• 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

Petard said:
FWIW I think the RCA is going to end up getting GDLS’ Grizzly, primarily because of IRB; cynically, I believe operational requirements remain only a consideration

In other news, because the C3 is truly no longer sustainable, and the RCA personnel situation is so strained while undergoing major restructuring, the CA is abandoning the Op Palaci task

The challenge of Rogers Pass is that avalanche producing weather systems can persist for some time, plus the area of interest is quite large as well. The economic impact of closing the pass is such that snow clearing operations can and do occur during blizzard like conditions

This is why trying to solve the problem with UAS is not any more practical than using explosive charges thrown from helicopters; snow clearing operations can happen during times that preclude flying anything. Parks Canada has begun installing some alternative methods of triggering avalanches, such as explosive charge launching towers and gas ignition, in other avalanche risk areas, including east of Revelstoke in the approaches to Rogers Pass. The systems would be very expensive to emplace in order to provide sufficient coverage along the Pass’ length. Once again, those avalanche conditions could persist longer than the systems’ capacity to respond to it. Situations can also occur when some adjustment of the detonation location is also needed, a capability which those alternatives lack. Assuming Parks Canada wanted to go with some alternative(s) to using RCA guns, it doesn’t sound to me like they’ll have it in place for next year

In my view, this withdrawal by the CA is premature. The task could be met using LG1’s and Class B reservists, as an interim solution. Although the LG1 has its own problems, at least it still has an OEM to solve/support it. Although the gun doesn’t fit the gun rings in the pass, it was not an issue when the LG1 was temporarily used for the Op Palaci task in 2011 (the C3 fleet was grounded at the time after one of them snapped in two in Gagetown). Should P Res units eventually get 120 mortars, these, too, could easily do the task (I think 4.2” mortars were once used for the task way back in the day)
Click to expand...
LG1 is still the prominent gun for the RCAS due to the lower cost per round and ability of repair. With all the planned expansion of the RCA the ones that are left will be strained just meeting IT pumping new Arty Os out.
 
MH2022 said:
LG1 is still the prominent gun for the RCAS due to the lower cost per round and ability of repair. With all the planned expansion of the RCA the ones that are left will be strained just meeting IT pumping new Arty Os out.
Click to expand...
RCAS couldn’t spare 2 guns?
 
Petard said:
FWIW I think the RCA is going to end up getting GDLS’ Grizzly, primarily because of IRB; cynically, I believe operational requirements remain only a consideration

In other news, because the C3 is truly no longer sustainable, and the RCA personnel situation is so strained while undergoing major restructuring, the CA is abandoning the Op Palaci task

The challenge of Rogers Pass is that avalanche producing weather systems can persist for some time, plus the area of interest is quite large as well. The economic impact of closing the pass is such that snow clearing operations can and do occur during blizzard like conditions

This is why trying to solve the problem with UAS is not any more practical than using explosive charges thrown from helicopters; snow clearing operations can happen during times that preclude flying anything. Parks Canada has begun installing some alternative methods of triggering avalanches, such as explosive charge launching towers and gas ignition, in other avalanche risk areas, including east of Revelstoke in the approaches to Rogers Pass. The systems would be very expensive to emplace in order to provide sufficient coverage along the Pass’ length. Once again, those avalanche conditions could persist longer than the systems’ capacity to respond to it. Situations can also occur when some adjustment of the detonation location is also needed, a capability which those alternatives lack. Assuming Parks Canada wanted to go with some alternative(s) to using RCA guns, it doesn’t sound to me like they’ll have it in place for next year

In my view, this withdrawal by the CA is premature. The task could be met using LG1’s and Class B reservists, as an interim solution. Although the LG1 has its own problems, at least it still has an OEM to solve/support it. Although the gun doesn’t fit the gun rings in the pass, it was not an issue when the LG1 was temporarily used for the Op Palaci task in 2011 (the C3 fleet was grounded at the time after one of them snapped in two in Gagetown). Should P Res units eventually get 120 mortars, these, too, could easily do the task (I think 4.2” mortars were once used for the task way back in the day)
Click to expand...
I suspect that if we asked SK to refurbish our C3 fleet as part of winning the sub deal, they easily do it. They have some 1200 M101's is storage.
 
Petard said:
FWIW I think the RCA is going to end up getting GDLS’ Grizzly, primarily because of IRB; cynically, I believe operational requirements remain only a consideration

In other news, because the C3 is truly no longer sustainable, and the RCA personnel situation is so strained while undergoing major restructuring, the CA is abandoning the Op Palaci task

The challenge of Rogers Pass is that avalanche producing weather systems can persist for some time, plus the area of interest is quite large as well. The economic impact of closing the pass is such that snow clearing operations can and do occur during blizzard like conditions

This is why trying to solve the problem with UAS is not any more practical than using explosive charges thrown from helicopters; snow clearing operations can happen during times that preclude flying anything. Parks Canada has begun installing some alternative methods of triggering avalanches, such as explosive charge launching towers and gas ignition, in other avalanche risk areas, including east of Revelstoke in the approaches to Rogers Pass. The systems would be very expensive to emplace in order to provide sufficient coverage along the Pass’ length. Once again, those avalanche conditions could persist longer than the systems’ capacity to respond to it. Situations can also occur when some adjustment of the detonation location is also needed, a capability which those alternatives lack. Assuming Parks Canada wanted to go with some alternative(s) to using RCA guns, it doesn’t sound to me like they’ll have it in place for next year

In my view, this withdrawal by the CA is premature. The task could be met using LG1’s and Class B reservists, as an interim solution. Although the LG1 has its own problems, at least it still has an OEM to solve/support it. Although the gun doesn’t fit the gun rings in the pass, it was not an issue when the LG1 was temporarily used for the Op Palaci task in 2011 (the C3 fleet was grounded at the time after one of them snapped in two in Gagetown). Should P Res units eventually get 120 mortars, these, too, could easily do the task (I think 4.2” mortars were once used for the task way back in the day)
Click to expand...
I suspect that the Met effect on Mortars might be less than desirable.
 
GK .Dundas said:
Unless our Leo's are radically different from other people's Leo's . They should be able to do just that .
Click to expand...
They most certainly can. C Sqn RCD tried it out a few years ago and got with 10m of a target 7km away. Its still a bit silly to think of though haha.
 
PrairieFella said:
They most certainly can. C Sqn RCD tried it out a few years ago and got with 10m of a target 7km away. Its still a bit silly to think of though haha.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the Ukrainians and Russians agree. I understand that a lot of their fire support has come from older model tanks firing indirect from well behind the line.
 
MH2022 said:
Not once the C3s are gone. Not to get too deep into it, but it's gonna take near every LG1 to not have every course going out with only 1 or 2 if they want to grow the corps.
Click to expand...
I got chastised for advocating for a "training gun", but here we are....
 
Colin Parkinson said:
I got chastised for advocating for a "training gun", but here we are....
Click to expand...
Probably from me. :giggle:

I'm dead set against them (right down to the 14.5mm one that get trucked out every five years or so for some FOO training.)

They're not as costly as one thinks. For either an RCH or a HIMARS, reservists just needs a driver training chassis (which, if we go LAV 10 x 10 is dead simple [which makes me wonder if we can mate a HIMARS launcher to a 10 x 10 and still fit it in a Herc) and for the firing system it's all computerized anyway and can be done in a classroom with the right hardware and software. That simply leaves practical detachment deployments/resupply and live fire which can be saved up for one or two weekends per year and a summer concentration.

We need to save time in training. Why teach on a piece of kit which they'll never use in combat?

🍻
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top