Bunker Busters in the National Post

[Kirkhill]

And this from a purported friend of the military....

Army eyes 'bunker-buster' missiles
'Pretty lethal machines' can punch through concrete
 
Chris Wattie
National Post


October 26, 2004


1 | 2 | NEXT >>





The Canadian army is considering buying hundreds of "bunker-buster" missiles, U.S.-made weapons capable of penetrating concrete walls almost a metre thick to destroy enemy strong points, military officials have confirmed.

The United States has approved the sale of 2,600 anti-tank guided missiles and 400 of the anti-bunker missiles to Canada for up to US$136-million, but the Canadian Forces is still considering whether it can afford the new, high-tech weaponry.

The TOW (short for Tube-Launched, Optically-Tracked, Wire-Guided) missiles, built by Raytheon Co., have a range of about four kilometres and can be launched from special ground platforms or from launchers mounted on vehicles.

The Canadian army is currently modifying a number of its LAV-III light-armoured vehicles to fire TOW missiles from their turrets. The TOW 2B missile is designed to fly into the air and descend on an enemy tank or bunker from above, where the armour or concrete is thinnest.

According to Raytheon, the two-part shaped charge in the missile's warhead can penetrate even the thickest tank armour and can blast through double-reinforced concrete up to 0.6 metres thick.

But Major Chris Lemay, a Canadian army spokesman, said the military has not decided whether or not to buy the new missiles. "This ammunition has not been ordered," he said.

"This was a check of the availability and price ... to see whether or not we could buy them, if it was decided that this was a capability we wanted to acquire."

Maj. Lemay said the army is considering the bunker-buster missiles -- which he called an "anti-structure capability" -- because planners expect many future overseas missions will involve fighting in cities or other built-up areas where every building is a potential strong point from which enemy forces could attack Canadian troops or vehicles.

"We don't have any of these bunker-buster missiles in our current inventory," he said. "Since we're looking more and more at fighting in an urban environment, this is a capability we wanted to look into acquiring."

The army currently uses its Carl Gustav recoilless rifle and the M-72 anti-armour weapon (similar to the Second World War's bazookas) to breach enemy bunkers, "but they don't always have the desired effect," Maj. Lemay said. "We wanted to look at getting a more powerful, purpose-built capability for that role."

However, Colonel Howard Marsh, a former army officer who is now an analyst with the Conference of Defence Associations, said the most crucial question is money.

Although he called the new generation TOW missiles "pretty lethal machines," he questioned whether the cash-strapped Canadian military can afford them.

"They're probably trying to sort out whether they can pay for them, and how," he said. "It's going to be a challenge."

"Right now they've only got about 40 cents on the dollar for capital expenditures, and $136- million is a lot of money."

The Pentagon told the U.S. Congress last week that the sale "will contribute to the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by improving the military capabilities of Canada."

"Canada will use these missiles to increase its military defensive posture and will have no difficulty absorbing these additional missiles into its armed forces," the U.S. military said, adding: "The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not affect the basic military balance in the region."

Maj. Lemay said the TOW anti-armour missiles could be bought by 2008, for use in the LAV-III vehicles modified for the anti- armour role. No decision has yet been made on the bunker-buster missiles, he said.

© National Post 2004

This article, generally well written and cleanly argued was accompanied by a photograph of a B1 bomber standing beside a pile of Very Large Bombs (type unknown to this particular observer - one bomb looks much like another to me) with the caption stating the this was the capability that the CF was looking to acquire.


That led to this letter to the editor

'Smart choices' for our military
 

National Post


October 27, 2004

I hope the Canadian army does not continue to shop around for 400 anti-bunker missiles. What's next? B1 bombers? Unless our military planners foresee Canada mounting a "shock and awe offensive" soon, I submit that our military types should refocus their procurement priorities so as to acquire state-of-the-art air, sea and satellite-based equipment to help ensure proper surveillance of our borders, our ports, our coastal water, and of the Arctic region (the sovereignty of which the United States and Denmark regularly dispute).

Wayne M. House,

Nepean, Ont.

I have written to the Post pointing out their error and the consequences of lousy fact checking.   In this case it wasn't the reporter, Chris Wattie, who was at fault.... a piss-poor job on the part of the photo-editor and the editorial staff it would seem.

Coupled with their editorial on the subs (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/search/story.html?id=e9d7e12a-9566-4fbb-84eb-4c47a84af16c)   they are rapidly falling into the category of "with friends like these........."

 

[pbi]

Good action on your part. Cheers.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

My reply to Mr House is having surveillance equipment is all well and good but what happens if you do have a threat? Does he expect the CF to basically and politely ask the agressor to "Stop or I will ask you to stop again"?

 

[aesop081]

Lack of public knowledge strikes again.............

 

[Kirkhill]

Insert Quote
My reply to Mr House is having surveillance equipment is all well and good but what happens if you do have a threat? Does he expect the CF to basically and politely ask the agressor to "Stop or I will ask you to stop again"?

