean's offer a K9 with Nitrous Oxide booster to meet some of the speed requirements game on (WITNESS ME!!).

You then use the RFI to develop the RFP (or award directly to a single supplier).

---

As I'm not in the cult of tracks I will say this,

LAV 10x10 is a domestic design, which will have domestic supply/spares, and commonality with the rest of the LAV fleet. That means something and is valuable.

 

[Furniture]

Its an RFI. If the RFP is the same then you can start complaining. The RFI is sent out to see what industry has to offer. If the Korean's offer a K9 with Nitrous Oxide booster to meet some of the speed requirements game on (WITNESS ME!!).

You then use the RFI to develop the RFP (or award directly to a single supplier).

If the RFI sends the wrong message, people with good kit might just ignore it because they feel it's a biased game they can't win anyway.

As I'm not in the cult of tracks I will say this,


LAV 10x10 is a domestic design, which will have domestic supply/spares, and commonality with the rest of the LAV fleet. That means something and is valuable.

Unless the LAV 10x10 with RCH turret turns out to be like the MGS, and is utterly unsuitable for service... Then we have wasted the better part of decade polishing a turd, when better systems were readily available from the start.

 

[FJAG]

You don't need to get rid of unit history. But there's no reason the role should be so firmly rooted in history. If a former armour unit needs to become a transport unit so be it. We have RCAF squadrons flying transports that used to be bomber squadrons and a helicopter squadron that used to be a fighter squadron.

That can certainly be done. We re-role field artillery to air defence. These are different skill sets. In the past we've re-roled cavalry to machine gun and infantry to anti tank. It can be done.

The thing is though that there are so few army reservists, that it isn't necessary to re-role anyone. IMHO, we are short sigs and logisticians and to an extent gunners. There are enough reserve force sigs regiments - we just need to fill them up. We do need more logistics regiments, but if we fill the ten reserve ones we have we're already a long way there. We could probably use half a dozen to a dozen more but there is no magic in forming those as long as they are given a leadership core to start with. There are enough artillery regiments - we just need to man them to 600 rather than 150. And everyone needs equipment. Armour looks fine as well. We need both tank and cavalry. They just need filing up too.

We don't need 50 ARes infantry battalions. 30 are probably enough for combat roles but the remainder could form training battalions or security force battalions.

The bottom line issue in my view is to create a force structure now that has the ability to grow when needed.

I also think the pride of your branches suffers because your regiments are so big. Each of the infantry regiments need to be broken up so that each of the battalions ends up a regiment in its own right. This way your unit ID becomes like it is in the air force or army and your branch affiliation becomes more important. Just like it it for most of the CAF.

The only place that I see that as an issue is in the three regular force infantry battalions and I agree entirely. These three form a power block in the army that has in the past had too much influence in force structure. Artillery is a regiment of regiments. Engineers is a corps of engineers - its somewhat the same issue but then again not so much because they are much smaller entities than the infantry.

But yeah. I'm all for reducing the RCR, PPCLI and R22eR to one battalion each.

 

[Underway]

If the RFI sends the wrong message, people with good kit might just ignore it because they feel it's a biased game they can't win anyway.

RFI (Request for Information) isn't a bid, industry submits their feedback. Things like "this is actually impossible" or "we can meet the requirements in a different way". Plenty of times the RFI get re-released because the ask was too much or ignorant of current availability. Or it was biased towards a single bidder and they still want a bid process. They use that information from industry to craft a better RFP, create a list of prequalified bidders, make a wider bid process, or go sole source.

Unless the LAV 10x10 with RCH turret turns out to be like the MGS, and is utterly unsuitable for service... Then we have wasted the better part of decade polishing a turd, when better systems were readily available from the start.

Switzerland is already doing the 10x10 on a basically the same chassis (Piranha). We will likely have a good idea of the performance before its purchased should we go look at it. There als exists the RCH on the Boxer platform. Which we know works well and it will be in service in at least two NATO nations (UK and Germany). I'm not worried about the system from a "unsuitable for service" perspective. I'm more concerned that its super high tech nature will lead to lower availability rates than is ideal.

