Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,435
- Points
- 1,260
I think you have that be a coat of two colors.
Rick's Napkin Forces Challenge
I think you have that be a coat of two colors.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,872
- Points
- 1,160
A. With the Napkin Force design under your criteria I gave:
1) the Light/Airborne Regiment (which is the only manoeuvre unit that I have) a battalion of artillery which has as its principle weapon 12 x Archer 155 mm for general purpose operations* and a weapon room switch to 16 x 120 mm portable mortars for use on airmobile/airborne operations.
2) In addition there is a general support regiment as part of the Army which has a battalion of 36 SHORAD systems and a battalion of 36 armed UAV or rocket launched loitering munitions systems, and
3) not quite artillery but the RCAF would have one squadron of 25 CH146 attack helicopters (until they finally buy AH64s), two squadrons of 30 F18s (until they buy F35s. I make my squadrons bigger than they are today) and a mixed squadron of 4 x RQ-4 and 6 x MQ-9A
* More likely is that we keep the M777, however, an Archer system saves on manpower in the constrained manning system that we have.
B. If, on the other hand, I was designing a system for Canada's Army of today's size I would choose the following:
1) a gun regiment of 18 x XM1299 155 mm self propelled howitzers* for each of one armoured BCT and for one mechanized BCT (I'm starting to go with BCT for any new brigade sized formations I design for commonality with the US and UK);
2) a gun regiment of 18 x the existing M777s for one light BCT (all excess guns go to the reserves);
3) one deep strike general support regiment with 2 x HIMARS batteries (six launchers each) and 2 x UAV and/or rocket launched loitering munitions batteries (36 launchers each);
4) one regiment of air defence systems** including 2 batteries of the M-SHORAD and 2 batteries of something with directed energy (or possibly 4 batteries of mixed systems of probably 18 x systems each); and
5) I would give the RCAF the same configuration as in the Napkin Force at A 3) above.
* I would probably go with a fully developed US XM1299 when it comes on stream with an autoloader and its characteristics become known. The US will produce them in large numbers and will continue to product improve them for a long life cycle. (and hell, considering our pace of procurement, the XM1277 will be in its A3 version by the time we get them) I would use it for both the ABCT and the MBCT to keep things to one product line for maintenance. Currently an M109A7 comes in at under 30 tons while an Archer comes in at 30 tons (as do LAV 6.0s give or take based on configuration) so there isn't a limiting difference when it comes to rear area mobility or air transportability (dimensions and loadability into C-17 might be an issue - the weight is fine but the new barrel length etc might be an issue - I presume that is being worked into the design specs).
Note as well that I would buy some extra XM1299 s for the reserves not so much as "training guns" but as battle loss spares. All artillery regiments would be manned as 30/70 to 40/60 total force regiments with the HQ battery, one gun battery and the OP battery being predominantly regular force, and two gun batteries and the STA battery being 100% reserve force. Similar for HIMARS, UAV/loitering, and AD but probably closer to 30/70. Therefore all Res F artillery units already have a total force role and are equipped.
** I would contemplate putting the four AD batteries under the GS regiment (rather than a separate AD regiment) as I expect on operations the entire AD regiment would never deploy. So long as there is or are sufficient C2 elements available within the GS Regiment that can be tailored to provide coordination of fire support, air support, STA support etc for two deployed operations simultaneously, then there is no need for both an AD and GS regimental HQ. My expectation is that in routine day-to-day operations we would employ the AD and GS resources probably in troop or battery(-) strength in support of independent battle groups and therefore GS command and coordination cells should be scalable from BG to BCT to above BCT.
If I were king.
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,416
- Points
- 1,010
Sorry but need it explained to me like I am simple (I am)
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,416
- Points
- 1,010
XM1299 is a discontinued project, no? FCS manned ground systems?A. With the Napkin Force design under your criteria I gave:
1) the Light/Airborne Regiment (which is the only manoeuvre unit that I have) a battalion of artillery which has as its principle weapon 12 x Archer 155 mm for general purpose operations* and a weapon room switch to 16 x 120 mm portable mortars for use on airmobile/airborne operations.
