Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[SeaKingTacco]

I guess having working guns is an issue...

The 105mm might be a problem, as well as generating gun dets for that duty while also converting Reg and Res Arty units to other weapons in that period.

Honestly, Parks Canada has had almost 60 years to figure this out. Almost everywhere else in the world Parks or highways staff do this job.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Honestly, Parks Canada has had almost 60 years to figure this out. Almost everywhere else in the world Parks or highways staff do this job.

And they tried for part of a year in the 90s.
But they used 106RR. We stored their ammo in Wainwright (a few eyebrows were raised when a couple of pallets came arrived a few years after the weapon left service).
Apparently it didn't do the job very well and Canada just fell back on the old system instead of improving the new one.

 

[MilEME09]

The 105mm might be a problem, as well as generating gun dets for that duty while also converting Reg and Res Arty units to other weapons in that period.

Honestly, Parks Canada has had almost 60 years to figure this out. Almost everywhere else in the world Parks or highways staff do this job.

Also a tech issue, they have been trying for years for calgary class A techs to take over maintenance on those C3s. The problem? Every C3 maintenance course the past 8 years has been cancelled, and this year just did too. Currently that course only ran twice since first created, creating only around 8 techs nationally in the class A world.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

And they tried for part of a year in the 90s.
But they used 106RR. We stored their ammo in Wainwright (a few eyebrows were raised when a couple of pallets came arrived a few years after the weapon left service).
Apparently it didn't do the job very well and Canada just fell back on the old system instead of improving the new one.

That is funny.

 

[MilEME09]

And they tried for part of a year in the 90s.
But they used 106RR. We stored their ammo in Wainwright (a few eyebrows were raised when a couple of pallets came arrived a few years after the weapon left service).
Apparently it didn't do the job very well and Canada just fell back on the old system instead of improving the new one.

I look forward to the C3 retiring and a M777 starts being used.......

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll inject an idea here.

Why not grab some drones with the ability to drop HE and use those to deliver the charges?

Happening daily in Ukraine....maybe the CAF could use this as a testing ground.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We could ask Korea to toss in some of their M101's in reserve, which I think they have some 1200 of. I have no doubt they can also supply parts. Using a M777 would require new gun rings and data conversion. On the bright side we get more experience firing them in winter conditions.

If the artillery is struggling to meet this mission, it does not speak well of their abilty to plan and forecast both in regards to personal and equipment.

 

[FJAG]

I did two tours of AVCON as a brand new subbie and there isn't a better job to teach leadership to a young officer then sending them up into the mountains on their own with a gun detachment. It gives you everything - equipment maintenance, personnel problems, maintenance of morale during slack periods, hot and heavy operational firing that can last for days on end and expend hundreds of rounds, dealing with other government departments.

It's also fun and challenging for the troops.

I guess having working guns is an issue...

The 105mm might be a problem, as well as generating gun dets for that duty while also converting Reg and Res Arty units to other weapons in that period.

There are and will be enough guns. Assuming that the 105mm calibre will go out of service as a training gun as planned, then there will be enough serviceable parts available for a long time yet. Ceremonial salute guns need very few replacement parts and can be sources. The AVCON guns have been slightly modified for their role but those mods can be transferred to a replacement gun.

Honestly, Parks Canada has had almost 60 years to figure this out. Almost everywhere else in the world Parks or highways staff do this job.

I don't know what the financial arrangement between Parks Canada and DND are, but a 24/7 on call staff for 26 weeks of the year will be very pricey. Far pricier than an eight-person army detachment.

Also a tech issue, they have been trying for years for calgary class A techs to take over maintenance on those C3s. The problem? Every C3 maintenance course the past 8 years has been cancelled, and this year just did too. Currently that course only ran twice since first created, creating only around 8 techs nationally in the class A world.

That's a very real problem but easily cured if a course is run while the gun is still in general service. 1 CAB will be in Edmonton and is supposed to get a service battalion. Build it into the plan while you can.

I look forward to the C3 retiring and a M777 starts being used.......

The plan is for the M777s to probably go into long-term storage once enough SPs come on line. Based on the way the army usually does these things the skill set for maintaining M777s will deteriorate the same way as it did for the M109s. (I guess we could always contract it out to 10 Mountain in Fort Drum. )

I'll inject an idea here.

