• 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

GR66 said:
That's why I suggested keeping the high-tech toys for the Reg Force.  Honestly, if we ever get to the point where we are mobilizing Reserve units for combat rather than as augmentation for Reg Force units then we'll likely be at a point where the ROE's are pretty damned loose.

Sure, but if the legacy system can't be deployed when/where needed, or doesn't match adversary capabilities, what's the point?

I'd rather provide the best systems to the best people, be they Reg or Res. Plenty of empires and deadwood to cut on both sides of the force to make it happen. There's going to be a time for a scalpel, and a time for a hammer. A properly envisioned, selected, trained, and equipped force should be able to integrate these different functions and transition between them as needed.
 
GR66 said:
There seem to be plenty of countries that produce weapons at the lower end of the tech scale in volume without bankrupting their economies.

Perhaps those are the areas where we should focus to produce for our Reserves.  Weapons that we will need en masse in a "break glass in case of emergency" scenario and save the extra high-tech (and expensive) toys for the smaller Regular Force.

Things that should be well within our capability to produce domestically in militarily meaningful numbers would be something like a light-weight 105mm howitzer in towed and self-propelled (by light, domestically produced vehicles) versions, mortars (again towed and self-propelled), MLRS launchers, etc.

Nammo and Saab immediately come to mind.  They don't survive on their domestic markets.  And they take an incremental approach to high-tech wizardry - M4 Carl fires the same ammunition as the 1940s vintage M2.  Nammo tinkers with fuels, and engines and warheads and guidance but always within existing envelopes.

Small Diameter Bombs - 4 per 2000 lb wing station - 8-12 per F15-16-18
Plus the F15-16-18
Plus the Pilot
Plus the Maintenance Crew
Plus the Hangar
Plus the Runway
Plus the Hotel
Plus Blue Skies

Vice

2x HIMARS with 6 MRLS-SDB for a total of 12
2x Trucks
1x Sgt and 5 ORs
3x Tents.
 
So I was completely unaware that we ALREADY HAD a HIMARS / MRLS type of system in the inventory, back in the day!!

I'm just posting this here, as it's been mentioned throughout this thread multiple times - the use of a HIMARS type system for long range fires.


I've quite enjoyed this lengthy series I found on Youtube about Army operations back in the early 90's... I was blown away to find out we already had this capability at one point  :o 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBc0uk_HpA
 
Given the ever evolving capabilities of UAVs, it may well be cheaper to focus on a LOCUST type swarm dispensing system to replace multiple artillery weapons, not to mention being able to use similar airframes to provide ISTAR coverage, and possibly use for things like comms and EW. Various devices existat different scales, like "Switchblade" which has a 10km range to "Skystriker" with a range of 200km.

While "artillery" vehicles may end up looking like that Chinese truck drone delivery system upthread, there is nothing inherent about using tubed artillery or rockets to deliver the effects we want downrange. Something like the BM-30 Smerch is good for overwhelming targets with high volumes of fire, but "we" seem to have moved away from volume a long time ago. At any rate, volume from UAVs is possible as well as precision strikes by single vehicles, so that provides the versatility that we would want, and using UAV airframes for other purposes allows volume production, economies of scale and so on.

As for the argument about expense and capabilities, since much of the "intelligence" of the systems can now be programmed into the vehicles, there is much less need to differentiate between regular and reserves in terms of capabilities. Much of the training on these systems can be done with simulators, so some of the ownership costs can also come down - we don't "need" to drive the trucks to Wainwright or Gagetown to practice shooting, and indeed we could park them there for reserve units to train when they need to practce "live" drills, like navigation, harbour drills, replenishing in the field and so on.
 
CBH99 said:
So I was completely unaware that we ALREADY HAD a HIMARS / MRLS type of system in the inventory, back in the day!!

I'm just posting this here, as it's been mentioned throughout this thread multiple times - the use of a HIMARS type system for long range fires.


I've quite enjoyed this lengthy series I found on Youtube about Army operations back in the early 90's... I was blown away to find out we already had this capability at one point  :o 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwBc0uk_HpA

Not sure if you are joking, but we did not have this capability in the 1990s. The training film was produced likely so that Army Officers would know how to employ US or British MLRS in General Support to a Canadian Formation.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Not sure if you are joking, but we did not have this capability in the 1990s. The training film was produced likely so that Army Officers would know how to employ US or British MLRS in General Support to a Canadian Formation.


