Replacing the M109s
- Thread starter Korus
- Start date
if you guys look into it the reason they lost their 109‘s was so that the manauver centre in Wainwright can have them for the new training system they have. although its a blow to 2horse i believe its a step forward for the army in that they can now train a battle group with out the cost of railheading all the equipment.the RCD‘s are losing some tanks also. this is going to provide the much needed traing equipment at one centre so our soldiers can hop on a plane and train. instead of drive all the way their and spend millions of dollars getting their. i do recall Canada is talking about a airmobile assault unit hmmmmmmm. new helos and wham we have our selves a para unit back. any ways my 2 cents worth. UBIQUE
Gunner
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
G3, some armour corps types would also argue that you can‘t put a MGS into a herc eventhough the CLS said you could...
I‘m of two minds about CMTC. In a perfect world I fully support CMTC as a much needed capability for our army and is the natural progression of training (realistic force on force) that our collective training has always been lacking. My problem with CMTC is it is resource intensive to operate and IMHO there is a huge possibility that it will morph into an expensive albatross that the army can‘t afford. Moreover it is so expensive, units will only be able to participate once every three years.
I hadn‘t heard canada was considering an air mobile capability. Do you have any other info?
the AS90 155mm turret assembly in use by the Brits
was origanly desgined to fit on the M109 chassis series howitzers. it is now however a complete new unit from the factory new hull and gun system. if Canada wanted to BAE could upgrade our M109‘s to the AS90 turrets which are all automated and are comparable if not better then the A6 Pallidun currently used by the US. Three rds 10 secs same target same time wow what a machine. for the 105mm being smaller and less damaging. hmmmm well 155 can on avergae maintain a 3 rds a minute fire at max a 105 can do 5-8 rds a minute (both cases are with good gun crews and war time conditions) saying this the 105 can provide more bullets on the ground faster then and cheaper than a 155 can. for those of you that think the 105 is a toy well think agan. its air dropable easyly deployed and not a hole lot of maintence to keep it running. saying this we need both Gun systems because they both have their place on the modern battle field, any one who disagrees with this should look at manouver warefare and than look at manouver warefare in the mountains.(it doesnt work). if we were getting rid of the M109‘s complelty it would be a sad day for the Artillery...... MORE AFTER WORK
was origanly desgined to fit on the M109 chassis series howitzers. it is now however a complete new unit from the factory new hull and gun system. if Canada wanted to BAE could upgrade our M109‘s to the AS90 turrets which are all automated and are comparable if not better then the A6 Pallidun currently used by the US. Three rds 10 secs same target same time wow what a machine. for the 105mm being smaller and less damaging. hmmmm well 155 can on avergae maintain a 3 rds a minute fire at max a 105 can do 5-8 rds a minute (both cases are with good gun crews and war time conditions) saying this the 105 can provide more bullets on the ground faster then and cheaper than a 155 can. for those of you that think the 105 is a toy well think agan. its air dropable easyly deployed and not a hole lot of maintence to keep it running. saying this we need both Gun systems because they both have their place on the modern battle field, any one who disagrees with this should look at manouver warefare and than look at manouver warefare in the mountains.(it doesnt work). if we were getting rid of the M109‘s complelty it would be a sad day for the Artillery...... MORE AFTER WORK
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,120
- Points
- 1,160
Rather than argue 155 vs 105, the army needs both. They are very different weapon systems that offer different tactical advantages to the frontline commander.
The two different 105mm howitzers we have offer good mobility, with decent firepower and range. They are robust and can be towed with vehicles as small as a pickup (not for a long time) As they operate fairly close to the frontline (if you have one) they can also be used for direct fire. On the downside, the crews are vulnerable to attack, they take longer to set up for indirect fire than a M109 and they don't have the range or weight of shells to stop an armoured thrust or deal effectively with hardened defences.
