Replacing the M109s

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sad day indeed.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Spr. WIlliamson:
[qb] To time served
[/qb]

A million wisecracks come to find, but since my dad was a Bombardier, I‘ll let it slip by.

"Good shooting! Stand easy."

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As the government pulls our teeth one by one.

 

[30 for 30]

I would prefer to replace the M109s but at the same time I think there is some sense in turning the RCHA into a more light and deployable force. We will certainly lose some punch but I think the vast majority of CF missions do perfectly well with LG1/C3 arty support.

 

[Danjanou]

Colin, they‘re not pulling teeth one by one here. It‘s more like smashing them out a half a dozen at a time with a sledgehammer.

 

[mattoigta]

shameful.

 

[chrisp1j]

Too bad, to say the least.

What are they going to do now? Are they being retasked?

 

[George Wallace]

Originally posted by RNW:
[qb] I would prefer to replace the M109s but at the same time I think there is some sense in turning the RCHA into a more light and deployable force. We will certainly lose some punch but I think the vast majority of CF missions do perfectly well with LG1/C3 arty support. [/qb]

105‘s just don‘t have the punch that 155‘s do. It is another case of the Cbt Arms being short changed by Civies making decissions on things they know absolutely zip about. Cost cutting and Political.

GW

 

[RCA]

For anyone who has see the differece between a 105 and 155, its a no brainer. And any grunt worth his salt wouldn‘t ask for second best.

 

[30 for 30]

Of course we all want tanks and 109s and Chinooks and more regular brigades and new destroyers and a new Airborne Regiment etc...the question is what can we afford, and what can we deploy with our current funding? I‘m pretty sure the people in charge will tell you there isn‘t money to deploy and maintain, let alone replace, heavy 109s compared to LG1s. That‘s reality...they‘re not being deployed and they haven‘t been deployed for a long time as far as I‘m aware. Sure we want them and need them to engage in warfighting, but I think it‘s a fair comment to say that in A-Stan and Bosnia our light guns have suited our needs sufficiently.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

This thread is making me feel old.. 2RCHA has 109‘s? I can‘t shake the airborne/airportable thing out of my head. ....aahh-flashback...trails that fold/where‘s the towing eye?/put the muzzle break on......

 

[luck881]

Not really related... but with a posting coming up, any one give me a heads up about what to expect in sigs pl/tp????? (@ 2horse, of course)

 

[kruger]

They disband a pretty robust vehicle without any replacement forthcoming? What else does the Army have in its arsenal that can lob 155 mm arty shells to a distance of 23.5 km?

 

[Old Cent Hand]

My God, keep the 109‘s , if you want to replace them , buy the M109 A6 " Paladin",keep it up and all the " Guns" will will be 81 MM Mortars. What this country needs is a good "Knock ‘Em down , Drag ‘em Out War". 4 dead on the first tour in Afghanistan ? What if 20 to 30 people were coming back dead from , a 6 month tour? Then , it would mean a bit more than ‘ Good Coin".

 

[kruger]

Would it be possible to bring the M109‘s up to M109A6 Paladin standard without having to buy entirely new vehicles?

 

[Gunner]

Would it be possible to bring the M109‘s up to M109A6 Paladin standard without having to buy entirely new vehicles?

I don‘t believe so. I seem to recall that our M109s have been upgraded as far as they can be (certainly from a cost effectiveness point of view). Remember that ours were procured in the 60s...

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Originally posted by RCA:
[qb] For anyone who has see the differece between a 105 and 155, its a no brainer. And any grunt worth his salt wouldn‘t ask for second best. [/qb]

As a grunt, the question isn‘t "what is the best", it is what can be deployed. No sense having a great piece of kit sitting in the Z Lines because it lacks strategic mobility. At least the 105 can be delivered to where the grunts are, given our current strategic, operational, and tactical mobility.

 

[muskrat89]

Generally, the only deployment advantage (that I can think of) to a 105 would be air mobility. Obviously, the advantage of artillery is that it doesn‘t have to be deployed "with" the infantry, per se, so getting it into (inserting) a specific area is not critical. Besides, aren‘t we short on helos?

Tracks are typically considered to be more mobile than wheeled vehicles, right? Also, the longer range of the 155 may require less movement (other than for tactical reasons, obviously).

I see what you‘re saying, Sir - I just still think that overall, you‘d be better off with the 155s

 

[Gunner]

Tracks are typically considered to be more mobile than wheeled vehicles, right?

Muskrat, I think you mean maneuverable vice mobile. Tracks are less mobile in terms of strategic movement (require heavy airlift) but are arguability better at tactical maneuvre cross country. Developments in 105 ammo provide similar range capabilities as the 155 (see topic on 105 LAV).

The 109s are old and need to be replaced. The army and government have accepted the reality that the CF will never (in the forseeable future) be required to be required to provide offensive shock action against a well trained and equiped defender. We will never be centre stage on a "drive on Baghdad" but we may provide rear area security, route or flank security, etc. Hence 105 is a suitable indirect fire calibre. If additional resources are required in a theatre of operations, they will have to be provided by a coalition partner.

We have accepted the fact that we will be an infantry centric army with limited capabilities. However, the capabilities that we retain will allow us to successfully implement the governments bidding

For G3 LFCA - Sir, good to have you on board.

 

[muskrat89]

Gunner - You are correct - that is what I meant. Sorry, it‘s been awhile