Canada seeks to buy Long Range Precision Rockets (probably US MLRS or HIMARS)

[The_Dictat]

Look what I found on Merx!!!!  ;D

Long Range Precision Rocket System

Trade Agreement: Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT)
Tendering Procedures:
Attachment: None
Competitive Procurement Strategy: N/A - P&A/LOI Only
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements:
Letter of Interest
Long Range Precision Rocket System (LRPRS)
1.    GENERAL
The Canadian Forces (CF) intends to procure a new Long Range
Precision Rocket System (LRPRS) and institutionalize this
capability within the land forces. The purpose of this Letter of
Interest (LOI) is to communicate the Canadian Forces'
preliminary requirements and solicit information and feedback
from industry regarding the proposed solution. This feedback is
requested to assist the Crown in finalizing the requirements and
the procurement strategy and to gage industry's interest in this
project.
2.    BACKGROUND
    A Long Range Precision Rocket System is an essential component
of joint fire support and will complement other Canadian Forces
land, naval and air systems currently in service or expected to
enter service. The key to overcoming present and future
battlefield threats is the ability to mass fires; thereby
reducing the enemy's ability to respond and manoeuvre, while
maintaining the Canadian Forces' capability to conduct
continuous operations. The Long Range Precision Rocket System
is expected to operate in a complex environment delivering
precise munitions against threat targets while minimizing
collateral damage.
The preferred option is to procure a fully developed and battle
proven system (commonly referred to as a Military-Off-The-Shelf
(MOTS) to meet the preliminary list of High Level Mandatory
Requirements (HLMR). This course of action best offers an
achievable and timely solution to address the identified
deficiencies. The contractor is expected to supply the Long
Range Precision Rocket System, perform the integration of
Canadian supplied components, and commit to the long-term
provision of In-Service Support (ISS) to the system.
3.    PROJECT SCOPE
The Long Range Precision Rocket System project intends to
procure up to 17 launchers and associated medium to long-range
missile systems. The Long Range Precision Rocket System project
scope will include, but is not limited to, the provision of:
Launchers and missile systems;
Ancillary Vehicles (i.e. launcher support vehicles and trailers);
The initial provisioning of spares and Integrated Logistics
Support (ILS) for the launcher, ancillary and missile systems
(including repair and overhaul, deployed technical support,
training and simulation) for a period of two years;
In Service Support for the launcher, ancillary and missile
systems for the duration of their estimated life expectancy
(ELE); and
Project management and engineering services.
4.    ROLE AND FUNCTION
The primary role of the Long Range Precision Rocket System is to
provide indirect fire support to the Canadian Forces land force
and to joint operations. The Long Range Precision Rocket System
will provide a capability to deliver precision strike munitions
at medium to long range.
5.    CONSTRAINTS
To mitigate risk and reduce cost the project will only consider
operationally fielded and proven systems (i.e.
Military-Off-The-Shelf). The proposed solution must be in use
with a NATO nation in order to maximize interoperability,
interchangeability and supportability. The Canadian Forces will
acquire precision-guided munitions equipped with a unitary
warhead; there is no intent to procure unguided or cluster
munitions.
6.    REQUIREMENTS
The Long Range Precision Rocket System project is predicated on
a set of high level functional and performance requirements.
The list of preliminary high level mandatory requirements that a
proposed system must meet is contained within Annex A.
7.    SCHEDULE
When responding to this Letter of Interest the following
schedule should be utilized as a baseline:
Contract Award (CA) – fall 2010;
First delivery – two (2) years after contract award;
Project Acquisition Complete – 2014; and
In Service Support (ISS) Phase – 2014 onward.

 

[McG]

Too bad this comes right on the heels of Canada signing the cluster munitions ban.  If we get a system like HIMARS then we will not be able to fire the majority of the munitions developed for the weapon.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Good catch, The_Dictat!

Link & .pdf download here.

 

[Ralph]

Too bad this comes right on the heels of Canada signing the cluster munitions ban.  If we get a system like HIMARS then we will not be able to fire the majority of the munitions developed for the weapon.

The US is moving towards deploying the unitary warhead the majority of the time anyway. Just because they didn't sign the treaty doesn't mean they're willing to deal with an unacceptable dud rate, especially in current ops...

 

[McG]

... especially in current ops...

sure, it is appropriate for the current mission. However, it is a significant loss of flexibility/limitation for future ops.  The Long Range Precision Rocket System (LRPRS) is not being bought for Afghanistan.  It is to permanently establish a capability.

Curious where the PYs are coming from. 

 

[Ralph]

When we start fighting enemy tank/pers concentrations of several hundred square meters with no collateral damage concerns, I'll be the first knocking at the door to bring back DPICM and CBUs  ;D
As for PYs, I'll think out loud and point out that our Air Defense brethren will be without equipment after the last few ADATS are retired...