Ah.  That makes more sense.

I saw the Canadian uniforms of the soldiers driving/operating this equipment, and assumed it was our capability. 
 
CBH99 said:
Ah.  That makes more sense.

I saw the Canadian uniforms of the soldiers driving/operating this equipment, and assumed it was our capability.

There were some good editing cuts there to show Canadian soldiers including some gunners, however, the camouflage pattern of the MLRS itself is a camouflage pattern used by the US Army starting around 1975 until the NATO cam pattern took over.

I could vaguely make out the vehicle markings on the front of the vehicle and it looked like it started with a 2A which would have stood for US 2nd Army which from around 1983 on commanded numerous Guard and Reserve units in the SE US tasked with reinforcement to NATO. Starting in 1989, the National Guard received some 185 MLRS launcher systems.

I couldn't quite make out what regiment the vehicle belongs to but there are (and before 2000 were even more) ARNG MLRS battalions in the SE US. (I thought it might have said the 4th FA Regiment but that is an active army one whose 2nd Battalion at Fort Sill OK coincidentally is an MLRS battalion - but I don't think belonged to US 2nd Army back then - but am not sure)

Long story short; good editing of Canadian and US films to make a training film to teach divisional resources that we don't have.

We did used to have nuclear rocket batteries back in the 1960s though.  ;D

:cheers:
 
FJAG said:
There were some good editing cuts there to show Canadian soldiers including some gunners, however, the camouflage pattern of the MLRS itself is a camouflage pattern used by the US Army starting around 1975 until the NATO cam pattern took over.

I could vaguely make out the vehicle markings on the front of the vehicle and it looked like it started with a 2A which would have stood for US 2nd Army which from around 1983 on commanded numerous Guard and Reserve units in the SE US tasked with reinforcement to NATO. Starting in 1989, the National Guard received some 185 MLRS launcher systems.

I couldn't quite make out what regiment the vehicle belongs to but there are (and before 2000 were even more) ARNG MLRS battalions in the SE US. (I thought it might have said the 4th FA Regiment but that is an active army one whose 2nd Battalion at Fort Sill OK coincidentally is an MLRS battalion - but I don't think belonged to US 2nd Army back then - but am not sure)

Long story short; good editing of Canadian and US films to make a training film to teach divisional resources that we don't have.

We sis used to have nuclear rocket batteries back in the 1960s though.  ;D

:cheers:

Perhaps we can blame the ‘Corps 86’ policy for this fantasy ruse, amongst many others <cough> Chimera tank destroyer <cough> :)
 
daftandbarmy said:
Perhaps we can blame the ‘Corps 86’ policy for this fantasy ruse, amongst many others <cough> Chimera tank destroyer <cough> :)

Corps 86 was very useful. It had just been rolled out when I went to the Army's 6 month Command and Staff Course in Kingston and it proved a very helpful system to guide you in understanding concepts above the brigade which, quite frankly is all that any of us had experience with up to then.

General Starry, who was the commanding general of TRADOC was one of our guest speakers and gave us a bit of a briefing on the US Army's initiatives into the then ongoing "Army 86" studies and particularly the "Division 86" program which I understood was a very real initiative to develop the organization and doctrine for a Europe centric heavy division.

Starry impressed me. By the time he came we'd had about twenty guest lecturers each starting his lecture with a slideshow of their organization chart. Starry came and said: " I don't have an org chart with me and quite frankly I have no idea what the hell it looks like or how many people work for me." I'm pretty sure that he actually did but at the time he had staff in the tens of thousands and students numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Incidentally my syndicate discovered a serious deficiency in the establishment of Corps 86 as there was no provision for the Mobile Trollop Platoons which were meant to be collocated with the Mobile Bath and Laundry Platoons. We included it and designed a NATO standard military symbol for it. I'll let you guess what the symbol is. Let's just say that it wouldn't pass muster with today's Op Honour.

;D
 
The problem with exclusively using expensive smart weapons is that we will be limited in the number of both launchers and munitions that we can afford.

That typically won't be a problem when dealing with most non-peer opponents (which to be fair accounts for the majority of the enemies we are likely to face) which is why it makes sense to equip our Regular Force with these weapons. 