The M109 offers a mobile, proven and protected weapon system, that can operate effectively as a fire base or as mobile support to an armoured operation. They would be crucial in defending the latest version of a combat team based solely on the LAV and MGS. The 155 offers a longer range and more powerful projectile that can defeat armour and hardened defences. The system also has room for more upgrades to keep it current. Having the M109's in theatre either in a peacekeeping role or combat role, it will give the commander a lot of teeth and force the opposing sides to counter the firepower. Also from my last review of a 105 vs 155 battery, the 155 battery has greater organic firepower within the battery, as the M109's have .50cals mounted as do a number of the ammo carriers. Do they still use M578's?
Regardless of the weapon system being used, the commander should have at least two batteries on call, this allows for complete coverage as one moves and the other provides fire support.
The two different 105mm howitzers we have offer good mobility, with decent firepower and range. They are robust and can be towed with vehicles as small as a pickup (not for a long time) As they operate fairly close to the frontline (if you have one) they can also be used for direct fire. On the downside, the crews are vulnerable to attack, they take longer to set up for indirect fire than a M109 and they don't have the range or weight of shells to stop an armoured thrust or deal effectively with hardened defences.
The M109 offers a mobile, proven and protected weapon system, that can operate effectively as a fire base or as mobile support to an armoured operation. They would be crucial in defending the latest version of a combat team based solely on the LAV and MGS. The 155 offers a longer range and more powerful projectile that can defeat armour and hardened defences. The system also has room for more upgrades to keep it current. Having the M109's in theatre either in a peacekeeping role or combat role, it will give the commander a lot of teeth and force the opposing sides to counter the firepower. Also from my last review of a 105 vs 155 battery, the 155 battery has greater organic firepower within the battery, as the M109's have .50cals mounted as do a number of the ammo carriers. Do they still use M578's?
Regardless of the weapon system being used, the commander should have at least two batteries on call, this allows for complete coverage as one moves and the other provides fire support.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I posted a link in another arty forum http://army.ca/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/2/92 this is what to be expected in the near future hopefully just an interm thing but hey its good news for gunners anyhow. As for the 578‘s rarely are used because they are mostly broken down and awaiting and awaiting parts...
L
Limpy
Guest
Self Propelled Arty, another capability lost.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
It is sad indeed, watching another combat capability lost.
Now we have two out of three armour units with no tanks, and soon 5 Bde will also have no M109's.
The tanks and M109's will be parked in Wainwright, where the majority of them will be parked and left to rust. Some will be used for training purposes, but from what I understand, only a very few.
Apparently, to some, it is quite satisfactory to lose combat capability. The old "well, we never had to use them argument". What BS. Most of us would never have car or life or house insurance using that argument.
Canada can most certainly afford both M109's and tanks. Mind you, we would need a major housecleaning at the top. We are far too top heavy, and NDHQ takes far too much of our budget. Can anyone, anywhere, explain why there are 12,000 personnel on strength at NDHQ? Can anyone explain why we have both an army and a divisional headquarters?
Colin hit the nail on the head. So we can't move tanks and 109's by Herc. So what? When's the last time we deployed without leasing aircraft? The MGS cannot be deployed in our Hercs, and I don't hear that argument being raised.
A sad time for the Forces indeed!
Now we have two out of three armour units with no tanks, and soon 5 Bde will also have no M109's.
The tanks and M109's will be parked in Wainwright, where the majority of them will be parked and left to rust. Some will be used for training purposes, but from what I understand, only a very few.
Apparently, to some, it is quite satisfactory to lose combat capability. The old "well, we never had to use them argument". What BS. Most of us would never have car or life or house insurance using that argument.
Canada can most certainly afford both M109's and tanks. Mind you, we would need a major housecleaning at the top. We are far too top heavy, and NDHQ takes far too much of our budget. Can anyone, anywhere, explain why there are 12,000 personnel on strength at NDHQ? Can anyone explain why we have both an army and a divisional headquarters?