 

[McG]

As for PYs, I'll think out loud and point out that our Air Defense brethren will be without equipment after the last few ADATS are retired...

I've heard others suggest the same.  However, an AD capability is a prerequisite for a nation to host the G8 and a few other such international activities.  Additionally, AD is one of the required capabilities to support the Olympics (ADATS or another system).  I've even heard the CLS state that the need for AD is not about to go away ... and I know I would not want to be fighting my way into some potential theaters (like the Sudan) without AD.

 

[Old Sweat]

As an old tired, long retired gunner, I have a couple of ideas about the source of the PYs that do not involve pillaging the rest of the army or giving up a capability. I am probably out to lunch, and CLS is unlikely to ask me for advice, so I'll shut up.

 

[dapaterson]

I think the CLS vision is to have this system and STA centred in the Reg F, with more and more gun bunnies and FOO parties being generated out of the Reserves - at elast, those are the ideas he was speaking about last summer.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the CLS vision is to have this system and STA centred in the Reg F, with more and more gun bunnies and FOO parties being generated out of the Reserves - at elast, those are the ideas he was speaking about last summer.

The kind of opens the way to The Honourable Artillery Company .  A very ancient and useful mob that supplies the British Army with Long Range FOO parties, the Met with detachments of Special Constables, the gentry with some excellent clubs (shootin' and cricket) and the City with a great place to have a "knees up".   

 

[McG]

While I'm sure that I heard the opposite on giving the reserves a larger role with the M777, I have heard comment of converting reserve artillery units to FOO/FAC role.  However, this addresses an existing personnel deficiency on deployed Ops as opposed to creating PYs to establish a new capability. 

 

[dapaterson]

Right now the Reg F artillery is well below strength, and trying to take on additional roles.  Thus the impetus to get more from the Reserves.  That will, however, require the Arty school to start training Reservists willingly, and not only when forced.  And it may require the Arty school to run more than one Reserve officer serial per year - as that produces less than one officer per unit per year, not a sustainable model.

 

[rampage800]

I don't really see the Reserves taking over the FOO/FAC role, it just would make no sense and I'll point out a couple different reasons

1) Getting qualified on equipment, how many Reserve Artillery Officers are qualified LAV CC or Gnr, how about qualified FAC ? Then how do these people stay current on this equipment, quals ? Its hard enough as it is for Reg Force who are avail most of the time never mind someone who is working another job/going to school etc etc.

2)Face time, most Inf units before they deploy already know their affiliated FOO Party(s) and establish some type of relationship, how does an Inf Unit get that when they are on Ex in Feb (see last sentence above) or trying to learn the best way to employ their Party/ what effects are best for certain areas.

Those are just a couple examples, its not to say that Reserve Arty Units shouldn't have their own FOO Parties but just don't see the feasibility in having them take over this role all together.

 

[George Wallace]

I don't really see the Reserves taking over the FOO/FAC role, it just would make no sense and I'll point out a couple different reasons

1) Getting qualified on equipment, how many Reserve Artillery Officers are qualified LAV CC or Gnr, how about qualified FAC ? Then how do these people stay current on this equipment, quals ? Its hard enough as it is for Reg Force who are avail most of the time never mind someone who is working another job/going to school etc etc.

What is not to say that qualified FOO/FACs who are Retiring from the CF at an early age, be encouraged to CT to a Reserve Unit and keep their skills up, as well as train other Reservists?  This may alleviate some of the problems faced by the CF in "Retention".

 

[dapaterson]

We're posting Reg F members straight from phase training to theatre.  Take an experienced Reserve FOO, give them the LAV course, and send 'em on their way - more experience as a FOO, same experience with the vehicle.

Vest this solely in the Res F?  probably not.  But get more of it out of the Reserves?  Definitely.  That will require the Arty branch to stop ignoring the Reserves, and to start training Reservists other than at gunpoint...


Memories of the AITC: Ops O of the Arty school:  "We don't train Reservists.  Reservists train Reservists."  Me: "How many Reservists in Whisky Battery?"  Ops O: "<Stunned silence.".  AITA G3 Production: "Thirty seven at last count."

 

[Petard]

Wow, this one is kind of going all over the place, but just a few comments on some of the things thrown out there

The capability does have considerable potential growth when we look at some possible future munition types and not just the current unitary warhead, but I seriously doubt cluster munitions will ever be considered.

As for who will man this capability, there is also the factor of who will sustain and maintain this capability. Another is how will its command and control be integrated into what type of Force Employment when we are generally tasking Battle Groups and this capability was originally intended to be a Div resource. There won't be many of them, if the project goes ahead, so cost-wise it is better to centralize it, force generation wise it is better to spread it out. These are factors just as important a consideration as any. I did hear talk about Reserves possibly manning some of these, but the whole project is still only just getting its legs under it so nobody I know could really say for sure how this will play out.