However, if we're only planning on mobilizing our Reserve units in case of a full-scale war against a peer enemy (i.e. Russia or China...realistically Russia in a land warfare scenario) and in that scenario we are likely going to be facing a situation where the Russians have considerably more weapons platforms than us, then relying ONLY on a limited number of "smart" launchers will risk having those assets overwhelmed by the sheer volume of enemy fire. 

Having some "volume" of our own in the form of some less expensive platforms would not only increase the amount of steel we can put down range but it would also allow us to focus our smart weapons on higher value targets that will have a bigger impact.  It will also make the enemy's job harder because they will have more potential targets to deal with.

I guess it's like anything...you need a variety of different tools in the toolbox in order to get the job done efficiently.  You wouldn't use your fancy laser level to pound in a nail...you'd use a hammer.  So we should probably have both hammers (cheap but effective HE launchers in quantity) and laser levels (HIMARS, Excalibur rounds, etc.) in our toolbox.
 
GR66 said:
The problem with exclusively using expensive smart weapons is that we will be limited in the number of both launchers and munitions that we can afford.

That typically won't be a problem when dealing with most non-peer opponents (which to be fair accounts for the majority of the enemies we are likely to face) which is why it makes sense to equip our Regular Force with these weapons. 

However, if we're only planning on mobilizing our Reserve units in case of a full-scale war against a peer enemy (i.e. Russia or China...realistically Russia in a land warfare scenario) and in that scenario we are likely going to be facing a situation where the Russians have considerably more weapons platforms than us, then relying ONLY on a limited number of "smart" launchers will risk having those assets overwhelmed by the sheer volume of enemy fire. 

Having some "volume" of our own in the form of some less expensive platforms would not only increase the amount of steel we can put down range but it would also allow us to focus our smart weapons on higher value targets that will have a bigger impact.  It will also make the enemy's job harder because they will have more potential targets to deal with.

I guess it's like anything...you need a variety of different tools in the toolbox in order to get the job done efficiently.  You wouldn't use your fancy laser level to pound in a nail...you'd use a hammer.  So we should probably have both hammers (cheap but effective HE launchers in quantity) and laser levels (HIMARS, Excalibur rounds, etc.) in our toolbox.
Excellent summary, and I wish I had written it. Now, we are considering an equipment for most units, and we need a relatively inexpensive, simple, and reliable system that will see a lot of time being bounced around in the field as people are learning to master their craft. I did my initial gunner training on the 105mm howitzer in Shilo in May and June 1958, and can still remember how to lay, load and all the rest on one. In fact, I just stripped the breech and firing lock in my head. I'll bet FJAG can as well. Leave the fancy, long range stuff for a few specialized fire units that will operate under the direction of "higher", and learn to fight and win fire fights with indirect fire.

We came close to declaring that sort of thing was obsolete, as precision weapons was the wave of the future. Tell that to the infantry who fought at close quarters in the sandbox. There certainly was a place for precision weaponry, but there also was a place for tons of dumb rounds crashing in at Danger Close. Maybe I'm a gunosaurus, but I still feel several rounds of fire for effect from a troop or battery, or for that matter a regiment or even every gun in range can tip the balance in favour of our side pdq.

So, let's find a good, practical field gun of 1no more than 155mm calibre, and use it both to train gunners, some of whom can move on to the more fancy stuff, and to take into battle when the next call comes.
 
Old Sweat said:
... we need a relatively inexpensive, simple, and reliable system that will see a lot of time being bounced around in the field as people are learning to master their craft. I did my initial gunner training on the 105mm howitzer in Shilo in May and June 1958, and can still remember how to lay, load and all the rest on one. In fact, I just stripped the breech and firing lock in my head. I'll bet FJAG can as well. Leave the fancy, long range stuff for a few specialized fire units that will operate under the direction of "higher", and learn to fight and win fire fights with indirect fire.

We came close to declaring that sort of thing was obsolete, as precision weapons was the wave of the future. Tell that to the infantry who fought at close quarters in the sandbox. There certainly was a place for precision weaponry, but there also was a place for tons of dumb rounds crashing in at Danger Close. Maybe I'm a gunosaurus, but I still feel several rounds of fire for effect from a troop or battery, or for that matter a regiment or even every gun in range can tip the balance in favour of our side pdq.

