Honestly the C3 just need to get pulled from service.
Sure keep some for Saluting - but beyond that it is an unsustainable system.
IMHO, it is sustainable at scale for AVCON. My guess, based on the letter from the CDS, is that the arty and army have already decided that it is not and that it would be a distraction. Fair enough. They have a lot on their plate.
While I was sort of tongue in cheek about the Turreted Mortar LAV above - I don't think that the role needs to be necessarily filled by a Howitzer.
A mortar would be impractical unless it has a direct fire capability and even then. Weather - especially high gusting winds - are a big issue here. We fire all the AVCON rounds at charge 7 - not because of range because its usually 2 to 5 kms - but to minimize wind effects. We don't use met just preregistered bearing and elevation to target.
If it it is to be a CA task, then simply resource it.
Everyone I know who did the AVCON really enjoyed it - and there where (okay almost 40 years ago) Reservists looking to go for it as well.
Yup
I think mothballing the M777 is a terrible idea (as I think the LIR needs an Airmobile, Parachute capable Arty Reg't in support for just in case).
I'm the same way. IMHO, 2 RCHA should support the LIR with a composite regiment of a 6-gun (three 2-gun troops) battery of M777s, a battery of HIMARS and an STA battery heavy on UAVs and loitering munitions. Not that anyone listens to me.
Not sure the M777 would be the best option for that role however. To me it probably should be a BC issue and the Province left to figure it out -- If It goes to the CA as an Artillery task - then the CA should get the most bang for the buck out of it -- and use the M777 - but treat it like any other sort of coming into action -- and not be concerned about set firing points - just shoot it like a standard coming into action field setup.
Firing in "fixed mounts" aren't good for the guns - and while it can make it easier - it doesn't help in the grand scheme
That would be a complex solution a problem that a simple gun can do. It would be easier to rent M101s from the Koreans and let them maintain them. (My guess is we still have the older C1 (M101) firing data available for AVCON.
There are 18 gun positions each of which has a concrete ring (for the modified spades to rest in) and a centre point hub for the modified jack on the axle to sit in. This ensures the gun is in the exact same position as when the targets were registered. A major make work program is to keep those routinely cleared of ice. Deploying is very simple but often needs to be done in near white out blizzard conditions where the biggest challenge is seeing you aiming point. The targets are never visible during a storm shoot. Success is measured by the rumble of an avalanche.
The 155 round is simply too expensive for the job (as are the extra three det members) and I'd dread having to do a storm shoot with the M777. The worst one I ever did ran during a blizzard over three days straight without a break having to run back and forth along the series of the 18 gun positions several times including being dragged by a bulldozer over two avalanches. I wouldn't wish having to do that with an M777 on my worst enemy.
Many countries have compressed gas launched systems as well that are a more bespoke system - but fairly cheap and realistically could be fixed position setups in a "Bunker" that the user group just needed to show up with ammo, lay the "gun" and fire.
The trouble as before is the weather and the guarantee of success needed in order to minimize the avalanche threat on a very busy highway and rail line.
Here's a small booklet on the Rogers Pass. I dealt with the Schleiss brother on a daily basis. They were the undisputed experts on avalanche control in North America and while there are many different ways to approach avalanche control, the situation in Rogers Park is quite unique - starting with a 400 inch a year snowfall - and for them the best solution, after much research, that the mobile 105mm solution was the optimal one which balanced the weather, minimizing road closures and increasing safety.
This is one of those bureaucratic solutions made in Ottawa by folks trying to simplify what is really a minor problem by passing the buck to another agency.
