C3 Howitzer Replacement

[FJAG]

4 (General Support) Regiment becomes the SMEs in the FDCs and they generate GBAD/LRPF/Coastal Defence capabilities.
I would also suggest that the FDC become the central organizing principle for each Reserve Battery and the Naval Reserve Divisions.

Sensors and effectors tailored to suit.

That leaves the Horse Artillery to focus on manoeuver support with the CMBGs.

Just a little side rant while I'm here.

Calling the RegF artillery "Horse Artillery" is elitist bull. And I say that as a former member of both 2 and 3 RCHA.

If I were king of the world, 1 RCHA would remain as the sole "light" regiment to serve with a "light" brigade with M777s. Everyone else becomes RCA/ARC. While we're on it, the "L" in 5 RALC stands for "legere/light" They were light in the 1970s with the L5. In the 80s and 90s they had M109's - anything but "light". If they are going to be supporting a mech bde they needs something different than M777s - so they become 5 ARC.

If we get 2 x GBAD batteries and whatever will be the VLLAD stuff, then 4 Regt (GS) should once again become 4 AD. That leaves the numbers 2 and 3 but there are already a 2 and 3 RCA in Montreal and St John respectively (as is 5 (BC) RCA - but that's a joke. They were never anything more than a battery with an overinflated sense of self-importance and a deep desire not to becomes a part of 15 Fd in Vancouver - as King I would change that rapidly)

There's no good reason on earth why whatever other regiments there are should stay RCHA, stay 100% RegF and not becomes reorganized as RCA units.

Watch out 3 battalions each of PPCLI, RCR, and R22R - you're next. One battalion each in the light brigade. The others are up for grabs.

 

[Kirkhill]

I tend to think in four-gun/launcher troops (because they can make a square for decent all around defence of a defended locality) with a minimum of three troops per battery. 12 in all.

That's kind of funny because I think in terms of 3 for all round defence. I have vivid recollections of lying in the hot sun with my FN pointed outwards and feet inwards while the instructor was telling us that with three 120 degree sectors there was no seam that could be exploited by an attacker to split the defence. If 4 elements were involved then put the 4th element in the centre where it could act as a reaction force/reserve even when all three perimeter sectors were engaged. If you put 4 in a square then you could be split down the middle.

But that was a PPCLI-CAR instructor. Not the RCR-CAR instructor. The PPCLI guy also told us to stuff our sleeping bags, not roll them and to only lightly oil our rifles. The RCR guy was giving different advice. And who knows what the Vandoo was telling his guys.

A detachment needs a minimum of four operators, a det commander, two gunners and a loader/driver and also to give a modicum of 24/7 operability. That makes 36 pers so far. Add three troop CPs (for five to six each minimum) and a battery HQ of probably around 10 to 15 for the CP, the QM, ammo, POL, etc). Then there's the question of whether it comes with its own radar system or is linked into something bigger.

But here is a Norwegian Fire Unit with an EO Sensor, a Radar, an FDC and One (only) launcher, showing 11 on parade. Lets assume that two more launchers require four more bodies that still leaves a Troop of 15. And perhaps the 11 normally man all three launchers. Is that a single watch? Or is that a 24/7 organization? That information seems to be hard to come by on the Interwebs.

I think with you can probably get away with 70 or so. Your average ResF arty regiment should comfortably man one deployable battery with enough people left over for a training establishment. You can't convert any RegF gun batteries to AD - there simply are not enough of them.

Point taken on the Gun Batteries.

Note that an Avenger battery has a complement of 137 and each of the 12 Avenger dets has a crew of 6 to give 24/7 operations

Here is the Avenger system - originally designed in the Caspar Weinberger era for Line of Sight local air defence. Is that really a fair comparison to any of the C-RAM, MSHORAD, MRAD systems?

 

[Kirkhill]

Just a little side rant while I'm here.

Calling the RegF artillery "Horse Artillery" is elitist bull. And I say that as a former member of both 2 and 3 RCHA.

