C3 Howitzer Replacement

[CBH99]

But damn it! We're Canadian we have too !
That's why we have taxpayers isn't it?
Regards,
Gordon

Sssssshhhhhh...  :-X

The less noise you make, the less likely the good idea fairies will hear you...  :tsktsk:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not to be a bubble burster but the infantry - at least when I was in Mortar Platoon - never manpacked 81s. We always transported them via M113 and deployed them on the ground.

Our Mortar Platoons man packed them everywhere, after jumping with them, and the rifle company troops carried the ammo on the basis of 'feed your own fire missions'. We usually had two tubes per rifle company.

Of course, it's always more sustainable with vehicles involved, but it can be done on foot if required.

 

[FJAG]

Not to be a bubble burster but the infantry - at least when I was in Mortar Platoon - never manpacked 81s. We always transported them via M113 and deployed them on the ground.

Our Mortar Platoons man packed them everywhere, after jumping with them, and the rifle company troops carried the ammo on the basis of 'feed your own fire missions'. We usually had two tubes per rifle company.

Of course, it's always more sustainable with vehicles involved, but it can be done on foot if required.

Over and above D&B's post, during Operation Anaconda, TF Rakkassan deployed both 81mm and four 120 mm mortars by helicopters into the Shah-i-Kot (including one 120mm brought in with the first wave). One after action analysis stated that notwithstanding all the air support deployed during the operation, more mortars would have been helpful.

https://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20020627.aspx

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I should re package this in a snazzy power point

 

[daftandbarmy]

I should re package this in a snazzy power point

Yes!!!!  :rofl:

 

[GR66]

By the time we get around to buying anything there may be a new off-the-shelf, turreted Stryker mortar carrier available:

https://defpost.com/patria-u-s-army-sign-agreement-for-feasibility-study-of-patria-nemo-120-mm-mortar-system/

 

[MilEME09]

One probably could, but HIMARS already comes on a complete and proven vehicle system that's already C130 transportable. Due to the low volume we would probably have ( my guess topping out at one 18 launcher regiment but more probably a six launcher battery) it would not be worth the research and development costs to adapt it to a LAV chassis.

:cheers:

HIMARS was the best this I could think of to compare at the time, but it is also an expensive system, a better choice of words would be say like a 20 or 30 tube CRV-7 rocket pod combined with the laser guided PG munition. Cheap ammo, made it Canada, and a battery could put significant fire down range quickly.

 

[Dale Denton]

Just found out there was a project to buy 17 rocket artillery launchers about 10ish years ago from the wiki page. "Long-Range Precision Rocket System (LRPRS)"

What happened with that? What was the justification for it getting cancelled?

 

[Kirkhill]

It would kill people.

 

[GR66]

HIMARS was the best this I could think of to compare at the time, but it is also an expensive system, a better choice of words would be say like a 20 or 30 tube CRV-7 rocket pod combined with the laser guided PG munition. Cheap ammo, made it Canada, and a battery could put significant fire down range quickly.

CRV-7 lists a range of "over 4,000m" according to Wikipedia and that's when fired from the air.  I'd imagine the range is less when fired from the ground.  It also notes that the rocket has a flat trajectory which would make it difficult/impossible to hit enemies behind terrain features.

By comparison, the US Future Indirect Fire Turret program is calling for a 120mm mortar with a maximum indirect fire range of between 8,000 and 20,000m as well as direct fire capability.  Maximum ROF is to be 24 rounds per minute for two minutes. 

https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-120mm-mortar-russia-china

Always nice to buy Canadian when you can, but I think there's a reason why mortars are the standard infantry indirect fire weapon.

Now...where were we on the C3 replacement?

 

[FJAG]

HIMARS was the best this I could think of to compare at the time, but it is also an expensive system, a better choice of words would be say like a 20 or 30 tube CRV-7 rocket pod combined with the laser guided PG munition. Cheap ammo, made it Canada, and a battery could put significant fire down range quickly.

It was actually considered for reserve units. Money, or lack thereof, happened.

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Keep in mind that many of the proposed systems will not fit into the armouries we have and some can not be modified enough to do so. I know my old regiment can't get any of the large trucks inside anymore. The MLVW with gun just fit through the doors and ramp.

 

[MilEME09]

Keep in mind that many of the proposed systems will not fit into the armouries we have and some can not be modified enough to do so. I know my old regiment can't get any of the large trucks inside anymore. The MLVW with gun just fit through the doors and ramp.

