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

Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc22
  • Start date Start date
Thread gone under quick clean up, more to follow.

Please keep the specualtion and innuendo to yourselves.

Unless you have valid facts, with regards to a reporters method of operation, do not post from the hip on "What you think" that reporter did.

dileas

tess
 
Just read esprit de corps, aug 08 edition and it claims that funding was approved in May for the purchase of 304 CASW units and if the program remains on track the CASW will be in use by fall 2009. I guess only time will tell. 

I found the end of the article humourous, "With the current stocks of mortar shells and their 20-year plus shelf life, the old mortars will not be phased out of service any time soon." - I don't believe the ammunition held in stock has anything to do with whether a weapons system is removed from service. Just my opinion.

 
ammocat said:
Just read esprit de corps, aug 08 edition and it claims that funding was approved in May for the purchase of 304 CASW units and if the program remains on track the CASW will be in use by fall 2009. I guess only time will tell. 

I found the end of the article humourous, "With the current stocks of mortar shells and their 20-year plus shelf life, the old mortars will not be phased out of service any time soon." - I don't believe the ammunition held in stock has anything to do with whether a weapons system is removed from service. Just my opinion.

AFAIK, the reason we have 60mm and 81mm mortars now, is that we were left with tons of ammo from the 2 inch and 3 inch mortars from WW1 & 2. So you could argue that ammo reserves have some kind of influence on weapons development.
 
Daft and Barmy,

That must be it. It explains why I supported and the Commander 4 CIBG approved the recommendation from NDHQ that we sell our war stocks of 60mm ammunition to the Americans in 1965. At that stage we were not using the weapon and there was not intention of retaining it in our inventory. Fortunately someone wiser that the Young Sweat must have hide the weapons in sports store at 25 CFSD or somewhere similar.
 
I don't think the ammunition stock has anything to do with the decision on which weapon systems stays or goes. Once a decision is made to get rid of a certain weapons system the remaining stocks of ammunition are put up for sale. After the required time period has elapsed, if the ammunition cannot be sold, then it goes for demil.

It was not too long ago that all the 155mm in the CF was going up for sale and demil back up plans were being discussed. The requirement for the M777 quickly changed that.

When I left the infantry and saw some of the stuff that we were disposing of, all I could think was "where was all this ammo when I was in the weapons det"
 
Just offering this up to those interested in this weapon system - does this mean what I think it means?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81068/post-775675/topicseen.html#new

Does "solicitation cancelled" = "program cancelled"?
 
daftandbarmy said:
AFAIK, the reason we have 60mm and 81mm mortars now, is that we were left with tons of ammo from the 2 inch and 3 inch mortars from WW1 & 2. So you could argue that ammo reserves have some kind of influence on weapons development.

Sometimes it does.

British Empire units were stocked with .303, while Americans used Winchester .308 during WWII. Post war, the UK experimented with a .280 "ideal" round, and built the EM-2 program around it. The US, with its vastly larger resources and about a zillion rounds stockpiled from WWII insisted Winchester .308 be the NATO standard round, and won. No EM-2 (which was already in limited issue), and "we" got the 7.62 X 51 round NATO wide.

LMG's "should" have a 6.5 or 6.8mm round for effectiveness, and there is some opinion that the 5.55 rounds used in NATO small arms isn't very effective (even in the SS-109 configuration). Surprise, it is Remington .223, purchased in vast amounts by the US for the Viet Nam war as they unilaterally transitioned from the 7.62 round....

 
I don't think the ammunition stock has anything to do with the decision on which weapon systems stays or goes.

Ammocat,

You are partially right.  What makes the difference ultimately is what funds the Army has available in the National Procurement budget.  This is the money used to pay for spares, ammunition, and any new items after a capital programme is closed-out.  Most capital programmes procure 2 years of ammunition and 2 years of expected spare parts usage with the weapon system . Once that is purchased, the services have to budget procurement of follow-on spares, ammo, etc...  That is where is the Army is hurting - not in the capital programmes where money is relatively plentiful - but in the NP funds.  With all the new weapons systems coming in, it is getting more and more difficult to keep all the older weapons systems on the shelves and some of them have to be cleared out to make space for a new one.

I am not saying I agree with the process since I am a firm believer in the "golf bag" approach.  The more tools you have in your toolbox the more chances you have on having exactly the right one for the job.  The problem is maintaining such a variegated fleet of weapons, vehicles and the ammo and spares is bleeding the Army dry; hard decisons were required. 

PS: I am basing this comment on info that may be dated but I do not think it is so.

Cheers,

Gasplug  :salute:
 
milnews.ca said:
Just offering this up to those interested in this weapon system - does this mean what I think it means?
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/81068/post-775675/topicseen.html#new

Does "solicitation cancelled" = "program cancelled"?

Not necessarily.  It could mean "Oops, we screwed up on the specifications and are going to re-write them".  It could mean "Industry feedback has made us go back and rethink".  It could mean "Program cancelled".  It could even mean "Oops, forgot to get all the necessary approvals before we posted the solicitation".

Nothing heard to date about cancellation; makes me suspect it's one of the others.
 