Colin hit the nail on the head. So we can't move tanks and 109's by Herc. So what? When's the last time we deployed without leasing aircraft? The MGS cannot be deployed in our Hercs, and I don't hear that argument being raised.
A sad time for the Forces indeed!
L
Limpy
Guest
Any time a country cannot move its equipment to the theatre of operations something is wrong. Very wrong.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
The RCA's plans for the next few years are not nailed down yet, and are constantly changing, but here is where they stand now:
- The M109 is gone. The Yanks were finding that in Iraq, in both wars, the M109-equipped Arty was having trouble keeping up with the manouvre arms (which themselves are still tracked). If they're having trouble, imagine the difficulty we'd have keeping up with LAV-equipped Canadian battlegroups.
- In the interim (up to about 2012) Canada will drop the 155mm capability. The idea is that increased precision, improved lethality of 105mm rounds, and the simple fact that you can fire a 105mm faster, will together compensate for the loss of firepower. I don't know enough to assess whether that's correct, but we'll see.
- To replace the M109 in the interim, the CF is looking into acquiring a MOBAT-type system (the MOBAT - Mobile Artillery Truck - is a Dutch system that puts our C3 howitzer on the back of a truck, slightly larger than our MLVW). This system will have autonomous orientation and fixation capability because of an incorporated LINAPS system, and can pull off the road and be firing with pinpoint accuracy within 30 seconds of a call for fire. It's not a 109, but it can fit on a Herc, and with rocket-assisted rounds, if we were to buy them, it will outshoot the 109.
- Eventually, the RCA will purchase what is known as the Future Indirect Fire Capability (FIFC). It is unknown whether it will be 155 or 105, but it will almost certainly be self-propelled. One concept I've seen is a US-British idea to mount the XM-777 ultralightweight howitzer (do I have the designation right?) on the back of a LAV-III; another mounts a South African (Denel) 105mm turret on a LAV-III. We shall see...
It's sad to see the M109 go, and I am deeply concerned by the CF's and government's lack of focus on high-intensity warfare... The M109 is too slow for the modern Army, however, and so it had to go. Whether the replacement system will fill our needs - I don't know.
Hope this helps.
- The M109 is gone. The Yanks were finding that in Iraq, in both wars, the M109-equipped Arty was having trouble keeping up with the manouvre arms (which themselves are still tracked). If they're having trouble, imagine the difficulty we'd have keeping up with LAV-equipped Canadian battlegroups.
- In the interim (up to about 2012) Canada will drop the 155mm capability. The idea is that increased precision, improved lethality of 105mm rounds, and the simple fact that you can fire a 105mm faster, will together compensate for the loss of firepower. I don't know enough to assess whether that's correct, but we'll see.
- To replace the M109 in the interim, the CF is looking into acquiring a MOBAT-type system (the MOBAT - Mobile Artillery Truck - is a Dutch system that puts our C3 howitzer on the back of a truck, slightly larger than our MLVW). This system will have autonomous orientation and fixation capability because of an incorporated LINAPS system, and can pull off the road and be firing with pinpoint accuracy within 30 seconds of a call for fire. It's not a 109, but it can fit on a Herc, and with rocket-assisted rounds, if we were to buy them, it will outshoot the 109.
- Eventually, the RCA will purchase what is known as the Future Indirect Fire Capability (FIFC). It is unknown whether it will be 155 or 105, but it will almost certainly be self-propelled. One concept I've seen is a US-British idea to mount the XM-777 ultralightweight howitzer (do I have the designation right?) on the back of a LAV-III; another mounts a South African (Denel) 105mm turret on a LAV-III. We shall see...
It's sad to see the M109 go, and I am deeply concerned by the CF's and government's lack of focus on high-intensity warfare... The M109 is too slow for the modern Army, however, and so it had to go. Whether the replacement system will fill our needs - I don't know.
Hope this helps.
