C3 Howitzer Replacement

[OldSolduer]

Yeah that’s not really going to work for saluting guns.

Saluting guns should be towed and not 155mm. Not SP or tracks.

 

[FJAG]

Teasing you. An eight gun battery gives two four gun half batteries.

- Got it. I started in a system of eight-gun batteries. Four guns were a troop. (Now they're a battery - there were eight troops [four batteries] in a regiment - shows how far we've deteriorated.)

@AvroArrow92

What role would M777 play that you find critical to keep? It seems a lot of the footage coming out of Ukraine is if it does not have wheels/ tracks its dead. I gladly take 98 SPH guns at the cost of divesting the M777 personally. Considering they are limited role in conventional conflict or limited compared to SPH. I am not opposed to your argument, I am just not a gunner so maybe I don't a have wholesome understanding of the M777 uses.

Anywhere were you contemplate having to move guns by Chinook such as in terrain where roads are nonexistent (jungles, the Arctic, mountains) or heavily mined (Afghanistan comes to mind). In 2004 we got rid of M109s because folks thought that a conventional war was highly unlikely. Now we're looking at divesting M777s because we think everything but a conventional war is highly unlikely. I like keeping some flexibility in case things don't go the way we think. Our M777s are brand new by arty standards (2006-2011). They use much of the same ammunition as we are contemplating for the SPs so there is nothing extra that needs doing there. If many of them go to ResF batteries then the wear and tear rate goes down dramatically. There are decades left in the life-cycle of the gun.

@FJAG Yes this will replace m777 as well, army wants one platform for everything.

This comes from me guessing but I would be surprised if the Regiments shape out to 2 howitzer batteries, 1 120mm mortar battery plus a AD det. That's before even touching which ever regiment gets LRPF which would the shift more of these assets to other units.

My fear is that you are more right than what I'm hoping for. We seem to continue to be stuck in this "symmetric force generation to support a battle group" mind set.

The chats suggesting the CAF should grow to 86k or so Reg F may be informed by some of this growth.

But I also suspect the CAF may be discovering that you can't magically replace destroyed equipment during a period or war, and is taking replacements seriously. Buying enough to outfit the force in being with no consideration of expansion or attrition is not a recipe for success.

I agree with the concept of having lots of spares. What makes more sense than having spare equipment and trained spare people in several ResF units where the equipment can be maintained and lightly used in training?

Given they are opening up the 777 to ARes gunners and techs, they are setting the condition for them to go to the reserves as a training gun as well as things like gun salutes on parliament hill that I couldn't see a SPG doing.

Having gun troops for salutes is a necessity. Honestly we could keep enough of the C3s for that without any significant maintenance burden if they are not needed for live fire. We don't really have enough M777s to make them available at all the saluting bases we have to man. Same for the future SP. Most countries keep some type of older gun around for that.

Yes it is, what I'm saying is having a calibre just for ceremonial duty is a waste of money

No it's not if all you have in stock is 105mm blanks. Keeping the C3s as a training gun would be ridiculous, but keeping it nicely painted up and in a garage somewhere for a couple of salutes a year where it doesn't matter if the sights or recoil system works or not is actually highly cost effective and doable. Basically we're talking a troop of four guns near the provincial capitals - so maybe fifty C3s tops.

 

[Kirkhill]

2.2 "these systems will be capable of providing a coastal defence capability within Canada or on expeditionary operations"
2.4 d) "enabling full connectivity to fire platforms within the CA inventory including Long Range Precision Strike"

Somebody please tell Trudeau to sign the cheque tomorrow....

 

[Kirkhill]

So...?

 

[MilEME09]

My fear is that you are more right than what I'm hoping for. We seem to continue to be stuck in this "symmetric force generation to support a battle group" mind set.

If i am right, please dont tell my wife, I'll never hear the end of it

 

[markppcli]

That this thread has immediately turned to saluting guns, and I’m certain what one wears for saluting guns is coming next, is a great moment in Army.ca history.

 

[markppcli]

Curious...how many Archers or M109's can a Chinook carry?

Air moving howitzers in a contested environment is probably a dead concept.

 

[OldSolduer]

Air moving howitzers in a contested environment is probably a dead concept.

I’m just an old guy but it’s my opinion when we scrapped the 109s was a par with the divestment of the Chinooks the Army really lost its way.

 

[FJAG]

So...?

I've made my comments about all these systems previously so won't repeat them.

One thought though re the AGM on Boxer. Boxer is a heavier vehicle with a more powerful engine than the LAV6. I'm not an engineer but I would think the AGM might be a bridge too far for the ACSV chassis. A 155mm L52 firing at full charge would put a lot of stress on any wheeled chassis.

I'll be interested in seeing the final solution on this.

Air moving howitzers in a contested environment is probably a dead concept.

The key word is "contested."

I doubt if anyone can predict what type of conflict the next dozen or so years will bring. I wouldn't put all my eggs in one basket. We did that in 2004 and it took some UORs to get a quick solution and about another half decade to get it sorted in a half-assed fashion which proved to be wrong over another decade.

Gibbs' Rule 5 "Don't waste good!" M5777s are still good and we have capacity in the reserves to keep and make use of them. Break the "divest to invest" cycle.

That this thread has immediately turned to saluting guns, and I’m certain what one wears for saluting guns is coming next, is a great moment in Army.ca history.

The comment doesn't negate the fact that the saluting gun issue is a very valid one that needs to have a solution in the circumstances of a new artillery acquisition program.

 

[markppcli]

We could literally have under a dozen 25 lbs for ceremonial duty. Or 0, it would have the same operational impact

 

[dapaterson]

We could literally have under a dozen 25 lbs for ceremonial duty. Or 0, it would have the same operational impact

For historical accuracy been should just use cracked four pounders.

