• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Honestly I didn’t think it should matter - the good of the country argument should be enough to satisfy any grumbling, at least publicly
You will notice I said most - not all.
It's a money issue, in my eyes. A RegF major kept to command a 10/90 company costs $120,000 per year and will be seriously underworked. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that within a few months he'll be dragooned into a job in a cubicle at NDHQ and a ResF captain put on Class B AWSE to fill his spot. Instead I want to see a RegF captain as the Coy 2ic at $90,000 who also fills a training position in the 30/70 battalion. For the extra 30K I can hire the a Class A major and a lieutenant. If my prediction about NDHQ becomes true, that would pay for 4 capts and 5 lts on Class A.

Lets face it. Coy and Bty command is a captain's job in a lot of armies in the world, including the US. A properly trained ARes major on Class A will do.
I disagree, this is fundamentally a respect issue.
I'm with @markppcli on this one but not for the same reason. The issue is funding, or lack of it, above everything else. Funding allocations for capital purchases are discussed at the L1 levels (@dapaterson can give a better overview on this than I) and the priority lists are so long and so detailed that by the time you get to ARes equipment, the money is mostly long gone. When they could only negotiate for 25 extra M777s back in 2008/9 there simply wasn't more money that everyone at the table was prepared to pony up - the FIFC ARes C3 replacement simply fell off the list - again.

Don't get me wrong. Lack of respect does exist in various quarters but not universally. There was great respect for reservists that deployed to Afghanistan but under the individual augmentation system in place, one can make do with heavily under-resourced ARes units as long as there is operational funding to "train-up" individuals before deployment. They don't disrespect individual reservists, but, they generally do have disdain for the ResF system and structure - and rightfully so - but that is something which, IMHO, is entirely within their ability to fix if they ever approached it properly and with a will.

I'll repeat my view. This isn't simply a GoC issue. It's also the issue for how the L1s slice the pie and how strongly they advocate for any particular issue. When you have folks like Lawson say "The army has had its turn," when it was sitting there with clapped out equipment from having been at war, you know that the depth of understanding within military leadership is sometimes as thin as the GoC's.

🍻
 
Who’s the organization standing in the way of that being fixed though?

The Army. The CCA can wave their magic wand tomorrow and completely restructure the reserves and it would be a legal order. It's not legislated, it's internal policy.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: ueo
The Army. The CCA can wave their magic wand tomorrow and completely restructure the reserves and it would be a legal order. It's not legislated, it's internal policy.
Not precisely. There is the small matter of Ministerial Approval to create/disband units…
 
The Army. The CCA can wave their magic wand tomorrow and completely restructure the reserves and it would be a legal order. It's not legislated, it's internal policy.

Reserve Restructure enters the chat... again ;)

Turn Up Rage GIF by Last Man Standing
 
Not precisely. There is the small matter of Ministerial Approval to create/disband units…
Who said disband? Any unit can be reduced to a subunit, independent batteries and squadrons already exist. Heck, there's multiple in 38 CBG, for example the Sask Ds (one squadron establishment) and 116 Independent Field Battery (one battery establishment). We have the tools, it would take some creativity
 
The Army. The CCA can wave their magic wand tomorrow and completely restructure the reserves and it would be a legal order. It's not legislated, it's internal policy.
Who said disband? Any unit can be reduced to a subunit, independent batteries and squadrons already exist. Heck, there's multiple in 38 CBG, for example the Sask Ds (one squadron establishment) and 116 Independent Field Battery (one battery establishment). We have the tools, it would take some creativity
Read this book - Relentless Struggle - from cover to cover and you'll get a bit of an idea what has gone on in the past and how well wand waving works. People have tried - people have failed.

Then feel free to read this one - Unsustainable at Any Price - and get an idea of one person's view of what is involved in producing a sustainable army.

Reducing battalions to the companies and platoons that they are in and of itself is no solution. It will just make them platoons and sections. There are critical foundations that need to be laid that are outside the powers of the CCA and even the CDS. What's needed is an MND, a CDS and a CCA who are all sold on the same vision and are prepared to champion it at their respective levels.

🍻
 
Reserve Restructure enters the chat... again ;)
For any issues of the CA frankly it is an issue that needs to be tackled.

If one looks at the breakdown of the CAF budget, salaries utterly devour it. One needs a capable PRes if one wants a credible CA.
 
For any issues of the CA frankly it is an issue that needs to be tackled.

If one looks at the breakdown of the CAF budget, salaries utterly devour it. One needs a capable PRes if one wants a credible CA.
Army Restructure, including the Reserves.

Div HQs? They are administrative, not operational, and need to be treated as such. The Nine and Three need to be challenged, not baked in as assumptions from day one.

The Army as a whole, Reg and Res, needs to embrace Chairman Mao and a process of continuous revolution, not settling in a post Korean War stasis.
 
Army Restructure, including the Reserves.

Div HQs? They are administrative, not operational, and need to be treated as such. The Nine and Three need to be challenged, not baked in as assumptions from day one.

The Army as a whole, Reg and Res, needs to embrace Chairman Mao and a process of continuous revolution, not settling in a post Korean War Pre-WW 3 stasis.

There, FTFY ;)
 
48 day contract. Sigh


I think the reason for the 48 day turnaround is that Sweden supplied the 6x6 Volvo version from their own stocks. I don't think any of the 8x8s have taken the field yet. At least, not with the Brits.


 

1727398542898.png1727398558676.png1727398593307.png

Boxer - 155 (2 crew)
Boxer - NEMO (4 crew)
Boxer - Skyranger (3 crew)


....

All those turrets can be mounted on tank chassis, Boxers or Heavy LAVs (Heavy Lights you say?) or 8x8 trucks.
 
I think the reason for the 48 day turnaround is that Sweden supplied the 6x6 Volvo version from their own stocks. I don't think any of the 8x8s have taken the field yet. At least, not with the Brits.


whats the pros and cons of a 6x6 artic vs a 8x8 straight truck?
 
whats the pros and cons of a 6x6 artic vs a 8x8 straight truck?
From the article it looks like commonality with the fleet of logistics H2 8x8s already in Swedish service. I wouldn't doubt that there are also some stability and robustness improvements and longer range (800kms v 650). OTOH the 8 x 8 is a more complex chassis.

I'm still not an overwhelmed fan of either the Archer or the RCH 155 on Boxer principally because of the low on-board ammo count and the complexity of "bombing up" the turrets. I've recently watched an RCH 155 being resupplied with ammo and it looked worse than Archer. That's something that really needs working on.

I'm also not so fond of all the advertisements as to shoot and scoot. They make it sound like it provides some invulnerability that other systems do not have. IMHO the improvements in STA - including UAVs and OWUAVs - negates much of the shoot and scoot advantage with the old catchphrase of "you move; you die." These guns have very distinct physical signatures and will be high-priority sought after targets. I can't see these guns deploying without a robust dedicated anti-air capability/plan.

Don't get me wrong, they're still better than an M777, - especially the L52 barrel - but they aren't Superman.

🍻
 
Thoughts on the M327 mortar? It's towed and rifled, so that tracks for the artillery, and it can even be fired with a lanyard. And it's towed by something smaller than a Milcot.

2560px-M327_120mm_Mortar.jpg


mc_efss_800.JPG
 
Back
Top