2) In addition there is a general support regiment as part of the Army which has a battalion of 36 SHORAD systems and a battalion of 36 armed UAV or rocket launched loitering munitions systems, and
3) not quite artillery but the RCAF would have one squadron of 25 CH146 attack helicopters (until they finally buy AH64s), two squadrons of 30 F18s (until they buy F35s. I make my squadrons bigger than they are today) and a mixed squadron of 4 x RQ-4 and 6 x MQ-9A
* More likely is that we keep the M777, however, an Archer system saves on manpower in the constrained manning system that we have.
B. If, on the other hand, I was designing a system for Canada's Army of today's size I would choose the following:
1) a gun regiment of 18 x XM1299 155 mm self propelled howitzers* for each of one armoured BCT and for one mechanized BCT (I'm starting to go with BCT for any new brigade sized formations I design for commonality with the US and UK);
2) a gun regiment of 18 x the existing M777s for one light BCT (all excess guns go to the reserves);
3) one deep strike general support regiment with 2 x HIMARS batteries (six launchers each) and 2 x UAV and/or rocket launched loitering munitions batteries (36 launchers each);
4) one regiment of air defence systems** including 2 batteries of the M-SHORAD and 2 batteries of something with directed energy (or possibly 4 batteries of mixed systems of probably 18 x systems each); and
5) I would give the RCAF the same configuration as in the Napkin Force at A 3) above.
* I would probably go with a fully developed US XM1299 when it comes on stream with an autoloader and its characteristics become known. The US will produce them in large numbers and will continue to product improve them for a long life cycle. (and hell, considering our pace of procurement, the XM1277 will be in its A3 version by the time we get them) I would use it for both the ABCT and the MBCT to keep things to one product line for maintenance. Currently an M109A7 comes in at under 30 tons while an Archer comes in at 30 tons (as do LAV 6.0s give or take based on configuration) so there isn't a limiting difference when it comes to rear area mobility or air transportability (dimensions and loadability into C-17 might be an issue - the weight is fine but the new barrel length etc might be an issue - I presume that is being worked into the design specs).
Note as well that I would buy some extra XM1299 s for the reserves not so much as "training guns" but as battle loss spares. All artillery regiments would be manned as 30/70 to 40/60 total force regiments with the HQ battery, one gun battery and the OP battery being predominantly regular force, and two gun batteries and the STA battery being 100% reserve force. Similar for HIMARS, UAV/loitering, and AD but probably closer to 30/70. Therefore all Res F artillery units already have a total force role and are equipped.
** I would contemplate putting the four AD batteries under the GS regiment (rather than a separate AD regiment) as I expect on operations the entire AD regiment would never deploy. So long as there is or are sufficient C2 elements available within the GS Regiment that can be tailored to provide coordination of fire support, air support, STA support etc for two deployed operations simultaneously, then there is no need for both an AD and GS regimental HQ. My expectation is that in routine day-to-day operations we would employ the AD and GS resources probably in troop or battery(-) strength in support of independent battle groups and therefore GS command and coordination cells should be scalable from BG to BCT to above BCT.
If I were king.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,872
- Points
- 1,160
No. It's a very active project. It's the cornerstone of the Extended Range Cannon Artillery Program (ERCA)
M1299 howitzer - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The FCS MGV was a different project. There was an XM 1203 Non-line Of Sight (LOS) artillery version as part of that before the thing was binned.
Future Combat Systems Manned Ground Vehicles - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 22,065
- Points
- 1,260
I would vastly expand Mountain Ops - partially because everyone should be outdoors enjoying the fresh air, for the most part Mountain Op's are fairly cheap - sure you need some equipment - and while ropes need to be viewed as expendables (good ropes) most of the other equipment will last a while.