If I were king of the world, 1 RCHA would remain as the sole "light" regiment to serve with a "light" brigade with M777s. Everyone else becomes RCA/ARC. While we're on it, the "L" in 5 RALC stands for "legere/light" They were light in the 1970s with the L5. In the 80s and 90s they had M109's - anything but "light". If they are going to be supporting a mech bde they needs something different than M777s - so they become 5 ARC.
If we get 2 x GBAD batteries and whatever will be the VLLAD stuff, then 4 Regt (GS) should once again become 4 AD. That leaves the numbers 2 and 3 but there are already a 2 and 3 RCA in Montreal and St John respectively (as is 5 (BC) RCA - but that's a joke. They were never anything more than a battery with an overinflated sense of self-importance and a deep desire not to becomes a part of 15 Fd in Vancouver - as King I would change that rapidly).
There's no good reason on earth why whatever other regiments there are should stay RCHA, stay 100% RegF and not becomes reorganized as RCA units.

Watch out 3 battalions each of PPCLI, RCR, and R22R - you're next. One battalion each in the light brigade. The others are up for grabs.

Careful on these nomenclature issues - I am reliably informed that 17th and 18th century terms have no relevance on the modern battlefield and, much like gender, are personal matters of self-identification.

Why stop with the Patricia's Light Infantry? Why not include the Dragoons that don't include any mounted infantry and Strathcona's Horse that don't ride horses.

 

[FJAG]

That information seems to be hard to come by on the Interwebs.

That's the biggest problem with glossy brochures from manufacturers who don't take into consideration extended 24/7; POL; rations; a QM; field maintenance staff; the list goes on. I'm not denying that automated systems will save manpower in many respects --- until your HIAB doesn't work when you need to load a 400 lb missile or Pte Bloggins is wounded (or starts talking to spiders); or the FDC's right front wheel falls off the edge of a culvert at night and the truck goes ass-over-teakettle. A Triple 7 has a crew of ten. You can get away with less - you can shoot it with two (that's what you need on the rammer at the same time) everything else can be done sequentially. You can't get it into or out of action with two and you can't operate it for very long or put 9 rounds a minute down range with 5. There's what can be done and there's what can be done in reality.

Here is the Avenger system - originally designed in the Caspar Weinberger era for Line of Sight local air defence. Is that really a fair comparison to any of the C-RAM, MSHORAD, MRAD systems?

The point wasn't that it was old (but IMHO is still useful) but that a single detachment was established with 6 folks for 24/7 operation.

I am reliably informed that 17th and 18th century terms have no relevance on the modern battlefield

I actually am a fan of historical connections to old regiments that have gone to war for their country.

I think the British in lumping themselves into regiments of Rifles and of Scots etc have done themselves a great disservice. It was part of that "if I can't be the Black Watch anymore than why should the Seaforths remain" mentality.

Even that nonsense our arty made in creating a 79 Fd Regt and 81 Fd Regt for Korea rather than saying 29 Fd Regt you're going with your 9th Battery and Levis' 58th and Yarmouth's 84th but just for the fun of it we'll call them 209, 258 and 284 instead. For the life of me I can't understand why we go through these conniptions rather than just keeping and mobilizing what we have when we need it.

Rant 2 for the day - off

 

[KevinB]

The basis of my suggestion is that NASAMs 4 Fire Direction Centers, call it one for the Battery Commander and one for each of three Troop Commanders, sounds like a common structure that could be applied to any array of sensors and effectors employed by the Artillery regardless of target set or role.

MEADS and TTHAD have different requirements for their structure.

Keep in mind the ground launchers lose effective engagement range on the AAM's due to the lack of altitude, so the AMRAAMS's etc are able to use their entire effective range as opposed to the air launched role.

GBAD needs to be looked at as a wholistic approach as opposed to trying to force one system into multiple roles. Historically ADA has been a Div+ asset, however I do believe that with the increased threat of UAS and missile systems, not to mention the continued threat of enemy CAS, that there needs to be ADA linkage down into the BN sized units - and below for C-UAS and MANPADS.