L
Limpy
Guest
Lets hope we get something. It's not unlike govenments to place an order and then postpone or cancell it.
Mountie
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Is the French CAESAR not the best option if you are insistant on a 155mm gun? The French are using it for their rapid reaction forces, they are proposing it to the US Army for their Stryker Brigades, to the USMC and to the British for their Light Mobile Artillery Weapons System which will equip their new medium brigades they are forming. Only the French are actually using them yet, the others are just considering it. But the South African Denel 105 LEO gun has a 30,000 km range, its new shells have a larger kill radius than the 155 and it can be mounted in a turret on a LAV-III or mounted on a truck like the CAESAR or the MAVS/MOBAT.
- Reaction score
- 5,690
- Points
- 1,060
Mountie said:
Man, I can hear that one now... "SHOT. 1 day, 19 hours, 53 minutes and 12 seconds, OVER ;D
So that would be like an 87 bag charge?
- Reaction score
- 1,682
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe this opportunity abstract from the MERX helps with the subject. The government is currently seeking responses to the following public tender:
MOBILE ARTILLERY VEHICLE SYS P&A
Reference Number PW-$$BM-011-10874
Source ID FD.DP.QC.10077.C2
Solicitation Number W8476-05P542/A
Published 21/01/2005
Revised
Closing 28/02/2005 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST
Associated Components No
Category Armament
Tender Type Price and Availability (P&A)
Region of Delivery ONTARIO
Region of Opportunity
Agreement Type AIT/NAFTA/WTO-AGP/CKTEA
Solicitation Method
Estimated Value
Organization Name Public Works and Government Services Canada (P)
Travaux publics et services gouvernementaux Canada
GSINS N1015 GUNS, 75MM THROUGH 125MM
Trade Agreement: AIT/NAFTA/WTO-AGP/CKTEA
Tendering Procedures:
Attachment: None
Competitive Procurement Strategy: Best Overall Proposal
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements:
MOBILE ARTILLERY VEHICLE SYS P&A
W8476-05P542/A
Charlebois, Jean
Telephone No. - (819) 956-2946 ( )
Fax No. - (819) 956-0648
Line1, THE MOBILE ARTILLERY VEHICLE SYSTEM (MAVS)
> The Department of National Defence (DND) plans to enhance
current indirect
> fire capabilities through the re-configuration of contemporary
105mm
> howitzer equipment in concert with the acquisition of the MSVS
project.
> The result will be a suitable, combat capability, based on a
mature and
> proven weapon system and exploiting national fire control
system
> technology, to sustain essential operational artillery support
into the
> future.
>
> The Mobile Artillery Vehicle System (MAVS) is geared to
bridging the
> operational support gap pending introduction and deployment of
the Future
> Indirect Fire Capability (FIFC) by making best use of existing
howitzer
> equipments while exploiting concurrent opportunities in both
vehicle
> acquisition and fire control system (FCS) evolution. MAVS will
directly
> support the Army Strategy to transform into a medium weight,
> information-age Army through modernization to become a more
agile, lethal,
> and survivable force. It will achieve this by utilizing the
growth
> potential of the in-service 105mm howitzer fleets, by
exploiting the
> successes of the Land Force digitization initiatives and by
possibly
> capitalizing on the concurrent introduction of the Medium
Support Vehicle
> System (MSVS).
>
Delivery Date Required:
The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any
procurement.
Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.