I would say that my two most enjoyable times in the Military where Mountain related. You can combine fitness with technical instruction - and I would work the RCAF into Mountain training as well - not just in a support role - but also getting the aircrews up to speed on working in the mountains on the ground - from a survival aspect.
Also focusing on the difference between Mountain Operations in Summer and Winter - and getting winter mountain gear that works for wet cold - not the dry cold of the high arctic.
Telemark Skiing with Ski-March boots, and skins for the ski's. I'm long stale on what the CAF does - but I know the 80's-2000's gear was woefully inadequate outside the SOF side, seeing the USMC Mountain School, and getting to TeleMark and use SkiMarch boots was an eyeopener - then seeing other Patricias trying to use the BangyBoards in MukLuk's while we where whipping around was pretty brutal.
It was like looking at Biathlon - when we used to run two different teams (- the Mil Team on BangyBoards and C7's - and the Comp using city gear and .22's) the differences where that stark.
Plus Mountain Training can dovetail into Urban Climbing - which is pretty useful in its own right.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,882
- Points
- 1,210
All depends on what you want to do. Are you concerned only with TW? Then smaller aircraft, drones and coastal patrol boats (lots of them) will do. If you want control of the EEZ then you'll want larger aircraft, drones (time on station) and better sea keeping patrol craft. Shipborne helicopters will be a nice to have, but maybe using it as a lily pad only will have to do (is there any cost savings not having a hanger?). Finally if you want to do expeditionary operations then the FFH/DDH/AOR/MPA and SS(K or N) combo will be required if you want to have some influence.
- Reaction score
- 22,065
- Points
- 1,260
I know TW means Territorial Waters - is EEZ Economic Exclusion Zone? (I would assume yes - but you know that they say about assumptions..)
- Reaction score
- 18,927
- Points
- 1,280
Yes.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
Merry Christmas.....Bump!
When we were discussing GBAD systems I ended up generating a map something like this. This one has been modified to include all National Airports, CPA shipping ports and all Northern bases and Forward Operating Locations. Conveniently that results in 48 sites to be defended. As noted elsewhere this equates to 90 to 95% of the population while only having to defend 1% of the land mass.
48 sites, if we defined a minimum response capability of 1 launcher per site then that would equate to a requirement of 6 batteries of 8 dispersed launchers.
This would not be an adequate defence against a dedicated mass strike. It would, however, protect the population from the occasional harassing drone strike. A protection level that is currently absent.
Conveniently most of the southern sites are co-located with RCA reserve units (the white pins below)
The occasional use but the need for permanent readiness and the adjacency to population centers and existing reserve units suggests to me an obvious RCA Reserve tasking as GBAD in support of SSE as well as NORAD and US NORTHCOM objectives.
This is the British Sky Sabre CAMM system - Two trucks per site - 8 ready to launch missiles with 40 km range.
When we were discussing GBAD systems I ended up generating a map something like this. This one has been modified to include all National Airports, CPA shipping ports and all Northern bases and Forward Operating Locations. Conveniently that results in 48 sites to be defended. As noted elsewhere this equates to 90 to 95% of the population while only having to defend 1% of the land mass.
48 sites, if we defined a minimum response capability of 1 launcher per site then that would equate to a requirement of 6 batteries of 8 dispersed launchers.
This would not be an adequate defence against a dedicated mass strike. It would, however, protect the population from the occasional harassing drone strike. A protection level that is currently absent.
Conveniently most of the southern sites are co-located with RCA reserve units (the white pins below)
The occasional use but the need for permanent readiness and the adjacency to population centers and existing reserve units suggests to me an obvious RCA Reserve tasking as GBAD in support of SSE as well as NORAD and US NORTHCOM objectives.