From there ....

4 (General Support) Regiment becomes the SMEs in the FDCs and they generate GBAD/LRPF/Coastal Defence capabilities.
I would also suggest that the FDC become the central organizing principle for each Reserve Battery and the Naval Reserve Divisions.

Sensors and effectors tailored to suit.

That leaves the Horse Artillery to focus on manoeuver support with the CMBGs.

I don't believe the PRes is a good source of bodies for FDC/FCC's - that is a much better role for Regular Force personnel - where PRes forces can crew the launchers as the knowledge and experience requirements aren't as heavy.

Will the M-SHORAD RWS fit on a TAPV or would it be too top heavy?

I believe it would be way too top heavy - unless some counterweights where added below the CoG.

Using the existing US system (plus MANPADS) seems like the logical choice to me. LAV-mounted for the Reg Force and TAPV-mounted (if possible) for Reserve AD. Common Reg-Reserve weapon system, ammo and training and commonality with our most likely Allied force (plus access to their massive supply system).

The US also uses NASAMs. No issues with an MRAD Regiment using that as well.

THAAD can be part of our NORAD fixed-site contribution as well if you want to go full fantasy world!

M-SHORAD LAV to me is a no brainer for the CA -

 

[markppcli]

Why stop with the Patricia's Light Infantry? Why not include the Dragoons that don't include any mounted infantry and Strathcona's Horse that don't ride horses.

Strathconnas do have a mounted troop in fairness to them. How they get away with permanently tasking soldiers to ceremonial duties that then result in donations to the Regimental fund I have no idea.

Just a little side rant while I'm here.

Calling the RegF artillery "Horse Artillery" is elitist bull. And I say that as a former member of both 2 and 3 RCHA.

If I were king of the world, 1 RCHA would remain as the sole "light" regiment to serve with a "light" brigade with M777s. Everyone else becomes RCA/ARC. While we're on it, the "L" in 5 RALC stands for "legere/light" They were light in the 1970s with the L5. In the 80s and 90s they had M109's - anything but "light". If they are going to be supporting a mech bde they needs something different than M777s - so they become 5 ARC.

Well if we call armour Cavalry, surely self propelled artillery is horse artillery? 5eme Regiment, Artillerie a Cheval du Canada would be more accurate. That is of course if we ever modernize our fires… which would bring us back to the actual purpose of this thread but I don’t see that happening.

If we get 2 x GBAD batteries and whatever will be the VLLAD stuff, then 4 Regt (GS) should once again become 4 AD. That leaves the numbers 2 and 3 but there are already a 2 and 3 RCA in Montreal and St John respectively (as is 5 (BC) RCA - but that's a joke. They were never anything more than a battery with an overinflated sense of self-importance and a deep desire not to becomes a part of 15 Fd in Vancouver - as King I would change that rapidly)

There's no good reason on earth why whatever other regiments there are should stay RCHA, stay 100% RegF and not becomes reorganized as RCA units.

Probably could support roughly a battery per province in the reserves for 10 reserve batteries, split those gun and AD as you see fit I suppose. Though I would argue that Ottawa, Quebec City, and Manitoba should all be fun Bty’s closely tied to supporting the local artillery regiment while those far from training areas, like BC and some Maritime provinces, should probably be more oriented to air defence. That’s just crazy old me though.

Watch out 3 battalions each of PPCLI, RCR, and R22R - you're next. One battalion each in the light brigade. The others are up for grabs.

As long as I don’t have to buy new pins and buttons and buckles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You mean the .50 on the Avenger ? Isn’t that for self defence ? Your implication is that they aren’t going out the field now, or do you mean specifically to do AD, which is what 4 GS does really.


Good question, UOR MANPADs should be arriving shortly I imagine with the PAMs.



That’s not an argument in favour of the .50. Just use the J-MANPAD until actual systems are procured.