 

[suffolkowner]

RFI (Request for Information) isn't a bid, industry submits their feedback. Things like "this is actually impossible" or "we can meet the requirements in a different way". Plenty of times the RFI get re-released because the ask was too much or ignorant of current availability. Or it was biased towards a single bidder and they still want a bid process. They use that information from industry to craft a better RFP, create a list of prequalified bidders, make a wider bid process, or go sole source.

Switzerland is already doing the 10x10 on a basically the same chassis (Piranha). We will likely have a good idea of the performance before its purchased should we go look at it. There als exists the RCH on the Boxer platform. Which we know works well and it will be in service in at least two NATO nations (UK and Germany). I'm not worried about the system from a "unsuitable for service" perspective. I'm more concerned that its super high tech nature will lead to lower availability rates than is ideal.

the Piranha and Boxer are heavier than the LAV though so there is a greater possibility of issues with a LAV 10x10. The Boxer 8x8 has greater weight allowance than the Piranha 10x10. Theres definitely way more risk there

 

[Underway]

the Piranha and Boxer are heavier than the LAV though so there is a greater possibility of issues with a LAV 10x10. The Boxer 8x8 has greater weight allowance than the Piranha 10x10. Theres definitely way more risk there

Piranha 10x10 and LAV 10x10 are basically the same thing, and since no LAV 10x10 has been built yet I'm pretty sure the Piranha will be the baseline design. Like I said though, we'll have a good look at the Piranha and probably know what we are getting into overall.

 

[suffolkowner]

Piranha 10x10 and LAV 10x10 are basically the same thing, and since no LAV 10x10 has been built yet I'm pretty sure the Piranha will be the baseline design. Like I said though, we'll have a good look at the Piranha and probably know what we are getting into overall.

theres a 4.5 tonne GVWR difference

 

[Furniture]

RFI (Request for Information) isn't a bid, industry submits their feedback. Things like "this is actually impossible" or "we can meet the requirements in a different way". Plenty of times the RFI get re-released because the ask was too much or ignorant of current availability. Or it was biased towards a single bidder and they still want a bid process. They use that information from industry to craft a better RFP, create a list of prequalified bidders, make a wider bid process, or go sole source.

I'm aware of what an RFI is, and I am also aware enough to recognize when an RFI is essentially situating the estimate. I also know that the people employed by defense contractors who make more than twice what I do are also aware of these things.

When an RFI is released, indicating the people responsible for the RFP have already made their minds up, the RFI gets ignored.

Switzerland is already doing the 10x10 on a basically the same chassis (Piranha). We will likely have a good idea of the performance before its purchased should we go look at it. There als exists the RCH on the Boxer platform. Which we know works well and it will be in service in at least two NATO nations (UK and Germany). I'm not worried about the system from a "unsuitable for service" perspective. I'm more concerned that its super high tech nature will lead to lower availability rates than is ideal.

Switzerland hasn't built or used any of them... So It's a bit disingenuous to claim that Swiss service is proof of concept. The USA had MGS long before the CAF planned to buy them, and then magically the CAF and US decided they weren't useful.

I'm not against wheeled SPGs, I'm a big fan of Caesar, but if the CAF is playing dumb RFI/RFP games to get the system some people in C Army want, it's bad for all of us. It undermines the RFI/RFP system, and makes all of us look like shills for a particular brand... like the RCAF.

 

[RangerRay]

But yeah. I'm all for reducing the RCR, PPCLI and R22eR to one battalion each.

So bring back RegF Black Watch, Queens Own Rifles, etc? That would be interesting.

 

[Furniture]

So bring back RegF Black Watch, Queens Own Rifles, etc? That would be interesting.

I think Canada needs a Black Watch to keep people in line... A reminder of who we were, and who we are.

A nation of angry people blowing on the inflated innards of helpless animals to create the most magical sounds imaginable.

 

[FJAG]

So bring back RegF Black Watch, Queens Own Rifles, etc? That would be interesting.