Charlebois, Jean
11 Laurier St. / 11, rue Laurier
6C1, Place du Portage
Gatineau
Quebec
K1A 0S5
(819) 956-2946 ( )
MOBILE ARTILLERY VEHICLE SYS P&A
Reference Number PW-$$BM-011-10874
Source ID FD.DP.QC.10077.C2
Solicitation Number W8476-05P542/A
Published 21/01/2005
Revised
Closing 28/02/2005 02:00 PM Eastern Standard Time EST
Associated Components No
Category Armament
Tender Type Price and Availability (P&A)
Region of Delivery ONTARIO
Region of Opportunity
Agreement Type AIT/NAFTA/WTO-AGP/CKTEA
Solicitation Method
Estimated Value
Organization Name Public Works and Government Services Canada (P)
Travaux publics et services gouvernementaux Canada
GSINS N1015 GUNS, 75MM THROUGH 125MM
Trade Agreement: AIT/NAFTA/WTO-AGP/CKTEA
Tendering Procedures:
Attachment: None
Competitive Procurement Strategy: Best Overall Proposal
Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement: No
Nature of Requirements:
MOBILE ARTILLERY VEHICLE SYS P&A
W8476-05P542/A
Charlebois, Jean
Telephone No. - (819) 956-2946 ( )
Fax No. - (819) 956-0648
Line1, THE MOBILE ARTILLERY VEHICLE SYSTEM (MAVS)
> The Department of National Defence (DND) plans to enhance
current indirect
> fire capabilities through the re-configuration of contemporary
105mm
> howitzer equipment in concert with the acquisition of the MSVS
project.
> The result will be a suitable, combat capability, based on a
mature and
> proven weapon system and exploiting national fire control
system
> technology, to sustain essential operational artillery support
into the
> future.
>
> The Mobile Artillery Vehicle System (MAVS) is geared to
bridging the
> operational support gap pending introduction and deployment of
the Future
> Indirect Fire Capability (FIFC) by making best use of existing
howitzer
> equipments while exploiting concurrent opportunities in both
vehicle
> acquisition and fire control system (FCS) evolution. MAVS will
directly
> support the Army Strategy to transform into a medium weight,
> information-age Army through modernization to become a more
agile, lethal,
> and survivable force. It will achieve this by utilizing the
growth
> potential of the in-service 105mm howitzer fleets, by
exploiting the
> successes of the Land Force digitization initiatives and by
possibly
> capitalizing on the concurrent introduction of the Medium
Support Vehicle
> System (MSVS).
>
Delivery Date Required:
The Crown retains the right to negotiate with suppliers on any
procurement.
Documents may be submitted in either official language of Canada.
Charlebois, Jean
11 Laurier St. / 11, rue Laurier
6C1, Place du Portage
Gatineau
Quebec
K1A 0S5
(819) 956-2946 ( )
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I recently saw the LAV-SP with the 105mm cannon. It was a nice package, and the specs were pretty impressive. Big pluses are armour protection and common logistics with the LAV III family. On the other hand, like all LAV derivatives, it was rather tall, and I don't think it will be air portable in a Hercules.
The Mobat, or whatever it is called, is a totally crazy idea. It is completely unarmoured, so an incoming shell, mortar round, RPG or IED will be devastating, far more so than with the LAV-SP. As well, using the current 105 puts gunners at the wrong end of the range equation.
The Swedish FV-77 mounted on a 6X6 articulated truck platform is armoured, has a 155 for range and hitting power and even feeds from a 24 round magazine, which makes "shoot and scoot" tactics quite quick and easy. The 6X6 platform is a Volvo heavy duty earthmover, so air portability is a bust there.
Realisticly it is between the LAV and the Mobat, and for all our sakes, I hope it is the LAV.
The Mobat, or whatever it is called, is a totally crazy idea. It is completely unarmoured, so an incoming shell, mortar round, RPG or IED will be devastating, far more so than with the LAV-SP. As well, using the current 105 puts gunners at the wrong end of the range equation.
The Swedish FV-77 mounted on a 6X6 articulated truck platform is armoured, has a 155 for range and hitting power and even feeds from a 24 round magazine, which makes "shoot and scoot" tactics quite quick and easy. The 6X6 platform is a Volvo heavy duty earthmover, so air portability is a bust there.
Realisticly it is between the LAV and the Mobat, and for all our sakes, I hope it is the LAV.
Similar threads