So, let's find a good, practical field gun of 1no more than 155mm calibre, and use it both to train gunners, some of whom can move on to the more fancy stuff, and to take into battle when the next call comes.

Must admit I frequently have flashbacks of leaping over the tailgate of a deuce and a half on "halt action right" and using the panoramic to lay on the director.

I've got to diverge a bit though. I'm very much a "break glass in case of emergency" kind of guy when it comes to a role for the reserves. Basically train and equip them for those situations which the RegF doesn't have to deal with every day but only in extreme circumstances. Lets face it, the RegF rarely has to do artillery stuff every day. In the last 60 years, Afghanistan was an aberration.

There is always a need for some RegF artillery if for no other reason then as a centre of excellence and knowledge to help develop doctrine and train the deployable force, but quite frankly we could save large sums of money on full-time personnel costs and divert those funds to fully equipping and training a predominantly ResF artillery. That way you do create the mass that you need but reduce the day-to-day costs associated with it.

I still can't see why the reserves shouldn't have the "esoteric" equipment that we will fight with for their training. If the US Army National Guard can operate Paladins, MLRS, HIMARS, Avengers and drones, so can our people.

I'll be the first guy to admit that under the way our reserves are organized and led these days it would be impractical BUT, the fixes are moderately easy and just require some vision and cohones on the part of our leadership.

Is there a role for light and simple guns - absolutely and we should have at least one brigade in Canada equipped as a light air transportable quick reaction force. BUT, there's also a pressing need for long range mechanized artillery, long range rockets, air defence at multiple levels, radars, attack drones and numerous other skills which have limited application in the Army's day-to-day life but are essential in times of actual conflict.

For me the big overarching problem is that a predominantly expensive full-time force which sits around most days and does nothing but train and administer itself, is the biggest obstacle to having a large properly equipped force when the unthinkable finally happens. Fully half of the Army is reservists and at present it is capable of contributing very little without a major mobilization effort which requires not only a lengthy training cycle but also the acquisition of large amounts of equipment. Personally, I think that's a luxury we won't have which means that, as usual, the military will have few options to offer our politicians when the time comes.

:brickwall:

 
https://defpost.com/bae-systems-offers-archer-howitzer-for-u-s-armys-155mm-wheeled-gun-system-requirement/

just add another 48 for us! Interesting in that i always imagined the US was not super interested in adopting foreign designs
 
suffolkowner said:
https://defpost.com/bae-systems-offers-archer-howitzer-for-u-s-armys-155mm-wheeled-gun-system-requirement/

just add another 48 for us! Interesting in that i always imagined the US was not super interested in adopting foreign designs



Under license, they seem to be more & more willing to adopt foreign designs.

-  The Striker has it's roots with the Piranha family of vehicles, and I believe a licensing fee is paid

-  The FFG(X) is an adopted Italian design

-  The NSM/JSM is the Norwegian design, which the Americans modified to also be fired from aircraft

-  The Carl G, including the new model just recently announced, is a Swedish weapon adopted with minimal modifications.  (Although some enhancements such as sights and fire control computers, which are common, may be American.)

-  The 76mm naval guns on a majority of their warships is based off an Italian design, and I believe still manufactured for the US Navy by Oto Melara

-  Quite a few of the options presented for the GCV / Future GCV / etc etc - project has become alive and died so many times under different acronyms - quite a few of those options were foreign designs, to be built under license


They seem to be less adverse to foreign designs than they used to be. 

Perhaps (??) because the American giants tend to take forever to design anything, and come in far more expensive than some of the foreign designs that offer similar capabilities?
 
CBH99 said:
Under license, they seem to be more & more willing to adopt foreign designs.

-  The Striker has it's roots with the Piranha family of vehicles, and I believe a licensing fee is paid

-  The FFG(X) is an adopted Italian design

-  The NSM/JSM is the Norwegian design, which the Americans modified to also be fired from aircraft

-  The Carl G, including the new model just recently announced, is a Swedish weapon adopted with minimal modifications.  (Although some enhancements such as sights and fire control computers, which are common, may be American.)