I know this is heretical, but my view is that three airborne battalions is all the regular force infantry that Canada needs. I would assign all three of those battalions as part of the defence of Canada division. Beyond that I think that the remaining 18 regular force companies should be part of 18 existing hybrid 30/70 battalions that are based on reserve units. 8 of these mechanized battalions I would assign to two expeditionary divisions responsible for Latvia rotations and the deployment of one full two-brigade division to Latvia and the second one as sustainment. The remaining ten battalions would be part of two defence-of-Canada anti-access/area denial brigades and two multi-purpose wheeled mech brigades. I would have another two to six 10/90 reserve force battalions.

So, in total 3 x 90/100 regular force battalions; 18 x 30/70 reserve battalions each with one regular force company; and two to six 10/90 battalions - in total 23 to 27 full-strength infantry battalions grouped in four divisions and using just the personnel authorized to the army as it is today.

 

[FJAG]

To get this back on track for artillery, no artillery unit would be full regular force.

In this lay-down, 1 Div is the defence of the homeland division. 2 Inf Bde is the regular force quick reaction airborne brigade, while 39 and 36 Inf Bdes are anti-access/area denial brigades. Every fires brigade has a Pan domain Regiment which provide an amalgamation of artillery command and control, military intelligence, influence activity, cyber and space warfare, and electronic warfare. Its purpose is to access intelligence and information across all domains and respond with appropriate cross-domain lethal or non lethal effects. It has a headquarters and signals battery with an STA/military intelligence coordination/targeting centre which links with the division’s and above sensor and lethal and non lethal effector resources; a medium range radar (MRR) battery; two electronic warfare squadrons; a cyber and space warfare squadron; and a UAV and long range loitering munitions launch battery.

1 RCHA has one regular force (airborne capable) high readiness field battery and two army reserve tiered-readiness batteries. Each battery is equipped with 6 X 155mm M777 howitzers (18 total) and 2 X HIMARS precision rocket launchers (6 total) on an arms locker basis. The regular force battery is the primary battery to support 1 IB (Abn) on Arctic operations and will be capable of fielding all six of the regiment’s HIMARS launchers if required.

Each coastal A2/AD brigade is assigned a HIMARS battery and a air defence regiment.



2 and 3 divs are identical as the army's expeditionary formations. Each fires brigade has a pan domain regiment, two SP regiments, a HIMARS regiment and an air defence regiment. The SP and HIMARS regiments have three fires units each and an STA battery which, amongst other things has medium and long range loitering munitions launchers respectively.





4 Div is the army's general support division with a small fires complement of another pan domain regiment, an SP regiment and and another HIMARS and air defence regiment.



As to overall numbers, the force totals 20,050 regulars and 33,070 reservists.

There are a grand total of 5 regiments of SPs (for 90 guns), 12 HIMARS batteries (72 launchers), 4 air defence regiments (12 batteries) and an assortment of medium and long range loitering munitions troops.

 

[PrairieFella]

To get this back on track for artillery, no artillery unit would be full regular force.

In this lay-down, 1 Div is the defence of the homeland division. 2 Inf Bde is the regular force quick reaction airborne brigade, while 39 and 36 Inf Bdes are anti-access/area denial brigades. Every fires brigade has a Pan domain Regiment which provide an amalgamation of artillery command and control, military intelligence, influence activity, cyber and space warfare, and electronic warfare. Its purpose is to access intelligence and information across all domains and respond with appropriate cross-domain lethal or non lethal effects. It has a headquarters and signals battery with an STA/military intelligence coordination/targeting centre which links with the division’s and above sensor and lethal and non lethal effector resources; a medium range radar (MRR) battery; two electronic warfare squadrons; a cyber and space warfare squadron; and a UAV and long range loitering munitions launch battery.

1 RCHA has one regular force (airborne capable) high readiness field battery and two army reserve tiered-readiness batteries. Each battery is equipped with 6 X 155mm M777 howitzers (18 total) and 2 X HIMARS precision rocket launchers (6 total) on an arms locker basis. The regular force battery is the primary battery to support 1 IB (Abn) on Arctic operations and will be capable of fielding all six of the regiment’s HIMARS launchers if required.

Each coastal A2/AD brigade is assigned a HIMARS battery and a air defence regiment.

View attachment 98361

2 and 3 divs are identical as the army's expeditionary formations. Each fires brigade has a pan domain regiment, two SP regiments, a HIMARS regiment and an air defence regiment. The SP and HIMARS regiments have three fires units each and an STA battery which, amongst other things has medium and long range loitering munitions launchers respectively.