This is the British Sky Sabre CAMM system - Two trucks per site - 8 ready to launch missiles with 40 km range.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
There is another way I see the RCA contributing to Canada's National Defence Posture is through the Long Range Precision Fires System. This has evolved much since the days of the MLRS M270 scattering hundreds of submunitions 30 km behind the enemy front lines.
The current versions see a HIMARS truck launching 6 packs of missiles 60 (GMRLS) to 150 (GMRLS-ER) km to precision engagements or pairs of PrSM missiles to precision targets 500 km away.
Which got me to thinking again. What would Blandford Strange have made of his artillery if he had had LRPFs?
Assuming the major British citadels of 1871 (Esquimalt, Fort Henry, Quebec, Halifax and St John's), the year they pulled out, then coverage would have looked like this:
The ports are well defended, the St Lawrence is blocked, the Americans are threatened as far as Philadelphia, New York and Boston, the Gulf of St Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Georges Banks and the Grand Banks are clearly under Canadian influence as is the Continental Shelf. Coastal Artillery reaches 500 km out to sea.
That effect is generated with a single 6 launcher battery for the whole of the country.
Now suppose we apply the LRPFS to the Arctic:
Little doubt about control of the North West Passage, the Labrador Shelf or, Hans Island.
Another battery of 8 Launchers for minimum influence.
Then, just for scaling purposes, another battery of 6 launchers on the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies blocking every highway between the east and west and supplying supporting fires all the way out to Hope.
Put the three maps together and you have a total of 19 to 20 HIMARS trucks exerting an outsize influence within our own borders.
Some may argue that more launchers and missiles are required. I won't disagree. I would just suggest that so long as one launcher remains at each station no enemy can act with impunity. They have to pause and think.
The current versions see a HIMARS truck launching 6 packs of missiles 60 (GMRLS) to 150 (GMRLS-ER) km to precision engagements or pairs of PrSM missiles to precision targets 500 km away.
Which got me to thinking again. What would Blandford Strange have made of his artillery if he had had LRPFs?
Assuming the major British citadels of 1871 (Esquimalt, Fort Henry, Quebec, Halifax and St John's), the year they pulled out, then coverage would have looked like this:
The ports are well defended, the St Lawrence is blocked, the Americans are threatened as far as Philadelphia, New York and Boston, the Gulf of St Lawrence, the Bay of Fundy, Georges Banks and the Grand Banks are clearly under Canadian influence as is the Continental Shelf. Coastal Artillery reaches 500 km out to sea.
That effect is generated with a single 6 launcher battery for the whole of the country.
Now suppose we apply the LRPFS to the Arctic:
Little doubt about control of the North West Passage, the Labrador Shelf or, Hans Island.
Another battery of 8 Launchers for minimum influence.
Then, just for scaling purposes, another battery of 6 launchers on the Eastern Slopes of the Rockies blocking every highway between the east and west and supplying supporting fires all the way out to Hope.
Put the three maps together and you have a total of 19 to 20 HIMARS trucks exerting an outsize influence within our own borders.
Some may argue that more launchers and missiles are required. I won't disagree. I would just suggest that so long as one launcher remains at each station no enemy can act with impunity. They have to pause and think.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
So if a few HIMARS trucks can cause enemies to pause and think domestically what influence could they exert internationally?
The West Indies are our home turf. We work with Jamaica and have garrisoned Bermuda.
NATO?
We have garrisoned Iceland. We are allies of the Brits and could assist in the defence of the Northern Approaches passing the Shetlands, or add weight to Gibraltar or Larnaca.
Adding HIMARS LRPFs to ePF-Latvia would also be a strong political symbol.
Africa? Rwanda.
Taiwan?
The West Indies are our home turf. We work with Jamaica and have garrisoned Bermuda.
NATO?
We have garrisoned Iceland. We are allies of the Brits and could assist in the defence of the Northern Approaches passing the Shetlands, or add weight to Gibraltar or Larnaca.
Adding HIMARS LRPFs to ePF-Latvia would also be a strong political symbol.