As for the issues of the Arty School and Reserve FOO's, that sounds like a completely different topic, but having been the Standards Officer for the FOO course for a year (2003) I have to say there are a number of problems with giving positions to Reservists on that course, some of which have already been pointed out. But really that doesn't have too much to do with the central topic of Canada looking to get long range precision rocket capability

 

[McG]

The capability does have considerable potential growth when we look at some possible future munition types and not just the current unitary warhead, but I seriously doubt cluster munitions will ever be considered.

Considering that we (Canada) have signed an international agreement against the use of cluster munitions (which includes DPICM & FASCAM), I'd say that doubt is a sure thing.  We will never fire cluster munitions.

It's in the press now too:

Canadian army shopping for rocket launchers
Updated Thu. Jan. 8 2009 8:34 PM ET
The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Canada's Defence Department is in the market for some heavy, long-range artillery.

The army wants as many as 17 long-range rocket launchers to add to its stock of towed howitzers.

Public Works posted a notice Dec. 23 asking defence contractors for letters of interest, a preliminary step in the tendering process.

The notice said the system must be "fully developed and battle proven" and capable of firing precision-guided munitions.

No price tag was attached, though training, spare parts and support would be part of any potential contract.

It's unclear whether the army would require the artillery rockets in Afghanistan, where it has already deployed up to 12 new British-built M-777 howitzers.

The M-777s lob individual shells, both high-explosive and precision-guided. The rocket launchers could hit a target with as many as 12 rockets in one volley.

The British and Americans both employ rocket launchers in Afghanistan, using GPS-guided systems. The weapons, originally designed to hit enemy tank formations in the Cold War, were thought to be of little use in the hide-and-seek counter-insurgency war that Canada and its allies are waging in Afghanistan.

The head of the army, Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, said in a recent interview that Canada must be prepared to fight both unconventional conflicts, such as Afghanistan, as well as old-style conventional wars, such as the conflict seen last summer between Russia and Georgia.

Leslie did not cite rocket launchers in the interview, but said the army needs to be prepared for all eventualities.

The Canadian army has wanted some form of multiple rocket launchers for years.

When Paul Martin's Liberal government asked each branch of the service in 2005 for a wish list, the army cited both M-777s and long-range rockets as necessary to re-equip the artillery branch.

Later that year, the howitzers were deemed essential for the mission in Afghanistan and the Defence Department cut a deal with the U.S. Marine Corps to buy 12 in a government-to-government purchase.

The federal government followed with a plan last year to buy as many as 34 more of the highly accurate light-weight pieces.

Senior military officials, speaking on background last year, said the plan to acquire rocket launchers was something that "would be considered much further down the road -- possibly in the 2012 time frame."

Defence industry insiders say there are only two systems on the market that would meet the Defence Department's criteria -- the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System and the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System.

The M270 is a powerful tracked vehicle that can lob 12 rockets at once between 35 and 70 kilometres.

The M142 is a lighter version, with six rocket launchers mounted on the back of a heavy wheeled vehicle.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090108/rocket_army_090108/20090108?hub=Canada

Interesting that the article seems to suggest that this is primarily a conventional war tool to smash armoured formations.  The cluster munitions ban largely neuters the ability to destroy massed armour, while the precision unitary warhead would fit nicely into a counter-insurgency fight through providing precision fires with greater reach than the M777 (and potentially at less cost per shot than Excalibur).

 

[Petard]

It doesn't necessarily have to be focused on breaking up or attacking armoured formations, although an expelling type of munition, something similar to
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammunition-Handbook/155-mm-Bonus-sensor-fuzed-munition-International.html
might be considered
Long range attacks could also be directed at command nodes with this type of capability,  possibly some time down the road using non nuclear warheads like this
http://www.deepspace4.com/pages/science/emp/empwarheads.htm

 

[McG]

It doesn't necessarily have to be focused on breaking up or attacking armoured formations, although an expelling type of munition, something similar to
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Ammunition-Handbook/155-mm-Bonus-sensor-fuzed-munition-International.html

BONUS might be exempt from the cluster munition convention through Article 2 para 2.c

2. “Cluster munition” means a conventional munition that is designed to disperse or release explosive submunitions each weighing less than 20 kilograms, and includes those explosive submunitions. It does not mean the following:
(c) A munition that, in order to avoid indiscriminate area effects and the risks posed by unexploded submunitions, has all of the following characteristics:
(i) Each munition contains fewer than ten explosive submunitions;
(ii) Each explosive submunition weighs more than four kilograms;
(iii) Each explosive submunition is designed to detect and engage a single target object;
(iv) Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-destruction mechanism;
(v) Each explosive submunition is equipped with an electronic self-deactivating feature;

However, such a capability does not currently exist for 227 mm rockets.

 

[Petard]

IIRC in the late 80's a 227mm rocket with SADARM type submunitions (a precursor to Bonus) was being developed as the XM29, but didn't go into production
The EMP one doesn't exist yet either, far as I know, but again the system has considerable potential for a number of payloads