Thanks for the clarification of what ELSE it could mean.
 
Just an interisting bit of historitrivia:

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl00-e.htm#agl

It is generally believed that first automatic grenade launchers were developed in USA by mid-1960s, following the US involvement in the Vietnam war. These weapons were developed by US Navy and several military contractors to provide troops with close to medium range support and area suppression weapons, effective against enemy infantry and light structures. These weapons were light and compact enough to be installed on riverine crafts, combat helicopters, jeeps, and on light infantry mounts (tripods). What is generally not known is the fact that very similar weapons were developed and tested in USSR prior to WW2, in around 1935-38. There were several designs of such weapons, but most developed of these was the 40,6mm automatic grenade launcher designed by Taubin. This magazine-fed, selective fired weapon was developed as a more versatile alternative to the 50mm mortar; it fired 40,6mm fragmentation grenade (based on standard issue 40,6mm Dyakonov rifle grenade M1930) in either direct and indirect fire modes. However, changes in General Staff of Red Army following Stalin's repressions of 1937-39 resulted in withdrawal of Army support to this project, and Taubin grenade launcher never went past prototype stages. The Taubin itself has been arrested, tried on false accusations, found guilty and later executed

Sucks to be a weapons designer under Stalin!

 
Thuc posted:

British Empire units were stocked with .303, while Americans used Winchester .308 during WWII. Post war,

Actually the US used the .30-06 as its standard calibre during the Second World War and Korea.
 
milnews.ca said:
Does "solicitation cancelled" = "program cancelled"?
I friggin' well hope so.  I have not seen ONE INSTANCE over here where that 21st century Ross would do better than anything we have.  In most cases, it would be worse.  Just imagine trying to (a) fit it in the back of a LAV and (b) hump it around with you up and down the Arghandab.  They do it right now with the 60, and from ALL accounts: the 60 is worth it's weight in gold!  And then some.


 
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
I friggin' well hope so. 

Hate to be the messenger, MR, but it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.....
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/81068/post-777032.html#msg777032
 
I reckoned that I should update the thread as it has been sometime and nobody else has done it yet.

Since the Notice of  Proposed  Procurement (NPP) was canceled for some unknown reason on 7 Nov 08 it has been reissued as of 2 Feb 09.  To me the two NPP's look the same, with the total number of systems equaling 304. Also included in the NPP is the requirement for ammo, project management, spare parts, and training. 

We will see what happens this time around... fun fun.

MC

The new closing date is 17 Mar 09 and you can find the details on MERX.

 
 
kkwd dug up this article. It confirms for me that anyone thinking about getting rid of the 60mm MOR is nuts:

For longer-range fire, each platoon
possessed the venerable 60 mm mortar. Old, heavy, and
rudimentary, no other weapon system in the platoon could
saturate an enemy position with fragmentation bombs at
2,000 m more than the dependable 60 mm mortar.
Although the bipod mount, which allows for sustained and
accurate fire, is old and growing increasingly unstable, the
60 mm mortar is still a critical weapon system in the
platoon’s arsenal (especially given the fact it can also fire
smoke and illumination rounds).

http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/allc-clra/Downloads/bulletin/TheBulletinVol12No3eng.pdf





 
It makes you wonder if the people that want to get rid of the Mortar have talked to anyone that has deployed.  Almost everybody I have talked to love the 60mm and the 25mm HEI.
 
That sounds like an excellent justification for getting rid of the 60mm indeed.  I've yet to understand the logic that says an AGL is an adequate replacement for the 60.  If they're old and obsolete, they should be replaced with a new mortar, and complemented with an AGL perhaps as well, since those are another good piece of kit.

daftandbarmy said:
Good article. In particular I liked the comments on the 60mm, which apparently 'they' don't think 'we' need anymore... sheesh...

For longer-range fire, each platoon
possessed the venerable 60 mm mortar. Old, heavy, and
rudimentary, no other weapon system in the platoon could
saturate an enemy position with fragmentation bombs at
2,000 m more than the dependable 60 mm mortar.
Although the bipod mount, which allows for sustained and
accurate fire, is old and growing increasingly unstable, the
60 mm mortar is still a critical weapon system in the
platoon’s arsenal (especially given the fact it can also fire
smoke and illumination rounds).
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/allc-clra/Downloads/bulletin/TheBulletinVol12No3eng.pdf
 
Redeye said:
If they're old and obsolete, they should be replaced with a new mortar, and complemented with an AGL ...
Where do the crews come from?
 
MCG said:
Where do the crews come from?

Not wanting to be facetious but perhaps the same place they used to come from:

Old fashioned Platoon Weapons Det - 3 Men
Weapons Manned

- C5/C6 - Minimum firing crew - 2 men
- CG-84 - Minimum firing crew - 2 men
- 60 mm - Minimum firing crew - 1 man

5 operators to man all weapons at minimal effectiveness -  A full section would have been better for ammunition carry, SFMG and Bipod 60 operations.

We have already established a pattern of more weapons than manpower. 

Is there any reason why CQ/RQ can't carry surplus kit - eg ATGMs (Eryx/Javelin/Spike) to deal with the unexpected?




 
Back
Top