View attachment 98362

View attachment 98363

4 Div is the army's general support division with a small fires complement of another pan domain regiment, an SP regiment and and another HIMARS and air defence regiment.

View attachment 98364

As to overall numbers, the force totals 20,050 regulars and 33,070 reservists.

There are a grand total of 5 regiments of SPs (for 90 guns), 12 HIMARS batteries (72 launchers), 4 air defence regiments (12 batteries) and an assortment of medium and long range loitering munitions troops.

I always like to imagine what your constructs look like and on paper they seem legit - my question is what do you see the infrastructure needs looking like? Using extant armouries? Building modern instead? The infrastructure costs alone would be in the billions for this I would think, nevermind the kitting out of these new troops. Doesnt mean we shouldnt do it though.

 

[FJAG]

I always like to imagine what your constructs look like and on paper they seem legit - my question is what do you see the infrastructure needs looking like? Using extant armouries? Building modern instead? The infrastructure costs alone would be in the billions for this I would think, nevermind the kitting out of these new troops. Doesnt mean we shouldnt do it though.

I haven't gone to anything as detailed as armouries etc. I do see a basic change in infrastructure as follows:

For training, I use the existing infrastructure with one exception. In my mind there is a new Canadian Army Individual Training Group which has several regional depot battalions each of which has subordinate and local depot companies. Their role is to do both recruiting of regular and reserve individuals and run them through all DP1 NCM training before turning them over to battalions. After that they also run DP2 NCM training. All officer training and NCM DP3 training is done by CTC or the other agencies as appropriate.



For logistics, all divisional div support groups are withdrawn from the divisions and concentrated under one Canadian Army Support group which is subdivided into regional support groups which are further subdivided into local regional support battalions (with a further subdivision into regional support companies where appropriate. While the four divisions are all deployable, manoeuvrable entities, the RSGs are fixed installations that provide support for all units within their geographic boundaries regardless of what field division they belong to. In effect they provide administrative, logistics and maintenance support leaving the divisions free to train and deploy as needed.



One comment on the formation of 30/70 battalions as I see them. First, a 30/70 battalion is formed by splitting a regular force battalion into three parts and forming three 30/70 battalions with the addition of companies and platoons from two or three reserve battalions like this.

There is a purpose in each of the reserve companies retaining their original unit identification in that it facilitates the expansion of the force for national mobilization. In effect, if mobilization is ordered, a single 30/70 battalion can form the core of a full brigade through the addition of new recruits and the reallocation of the 30/70 battalions regular force and reserve force cores, like this.



IMHO, this is the single, fastest way to expand units into larger formations. It works equally well for artillery, armour, engineer or logistics units. It provides an initial pool of equipment to train with but, of course, requires the addition of further equipment to equip the full force.

 

[FJAG]

. . . - my question is what do you see the infrastructure needs looking like? Using extant armouries? Building modern instead? The infrastructure costs alone would be in the billions for this I would think, nevermind the kitting out of these new troops. Doesnt mean we shouldnt do it though.

Just further to the above. Armouries ranges etc all come under the regional support battalions. Some of the amalgamated 30/70 units would operate out of their existing armouries while others would need different facilities to cater to the equipment they get (I envision every unit at full strength and full equipment). There would need to be appropriate housing for regular force troops moved into "urban battalions" with their reserve counterparts. I don't see housing as a problem. Condo-like structures can be built using either federal loans paid off by rents. This should be entirely self sustaining if regulations are adapted to make it possible.

The regular force kit is also basically a zero sum game for the most part because much of it is there already - effectively 1/3 of the force is basically equipped while the other 2/3 needs major equipping.

There's no two ways around it though. If you want a larger more capable army then you have to pay for the equipment and the training needed to turn them into competent individuals. We need to stop fooling ourselves with the concept that we can create an army that can last on the battlefield on a shoestring basis. It would cost billions but it seems the government is prepared to spend money. It behooves the army to present a sound plan to build to. I don't see that plan in Inflection Point 2025. What I see is the usual economy of effort bullshit that's gone on for a half century.