 

[Maxman1]

My thoughts, that I've mentioned before:
SPGs should be tracked, and the best option is the M109 with the M992 limber;
Keep a number of C3s for saluting;
Buy M119s to keep the 105mm capability;
Keep and buy more M777s. A lot more;
Reinvest in dismounted mortars in addition to mechanised, 60mm, 81mm and 120mm. Maybe even 51mm for platoon or even section level operations.

 

[ytz]

Curious...how many Archers or M109's can a Chinook carry?

I don't see air mobility as a requirement in the RFI though.

I’m not sure. I’ve seen a lot of conflicting reports, generally as the assumption was Western Forces would use a lot more air power - but while Russian AD generally sucks ass and only gets highlighted to spur next generation stuff on the USAF side, I am sure that GWOT style air wouldn’t be available in a great power conflict. So ‘extra’ artillery capability would not be superfluous.

Agreed. I just don't think 14 000 Rds per day is likely though. Add air and naval power and the combined tonnage would be a lot higher than Ukraine. But just a different mix.

IMHO divesting the M777 would be criminal. While I don’t disagree that Ukraine could use them, the CA needs a ‘Light’ gun option, as the CA isn’t solely a mechanized force. I don’t see then 777 as a great ceremonial gun (it’s really big and its gun tractor is even bigger). Frankly very very few of the saluting gun tasks are publicly visible - really anything could be used to make a loud noise for that purpose.

I guess I struggle to see the value in the future. You need something highly mobile to survive. But you need something air mobile for those light troops. But the 777 seems to struggle there (only movable by Chinook or Fixed Wing). I would think a more capable 105 mm system that can properly populate the Reserves is called for.

- Got it. I started in a system of eight-gun batteries. Four guns were a troop. (Now they're a battery - there were eight troops [four batteries] in a regiment - shows how far we've deteriorated.)

How would a battery of 6 Archers compare to your troop of 8 guns on fire rate and mobility? And did you guys do MRSI by hand back then?

 

[Maxman1]

I guess I struggle to see the value in the future. You need something highly mobile to survive. But you need something air mobile for those light troops. But the 777 seems to struggle there (only movable by Chinook or Fixed Wing). I would think a more capable 105 mm system that can properly populate the Reserves is called for.

 

[KevinB]

In some conditions you can move a M777 via Blackhawk - but your at max (or a tad above) load.
I wouldn't call that ideal - but in extremis it could be done, and with the new engines coming it would have some spare capacity. That said, Canada doesn't have Hawks, so the issue is moot, and to lift any Howitzer y'all going to be using Hook's, so M777 or M119, it doesn't really matter.

My issue with 105's is IF Canada had gotten the Brit Light gun back in the day, this would have been an entirely different discussion, not buying a pittance of the idiot French one, and opting for the C3A1 conversion. I just don't see the point in buying a M119/L119 now, as while the Hummer is a decent M119 gun tractor, Canada doesn't have those either.

Retaining the 777 as the Light Gun gives the option for a 18-24 gun Light Reg't to support a Light Bde (which Canada should have, and hopefully still will create) - and allows for 1 artillery caliber to be used for both the Light gun, and the SPA (whatever that ends up being).



As to the whole Saluting Red Herring:

Down here a number of the 75mm Pack Howitzers are kept for Saluting - the blank is still produced - it is a small light gun that one can toss into the bed of a 1/2 truck if needed.

https://jpeoaa.army.mil/Portals/94/JPEOAA/Documents/JPEOAAPortfolioBook_2017.pdf

But at the end of the day - you could just throw a flash bang (single banger not a multi) and get the same effect as a Saluting Gun.
So your Saluting team could be a few folks in a MILCOT with some bangers...

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't see air mobility as a requirement in the RFI though.



Agreed. I just don't think 14 000 Rds per day is likely though. Add air and naval power and the combined tonnage would be a lot higher than Ukraine. But just a different mix.



I guess I struggle to see the value in the future. You need something highly mobile to survive. But you need something air mobile for those light troops. But the 777 seems to struggle there (only movable by Chinook or Fixed Wing). I would think a more capable 105 mm system that can properly populate the Reserves is called for.



How would a battery of 6 Archers compare to your troop of 8 guns on fire rate and mobility? And did you guys do MRSI by hand back then?

Re the M777s

Garrison artillery? As in to be flown in to a fixed base, emplaced and covered? (Overhead cover - not just cocealment).

This would imply movement out of contact and time to dig in and no intention to relocate.

 

[ytz]

Yes. But we don't have medium helicopters in our TacHel squadrons and just one heavy lift squadron.

 

[KevinB]

Re the M777s

Garrison artillery? As in to be flown in to a fixed base, emplaced and covered? (Overhead cover - not just cocealment).

This would imply movement out of contact and time to dig in and no intention to relocate.

A waste of the LW aspect of the M777 gun.

 

[ytz]

Retaining the 777 as the Light Gun gives the option for a 18-24 gun Light Reg't to support a Light Bde (which Canada should have, and hopefully still will create) - and allows for 1 artillery caliber to be used for both the Light gun, and the SPA (whatever that ends up being).

This is decent reasoning. This is what I was looking to understand from those advocating retention of the 777s.

 

[Kirkhill]

Looking at the numbers again

As @FJAG said 10 to 16 155 batteries. Keeping in mind arty is also going to have to find multiple layers of GBAD as well as CB-LRPS batteries..

What if?

99 120s = 8x 12 = 96

12x Medium Armoured Units with one platoon of 8 as per ancient doctrine

And?

85 81s = 2x 42 = 84

42x Light Sub Units with 2 tubes per as a planning number. The sub-units could operate independently or be "brigaded" as battalions, or regiments if Light "Cavalry"

Presumably the 81s could still be dismounted and man-packed if desired.