Given the age of many armouries, thats a given. The CAF needs a lot of infrastructure spending, both reg and reserve. I personally think the Reserves should go the route of building mini bases as Canadian Forces Stations(Reserve). Have proper storage for vehicles, etc, a parade square, ample class room space for multiple units, SAT ranges, etc so training can be maximized locally.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Keep in mind that many of the proposed systems will not fit into the armouries we have and some can not be modified enough to do so. I know my old regiment can't get any of the large trucks inside anymore. The MLVW with gun just fit through the doors and ramp.

It's good that they can't fit through the doors of our (ca. 1915) armoury otherwise the floor would collapse under the weight. Seriously.

 

[OldSolduer]

It's good that they can't fit through the doors of our (ca. 1915) armoury otherwise the floor would collapse under the weight. Seriously.

Perhaps this is a good time to research and build new ones - and rid the CAF the burden of maintaining ancient buildings. In Winnipeg the two armories could be combined into one bigger armory  with the two infantry, one armored, a service battalion and all the other Winnipeg based Army units.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Perhaps this is a good time to research and build new ones - and rid the CAF the burden of maintaining ancient buildings. In Winnipeg the two armories could be combined into one bigger armory  with the two infantry, one armored, a service battalion and all the other Winnipeg based Army units.

DND built the first new armoury in decades in Vancouver, to house the Seaforths, a Sigs Sqn and Bde HQ. AFAIK it cost $70m + and took five years. Ostensibly, the main reason they did it was to support the 2010 Olympic Games.

I think BC has seen it's last 'investment' in that kind of infrastructure for the foreseeable future....

 

[MilEME09]

DND built the first new armoury in decades in Vancouver, to house the Seaforths, a Sigs Sqn and Bde HQ. AFAIK it cost $70m + and took five years. Ostensibly, the main reason they did it was to support the 2010 Olympic Games.

I think BC has seen it's last 'investment' in that kind of infrastructure for the foreseeable future....

Didn't a new armoury get built in nova scotia recently too? Debney in Edmonton is relatively new too but it under utilized since most equipment goes directly to 1 service battalion for maintenance instead of utilizing the vast maintenance space at debney.

Calgary, Winnipeg, Chilliwack,  come to mind for needing new investment.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think you may all find out that building new armouries for the militia is fraught with danger for BCEO.

Apparently, there is frequent political (and I do mean at the elected politicians level) influence being exerted by "regies" or their English regimental equivalent to protect the "historical home of the regiment" to get the elected powers that be to stop any idea of moving any historical militia regiment out of their "home".

I remember a bit after the turn of the millennium when we, at HMCS DONNACONA needed a new building, as the old one was a WWII era fire trap that could not be further upgraded for the modern systems needed to train sailors for the new navy ships. We started the process with base Montreal staff and, after a few months (early on in the process), the Base Commander, his Admin O and the BCEO came to visit the CO, the XO and myself (then Cbt O). They sat us down and squarely asked: "If we start down this route, are we going to have a Régie down our back to stop everything after we have spent years of efforts and tons of  money".

They were both surprised (agreeably) and happy to hear us state that in the Navy, we are not "married" to our ships. They get old, we discard them and get new ones; that to us, a "ship" is the ship's company and the past honours earned, as represented by the various honours symbols, battle or otherwise (from the Ship's bell to actual name plates, etc.) - not the wood or steel that without a crew is just a hunk of metal.

We apparently were one of the fastest project Base Montreal ever managed to do for the Militia/Reserve forces: three and a half years from start to opening the new facility (which is joint and also houses the RCMP).

BTW, isn't the concept you use in place (at least partially) in Hamilton, where many militia units share the old (but now quite revamped) naval station where HMCS STAR is located in the harbour?

 

[FJAG]

IMHO, armouries are a red herring in the debate for equipment acquisition and should not ever be considered a factor in determining equipment purchases or holdings.

The primary factor is: does the equipment provide a capability that the CAF needs? Secondary is: can reserve units adapt to operating the equipment so as to be effective with it? If the answer to the first two questions is yes, then a proper system for storing of and training on the equipment can and will be found and only in extreme circumstances would new facilities or modification to existing facilities be necessary.

:stirpot:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

FJAG the RCAF and RCN will likely disagree with you, the infrastructure needs were included in the replacements of the Frigates and the Fighters, as they are as important as the kit. What is the point of having fancy equipment that rots outside and does not get the maintenance it needs. Not to mention securing artillery guns and MLRS in a parking lot in a urban environment. I fear your plans will not survive contact with the enemy (politicians, PW and TB) and the friction on the ground, (Regimental associations, existing infrastructure and shrinking budgets).