"Please sir, would you kindly cease and desist from your current course of action so that we can refer this case the UN Security Council for an interpretation as to whether or not we can take action against you or whether we have to wait for a Blue Beret observer to adjudicate the merits of the case".

"Oh you're a permanent member of the Security Council. Oh I failed to understand.  Please proceed and help yourself to what ever you desire.  Bienvenue chez nous."

Cheers.

 

[Acorn]

"Halt or I'll call my MCpl!"

That was a no sh*t instruction we had when guarding a certain facility overseas, armed with pick-handles (the MCpl had a rifle, C1 with 5 rounds).

Acorn

 

[JBP]

Ohhh for the love of Canada Acorn!

"Halt or I'll call my MCpl!"

That was a no sh*t instruction we had when guarding a certain facility overseas, armed with pick-handles (the MCpl had a rifle, C1 with 5 rounds).

Acorn

I visibly shuddered as your post induced a mental picture in my head of what people joke our Canadian Army is like...

Ahem...

Imagine 50,000 Canadians all roaring and screaming at you, pouring over your border wielding pitch-forks, lumber jack axes and fine Canadian Beer! The beer I'm sure the enemy wouldn't mind...

I just can't believe they'd let U defend a post... With mining tools!

What am I gettin' meself into lads!
???

PS> I imagine you probably didn't need weapons otherwise you would have been issued them....... Or weren't allowed to really use them anyway!

 

[735_winnipeg]

why not just buy half the amount of anti-armour and anti-structure ammo proposed and use the rest of the money to buy more surveillance equipment like UAVs, more personnel at our sea and airports and border checks and better communications equipment for our forces, both regular and reserves.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Considering that there is a shortage of ammo and munitions Forces wide do you actually think buying half what is required would solve anything?
"Sorry we can't destroy that fortification we used our allotment this month"

 

[Guardian]

why not just buy half the amount of anti-armour and anti-structure ammo proposed and use the rest of the money to buy more surveillance equipment like UAVs, more personnel at our sea and airports and border checks and better communications equipment for our forces, both regular and reserves.

This question was already answered:

My reply to Mr House is having surveillance equipment is all well and good but what happens if you do have a threat? Does he expect the CF to basically and politely ask the agressor to "Stop or I will ask you to stop again"?

To elaborate on ex-Dragoon's most recent point:

I haven't fired my rifle live in two years. I have soldiers who haven't done so since basic training. I can't take my troop to the range because of a lack of small-arms ammo - we have to use simulators (which are nice but not adequately realistic). And I'm sure this situation is not unique to me, or to small-arms ammunition.

735_winnipeg, your proposal would probably require the following set of choices, all of them bad when considering the worst-case scenario:

a) Enough ammo for operations but not training. Troops in theatre are not adequately trained on their weapons, and are therefore ineffective. Ineffective troops become dead troops very quickly.

b) Enough ammo for training but not operations. Troops in theatre suffer from ammo shortages, and are therefore ineffective - and quickly become dead.

c) Cut the number of TOW-2 equipped troops by half. This means one of the following scenarios, or variations on these themes. All of them are bad:

              1) Operational deployments with half the anti-armour capability they did before. This may lead to dead troops.

              2) Half of operational deployments with TOW-2, the rest without. Depending on the threat, could be fine - or could lead to dead troops.

              3) Deploy the now-cut-down TOW-2 units twice as often to cope with the demand for operational firepower (the Canadian solution). TOW-2 troops burn out, their families fall apart, and they leave. Army loses its institutional experience and expertise in TOW-2 employment. Army becomes less effective. Leads, again and ultimately, to dead troops.


All the surveillance equipment in the world is useless without the means to act upon it. Remember that the Army has a firepower shortage - the tanks are on the way out, the Artillery is phasing out the 155mm howitzers (at least for now), and the Air Force doesn't have enough CF-18s to provide the bombing support it once could have (we'll be down to about 60 front-line fighters from a high of 122 previously). Cutting TOW-2 numbers poses an unacceptable risk, in my mind. We need all the firepower we can get.

 

[JBP]

So, over the next 10 years or so until things start being replaced in terms of firepower+ammo, we'll have far more "Bark" and barely any "Bite"... Heck, we don't even have any "Bark!" on the world stage either!

We will have a "mobile artillery" of a sort with the 105mm mounted on a vehicle system (Can't remember which it's going on). That will be great to backup the troops in a sticky situation no? At least give some fire support...

 

[Acorn]

The pick-handle was a time-honoured sidearm for soldiers for many years. In any case, this was in the '80s, and the gates of the base in question were secured by Airforce BDF armed with C1s and 20 rounds in two mags (not on the weapon - the mag on the weapon was empty). I certainly felt secure  . Don't get me started about BDF, NDs and "sgt, this weapon is US (Zoomie-speak for NS)?" The empy mag was on and the poor girl has cocked the weapon, and couldn't figure out why the action jammed to the rear.

I like to think things have improved a great deal since the fall of the wall.

Acorn