I’m pretty sure sending Canadians soldiers to an active war zone as part of Ukrainian army AD engaging enemy air is an escalation we aren’t willing to go towards.

.50cal is a place holder for a proper gun system. They are in the system, just need a mount. Having it in the truck is not a huge deal. I wonder how many Manpad systems they are getting and how many simulators? Not to mention actual missiles?

From what I can see 4 GS has no actual combat capability, only a sensor capability at the moment. Which is good to have. but now we need to fill out the other side. Those radars (10 I think?) will stay with the regs and siting and using them is a whole different skill set to engaging the the enemy. It would seem they would fit best with a NASAM type system, like how the Russians/Ukrainians use the Buk. What I am proposing is the SHORAD stuff and with the Reserves. With the idea that they will learn how to mesh with the radars (Which would be the Troop Officers job)

As for Canadians being in other peoples warzones, not exactly uncommon and what I am suggesting is mostly job shadowing for a bit.

 

[markppcli]

.50cal is a place holder for a proper gun system. They are in the system, just need a mount. Having it in the truck is not a huge deal.

Yes but again, why? The idea that we have a “place holder” or training weapon that won’t ever be used has been proven to fall apart in the past. See Cougar and the very c3 training gun we’re speaking about in this thread. Canada needs to be invested in equipment which fills a need and “gives guys something to do” isn’t a need it’s a leadership failure.

I wonder how many Manpad systems they are getting and how many simulators? Not to mention actual missiles?

From what I can see 4 GS has no actual combat capability, only a sensor capability at the moment. Which is good to have. but now we need to fill out the other side. Those radars (10 I think?) will stay with the regs and siting and using them is a whole different skill set to engaging the the enemy. It would seem they would fit best with a NASAM type system, like how the Russians/Ukrainians use the Buk. What I am proposing is the SHORAD stuff and with the Reserves. With the idea that they will learn how to mesh with the radars (Which would be the Troop Officers job)

Simulators I have no idea. It’s a battery of man pads, or thereabouts, to 4GS. Actual missile numbers and the type are still in the air as far as I know. Doubt they’ll ever release how many missiles they purchase. They’ll integrate into the existing batteries. One has already been reflagged as an AD battery.

Frankly I fall to @FJAG ‘s view that the reserves should handle the break in case of war stuff (deep fires and high level AD) while the army hands that which is required for immediate deployment, ie VSHORAD, to the higher readiness full time units.

As for Canadians being in other peoples warzones, not exactly uncommon and what I am suggesting is mostly job shadowing for a bit.

What you’re suggesting is Canada deploying troop to Ukraine, which is going to be a non starter. I’m sure the lessons learned loop is active and engaged with the Ukrainian military already.

 

[Kirkhill]

So.... following up on the Patriot structure - which, like the NASAMS system is a relocatable, semi-fixed organization that is netted in to a broader system...

AIR DEFENSE ARTILLERY BATTERY

1 Battery with one launcher platoon of 8 launchers in 4 sections of two launchers each.

The Launcher Platoon has 8 HEMTTs for mobility to drag the launchers.
Each of the 4 sections of 2 launchers has a total of 6 pers, a Sect Ldr and an Asst and 4 Crewmembers.
The Platoon HQ is three guys in a HMMVW.
Platoon total of 27 men for 8 launchers

There is a Fire Control Platoon with a Fire Control Section of 10 men and a Radar
The Platoon HQ is 4 guys in a HMMVW and a Security Det of 4 guys with a pair of ManPADS in a pair of HMMVWs
Platoon total of 18 including the 4 ManPADS/Security Gunners.

There is a Maintenance Platoon with 10 men in the Systems Maintenance Section.
There is also a Motor Maintenance Section with a pair of POLs, a Wrecker and a TCV but no defined establishment. I am going to guess it would be 10
The Platoon HQ is 3 guys in a HMMVW.
Assuming 10 guys in the Motor Section I am calling the Maint Platoon at 23 total.

The Battery HQ is 5 guys (OC,XO,1st and 2 Drivers) with a Kitchen, a TCV, a CP and a pair of Rovers.