Why not grab some drones with the ability to drop HE and use those to deliver the charges?

Happening daily in Ukraine....maybe the CAF could use this as a testing ground.

About half the shoots done up there are "storm shoots" which would make flying drones (or other aircraft) at those elevations nigh unto impossible. There are places where avalanche control is done by dropping dynamite out of helicopters but not where keeping the major east-west highway and railway link through the mountains open. That can be done through quieter periods like the "clean up shoots" done at Rogers once the storms have passed.

My short $0.02. The CAF keeps going on and on about being seen to be relevant to the nation not just in time of war but also to provide certain military skill sets that are of value to the country in peacetime, be it flood control, fire fighting, urban rescue etc. AVCON is probably the prime example of this type of service. For half the year the army helps to keep commerce flowing across the mountains. I've seen avalanches there. If you don't bring them down while small, they will cover the highway or railroad to a point where it could take up to a week of heavy machinery to dig it out. Sure. You could tell Parks to come up with a solution but let's be honest - we can always get Class Bs for this and even a RegF lieutenant and sergeant for half a year. Make it a 2 Div duty tied in with 1 CAB. AVCON is worth the effort and pays dividends when the MND needs another minister's support in cabinet. August of 2027 is too tight of a timeline in any event. This is either a cop out or DND is angling for a better MOU. I fear DND isn't smart enough for the latter - it's just someone trying to shake off a very tiny maintenance and personnel burden.

 

[KevinB]

I have a solution.

Clearly a job for the Infantry.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There should be both course for maintaining and using every gun system we have, even if the majority are in storage. One would think that is the purpose of the "School for Artillery".

 

[FJAG]

There should be both course for maintaining and using every gun system we have, even if the majority are in storage. One would think that is the purpose of the "School for Artillery".

The big word is - priorities. The army is the living embodiment of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. As things drop down on the priority list ever smaller resources are allocated to it. M109s and ADATS are the prime examples of the last quarter century.

The RCAS isn't responsible for life cycle management of the equipment. It merely manages the training of gunners on the equipment. The dirty secret here is that a C3 used simply for saluting requires absolutely minimal maintenance and you can train six folks to run the gun in an afternoon. It's like surgery - see one, do one, teach one.

The problem here is that for AVCON you will now have only one gun and maybe one or two backups that have to be maintained in firing condition and have a crew that can properly do live fire with it - that takes more than an afternoon (but less than a week) - plus you need to keep 105mm ammo in the inventory somewhere. That's a pimple. The army hates "wasting" resources on pimples.

 

[MilEME09]

There should be both course for maintaining and using every gun system we have, even if the majority are in storage. One would think that is the purpose of the "School for Artillery".

Issue is for the C3, until 2015 the regular force maintained it. Then came STARS and the push to have the reserves do more. However this mindset of the reserves train the reserves doesnt work if its a piece of kit that you dont have reserves qualified on. Alas because its the very last mod for a wpns techs DP2, it regularly gets canceled. Thanks to thats, I am 17 years in and still not fully qualified as a tech. Adding up all my time on courses in Borden, ive actually spent more time at the school then a regular force tech, but I am less qualified. Funny how that works.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The big word is - priorities. The army is the living embodiment of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. As things drop down on the priority list ever smaller resources are allocated to it. M109s and ADATS are the prime examples of the last quarter century.

The RCAS isn't responsible for life cycle management of the equipment. It merely manages the training of gunners on the equipment. The dirty secret here is that a C3 used simply for saluting requires absolutely minimal maintenance and you can train six folks to run the gun in an afternoon. It's like surgery - see one, do one, teach one.

The problem here is that for AVCON you will now have only one gun and maybe one or two backups that have to be maintained in firing condition and have a crew that can properly do live fire with it - that takes more than an afternoon (but less than a week) - plus you need to keep 105mm ammo in the inventory somewhere. That's a pimple. The army hates "wasting" resources on pimples.