-  The 76mm naval guns on a majority of their warships is based off an Italian design, and I believe still manufactured for the US Navy by Oto Melara

-  Quite a few of the options presented for the GCV / Future GCV / etc etc - project has become alive and died so many times under different acronyms - quite a few of those options were foreign designs, to be built under license


They seem to be less adverse to foreign designs than they used to be. 

Perhaps (??) because the American giants tend to take forever to design anything, and come in far more expensive than some of the foreign designs that offer similar capabilities?

And don't forget that the USMC copied CADPAT :)

http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm
 
FJAG said:
Must admit I frequently have flashbacks of leaping over the tailgate of a deuce and a half on "halt action right" and using the panoramic to lay on the director.

I've got to diverge a bit though. I'm very much a "break glass in case of emergency" kind of guy when it comes to a role for the reserves. Basically train and equip them for those situations which the RegF doesn't have to deal with every day but only in extreme circumstances. Lets face it, the RegF rarely has to do artillery stuff every day. In the last 60 years, Afghanistan was an aberration.

There is always a need for some RegF artillery if for no other reason then as a centre of excellence and knowledge to help develop doctrine and train the deployable force, but quite frankly we could save large sums of money on full-time personnel costs and divert those funds to fully equipping and training a predominantly ResF artillery. That way you do create the mass that you need but reduce the day-to-day costs associated with it.

I still can't see why the reserves shouldn't have the "esoteric" equipment that we will fight with for their training. If the US Army National Guard can operate Paladins, MLRS, HIMARS, Avengers and drones, so can our people.

I'll be the first guy to admit that under the way our reserves are organized and led these days it would be impractical BUT, the fixes are moderately easy and just require some vision and cohones on the part of our leadership.

Is there a role for light and simple guns - absolutely and we should have at least one brigade in Canada equipped as a light air transportable quick reaction force. BUT, there's also a pressing need for long range mechanized artillery, long range rockets, air defence at multiple levels, radars, attack drones and numerous other skills which have limited application in the Army's day-to-day life but are essential in times of actual conflict.

For me the big overarching problem is that a predominantly expensive full-time force which sits around most days and does nothing but train and administer itself, is the biggest obstacle to having a large properly equipped force when the unthinkable finally happens. Fully half of the Army is reservists and at present it is capable of contributing very little without a major mobilization effort which requires not only a lengthy training cycle but also the acquisition of large amounts of equipment. Personally, I think that's a luxury we won't have which means that, as usual, the military will have few options to offer our politicians when the time comes.

:brickwall:
 
Your last para.  Can't agree more. 

Saw an article recently where a bunch of US youngsters were given a fleet of remote drive M113s or some such.  Command allowed a one week familiarization delta.  The troops were up to speed in half an hour.

RC vehicles and ps4 is the standard required.
 
Chris Pook said:
Your last para.  Can't agree more. 

Saw an article recently where a bunch of US youngsters were given a fleet of remote drive M113s or some such.  Command allowed a one week familiarization delta.  The troops were up to speed in half an hour.

RC vehicles and ps4 is the standard required.

The reserves could be a powerful tool for force generation if we were reorganized, trained and funded effectively, and had our civilian careers protected.
 
Aren't civilian careers already protected under existing legislation?

I remember during the Afghan war hayday, many reservists were deployed, and there was legislation in place to protect those careers.



Thankfully, most emergency services agencies didn't need the ultimatum, and many supported their members even while they were deployed. 
 
CBH99 said:
Aren't civilian careers already protected under existing legislation?

I remember during the Afghan war hayday, many reservists were deployed, and there was legislation in place to protect those careers.



Thankfully, most emergency services agencies didn't need the ultimatum, and many supported their members even while they were deployed.

I saw several reservists deploy, some more than once, to AFG and lost their jobs. One for sure I know even had his business collapse.

To my knowledge no employer was ever charged with anything, and none were hired back. There was no help available from the CAF apart form offering them Class B jobs based on availability etc.

Those who were in the emergency services professions, like cops and firefighters, seemed to do better but I'm sure had stunted civilian careers due to their tendency to head out for a year at fairly short notice (maybe even the MND? Not sure there  .... )

In 'Class A land' all bets are off once you take the step through the looking glass and develop the crazy idea that you can both deploy operationally and have a good career in civvie street.
 
Back
Top