Total Battery establishment for 1 Radar, 1 CP and 8 Launchers is 63 plus the Motor Maint Sect, 73 if there are 10 men in that section.

Of the 63 to 73 in the Battery there are only 24 launcher crew members including the Section Chiefs and their Assistants.

Fire Control for the Battery is 18 pers excluding the 5 pers at BHQ.


If we take a look at the NASAMs Troop pictured above we are looking at 11 per Radar and EO and CP/FDC plus 3 launchers.

3 Troops = 33
Allow another 11 for the Battery OC, with their own Radar, EO and FDC and you have 44.

Add the Maint Pl of 23 and you have a Battery of 67 -

Kind of close to your 70 but a ways off from the Avengers 137.

 

[FJAG]

Probably could support roughly a battery per province in the reserves for 10 reserve batteries, split those gun and AD as you see fit I suppose.

Ontario can support 4 and a bit; Quebec 2 and a bit; PEI and Newfoundland - none

Though I would argue that Ottawa, Quebec City, and Manitoba should all be fun Bty’s closely tied to supporting the local artillery regiment while those far from training areas, like BC and some Maritime provinces, should probably be more oriented to air defence. That’s just crazy old me though.

You've seen my napkin force.

As long as I don’t have to buy new pins and buttons and buckles.

If I was King - buttons and buckles would be issued for free. As would putties and weights for the trousers.

 

[FJAG]

Add the Maint Pl of 23 and you have a Battery of 67 -

Actually when you read it closely, its an establishment change to take a level I battery from 89 to 85 personnel. Note also the dependency:

G. THIS UNIT IS DEPENDENT ON:

(1) HEADQUARTERS AND HEADQUARTERS BATTERY, AIR
DEFENSE ARTILLERY BATTALION (PATRIOT), TOE 44635A000
FOR PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES, RELIGIOUS AND
MEDICAL SUPPORT, SIGNAL SUPPORT, AND POL AND AMMUNITION RESUPPLY.

(2) APPROPRIATE ELEMENTS OF THE THEATER ARMY OR
CORPS FOR LEGAL, FINANCE, AND PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES.

The HHB has a total strength of 159.

There is one HHB and five firing batteries to the Patriot battalion.

That's a total of 159 +(5 x 85) = 584

The establishment prior to this TOE change was a total of 616.

To an extent one can keep playing the numbers games because the establishments do vary substantially by function. A light division's Avenger battalion is "lighter" than an armoured division's for a wide variety of reasons. I try not to go so far as to say that "x" is the numbers we need. I just send out the caution that you need to look beyond the simple brochure numbers that say "this is what you need to operate the system" and look at all the dependencies and additional support needed to make the thing function on a continuing basis in a 24/7 environment.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes but again, why? The idea that we have a “place holder” or training weapon that won’t ever be used has been proven to fall apart in the past. See Cougar and the very c3 training gun we’re speaking about in this thread. Canada needs to be invested in equipment which fills a need and “gives guys something to do” isn’t a need it’s a leadership failure.



Simulators I have no idea. It’s a battery of man pads, or thereabouts, to 4GS. Actual missile numbers and the type are still in the air as far as I know. Doubt they’ll ever release how many missiles they purchase. They’ll integrate into the existing batteries. One has already been reflagged as an AD battery.

Frankly I fall to @FJAG ‘s view that the reserves should handle the break in case of war stuff (deep fires and high level AD) while the army hands that which is required for immediate deployment, ie VSHORAD, to the higher readiness full time units.



What you’re suggesting is Canada deploying troop to Ukraine, which is going to be a non starter. I’m sure the lessons learned loop is active and engaged with the Ukrainian military already.

The C1 was a frontline gun when ordered. Having it is the equivalent to the UK retaining their 25pdrs.

As for people to Ukraine, I thinking more of 3-5 people to observe. I realize that with our current staffing that might be interpreted as a platoon.....