I will argue that any gun plumber that can maintain a Leopard tank or a M777, can maintain a C3 if the they have the parts, tools and instruction manual. We make things harder than they need to be. I have seen a fully disassembled C2 (Thank you 202 workshop, for leaving machining swaths in the recoil system) It is a bloody simple system. Civilian car mechanics have to face working on vehicles they are unfamiliar with, everyday and they mostly manage to cope.

 

[FJAG]

I will argue that any gun plumber that can maintain a Leopard tank or a M777, can maintain a C3 if the they have the parts, tools and instruction manual. We make things harder than they need to be. I have seen a fully disassembled C2 (Thank you 202 workshop, for leaving machining swaths in the recoil system) It is a bloody simple system. Civilian car mechanics have to face working on vehicles they are unfamiliar with, everyday and they mostly manage to cope.

Parts are an issue since the C3 conversion because of IP complications resulting from the bankruptcy of the Dutch company that did the conversions. This includes the recoil system. You are right - it's a basically simple system and anyone who can do M777s could grasp the skills in a few days. We've also hard some parts manufactured from scratch by RCN workshops. Pimple.

OTOH, I see a bright opportunity here for some former gunner in BC to form a small company to provide AVCON support duties for Parks Canada on an annual basis.

 

[KevinB]

Parts are an issue since the C3 conversion because of IP complications resulting from the bankruptcy of the Dutch company that did the conversions. This includes the recoil system. You are right - it's a basically simple system and anyone who can do M777s could grasp the skills in a few days. We've also hard some parts manufactured from scratch by RCN workshops. Pimple.

Honestly the C3 just need to get pulled from service.
Sure keep some for Saluting - but beyond that it is an unsustainable system.

OTOH, I see a bright opportunity here for some former gunner in BC to form a small company to provide AVCON support duties for Parks Canada on an annual basis.

Honestly the question needs to be determined if it is a CA (RRCA) task or not.
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.

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.

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).
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

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.

 

[FJAG]

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.

Edited to add: Incidentally while the TCH is not technically a federal highway and is maintained by the province of BC, the railroad is under federal jurisdiction as is Glacier National Park which contains Roger's Pass. It's not simply a BC issue.

 

[KevinB]

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.

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.

Yup

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.

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.

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.

Edited to add: Incidentally while the TCH is not technically a federal highway and is maintained by the province of BC, the railroad is under federal jurisdiction as is Glacier National Park which contains Roger's Pass. It's not simply a BC issue.

Okay K9 it is.

My concern about the M101, is that then some good idea fairy decides that they are good for the PRes and then…


If 155 is too expensive, then my solution is to get 36 M119, make a Mountain Artillery Regiment, replace the firing positions with a ‘hangar’ that allows the M119 to be moved in position indoors with a rollup door on the firing side as well as the entry side.

 

[Underway]

G&M is saying it may go beyond K9's. We're already getting HIMARS so Chunmoo's can probably be ruled out , but Redbacks may be in play.

Post in thread 'Replacing the Subs'

Wednesday at 13:04

Damn, skillful arm twist by the government on this one. Hanwha has sweetened the pot with a commitment to armoured vehicle manufacturing in Canada if they get the sub contract.

South Korea sweetens submarine bid, will manufacture armoured vehicles in Canada if chosen

Under pressure to increase economic benefits to Canadians, South Korea’s Hanwha is committing to manufacturing armoured battle vehicles in Canada if it’s awarded the lucrative contract to build the Royal Canadian Navy’s next fleet of submarines.

www.ctvnews.ca

Now say ‘yes!’ and sign the bloody thing!

According to G&M it could be more than just K9's. Still waiting to see what was said at the presser earlier this morning.

The company is expected to promise this venture would sustain tens of thousands of automotive sector...

• HavokFour

• 

The factory they are proposing is designed to be flexible, so you can switch between platforms. Kinda like car manufacturing where they use the same equipment but swap out some of the tooling and reorganize the process for a new model.

Also the factory is for building foreign sales (Poland, Finland, Estonia), but it does position Hanwha very well to bid on the future MEDCAV and the current IDFM programs. And it provides some nice competition for GDLS.

As far as Chunmoo's there is some rumouring going on about a high/low mix of rocket artillery. Probably the same people that are talking about a split Submarine fleet. However Poland is doing it, so there might be some value in that approach, though whether that value is worth it to Canada or not I have no idea.