Africa? Rwanda.
Taiwan?
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
The first day of training I had with the SMG I was told this is the replacementToo bad there wasn't a weapon that fired pistol ammo but could be handled like a rifle.
View attachment 67272
And that its was very inaccurate as the troops using it never hit anything. But it could be a training problem. Well in the end we never did get it. Or the white body armour.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
LOL folding the stock was the very first thing the instructors did and showed us!
I shit you not. And then told us about the new combat uniforms coming (white)
Could have been in an old Armoury on Ouellette in 198*? .....I'm not telling.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,400
- Points
- 1,160
LOL folding the stock was the very first thing the instructors did and showed us!
And then told us about the new combat uniforms coming (white)
Could have been in an old Armoury on Ouellette in 198*? .....I'm not telling.
Since we're on the subject of SMGs....
The U.S. Army Selects New Submachine Gun
The Swiss-made Brugger and Thomet APC9K is the Army’s first official subgun since World War II.The U.S. Army has officially selected the Brugger and Thomet APC9K to outfit its Personal Security Details.
The APC9K is the first new submachine gun for the U.S. Army since the M3 “Greasegun” of World War II. The service will buy 350 of the compact automatic weapons for $2.5 million, with an option to buy 1,000 more. The B&T APC9K beat out guns from more than ten other companies, including Colt and Heckler and Koch, as well as guns based on the M-16 and MP-5 weapons platforms.
The APC9K is an entirely new submachine gun developed in conjunction with and for EKO Cobra, Austria’s counterterrorism unit. The gun uses a closed-bolt blowback system, has a maximum rate of fire of 1,080 rounds per minute, and weighs just 5.9 pounds with 30-round magazine, foregrip, and Aimpoint micro red dot aiming sight. It’s chambered in 9-millimeter Parabellum and comes standard with two 30-round translucent magazines.
The U.S. Army Just Chose Its First New Submachine Gun Since WWII
The Swiss-made Brugger and Thomet APC9K is the Army’s first official subgun since World War II.
www.popularmechanics.com
FormerHorseGuard
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 437
- Points
- 760
I would not change anything, because it would be a waste of time, unless this new party came in with a very strong mandate and could hold power for at least 2 full terms, nothing would happen.
First term would 2 of the 5 years to write the white paper, the next 2 years would eat up the time to put into action with funding, golden parachutes for those who want to leave before the big changes comes on the civilian side of the table. At the same time there would be the great influx of retirements of soldiers who no longer had commands or jobs, after reading the white paper. It would take 1 to 3 years to close any unneeded bases ( Toronto was a base on the Friday but slated for closure the next week, took 3 years to close it, only to keep part of it open).
Then a general election is called, other parties would bring the record of bases closing, troops being down sized and how this is bad for Canada and how it is bad for the tax payer. If the party won the election and could continue the plan to down size and de militarize the army, then the actual plan would start coming in and by the time the plan was at phase 1 , there would be another election and new government because it is the new reality our governments do not go much beyond 2 terms.
Then the new government plans comes into being and re do the whole show over
First term would 2 of the 5 years to write the white paper, the next 2 years would eat up the time to put into action with funding, golden parachutes for those who want to leave before the big changes comes on the civilian side of the table. At the same time there would be the great influx of retirements of soldiers who no longer had commands or jobs, after reading the white paper. It would take 1 to 3 years to close any unneeded bases ( Toronto was a base on the Friday but slated for closure the next week, took 3 years to close it, only to keep part of it open).
Then a general election is called, other parties would bring the record of bases closing, troops being down sized and how this is bad for Canada and how it is bad for the tax payer. If the party won the election and could continue the plan to down size and de militarize the army, then the actual plan would start coming in and by the time the plan was at phase 1 , there would be another election and new government because it is the new reality our governments do not go much beyond 2 terms.
Then the new government plans comes into being and re do the whole show over
Similar threads