 

[Kirkhill]

Actually when you read it closely, its an establishment change to take a level I battery from 89 to 85 personnel. Note also the dependency:



The HHB has a total strength of 159.

There is one HHB and five firing batteries to the Patriot battalion.

That's a total of 159 +(5 x 85) = 584

The establishment prior to this TOE change was a total of 616.

To an extent one can keep playing the numbers games because the establishments do vary substantially by function. A light division's Avenger battalion is "lighter" than an armoured division's for a wide variety of reasons. I try not to go so far as to say that "x" is the numbers we need. I just send out the caution that you need to look beyond the simple brochure numbers that say "this is what you need to operate the system" and look at all the dependencies and additional support needed to make the thing function on a continuing basis in a 24/7 environment.

Equally though one has to be careful of not becoming prisoner to the "what ifs"? That way lies Scharnhorst's axe. You can always call a Pioneer if you need an axe.

 

[FJAG]

As for people to Ukraine, I thinking more of 3-5 people to observe. I realize that with our current staffing that might be interpreted as a platoon.....

Makes one wonder how many intelligence (and business) analysts have been added to the military attaché's offices in the various embassies.

 

[markppcli]

Equally though one has to be careful of not becoming prisoner to the "what ifs"? That way lies Scharnhorst's axe. You can always call a Pioneer if you need an axe.

I mean fair, but “what if they need to reload” isn’t a huge leap.

Ontario can support 4 and a bit; Quebec 2 and a bit; PEI and Newfoundland - none

You've seen my napkin force.

If I was King - buttons and buckles would be issued for free. As would putties and weights for the trousers.

Our napkin forces roughly align. I see the reserves as providing roughly 10 Bn worth of infantry organized into 6 10/90 Bns and a series of augmenting platoons ties to 70/30 organizations. The RCAC has reservists providing mobility and fire power to those 10/90 Bns and crew augmentation. The RRAC has around 10 Btys, some tied to 70/30 Regiments, some in a 10/90 regiment, and covers Deep fires. Roughly anyways.

 

[Kirkhill]

I mean fair, but “what if they need to reload” isn’t a huge leap.

Equally fair. But in a static environment how much needs to be on wheels and how much can be cached on site?

Our napkin forces roughly align. I see the reserves as providing roughly 10 Bn worth of infantry organized into 6 10/90 Bns and a series of augmenting platoons ties to 70/30 organizations. The RCAC has reservists providing mobility and fire power to those 10/90 Bns and crew augmentation. The RRAC has around 10 Btys, some tied to 70/30 Regiments, some in a 10/90 regiment, and covers Deep fires. Roughly anyways.

 

[markppcli]

Equally fair. But in a static environment how much needs to be on wheels and how much can be cached on site?

Well when the cached missiles weigh 340 odd lbs (AIM 120 for NASAM) not counting what ever pods, probably you’ll need a loading system, and a means to move it about. I’d suggest those don’t just get left in the ground either.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Strathconnas do have a mounted troop in fairness to them. How they get away with permanently tasking soldiers to ceremonial duties that then result in donations to the Regimental fund I have no idea.

I have no idea how they organize or employ the Mounted Troop these days, but back in the last century (well, in the last few decades of that century) the "ceremonial" soldiers also had real jobs.

In the 1970s when the Riding Troop was restarted, its members were also in the TOW troop in B Sqn and exercised as such in addition to the horsing around. A few pages from 1978 and 1979 issues of The Strathconian




In 1980, after the regiment came back from a Cyprus tour and in conjunction with a reconfiguration to re-equip with the AVGP, The Riding Troop switched from TOW to Recce Tp. From a 1980 issue of The Strathconian

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just like Bandsman used to be medics as well.

 

[Furniture]

Equally fair. But in a static environment how much needs to be on wheels and how much can be cached on site?

You likely don't want too many extra missiles laying around a high value target like an AD troop's launcher site.

Missiles tend to go boom when hit, so piling a bunch at a static site, right next to launchers, is asking to get hit.