C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

Our Politicians will say: "Hold my beer and watch me show you my ignore superpower"

UOR's will be their bandaids and the average voter does not understand how dilapidated our Reserve artillery is. Sadly we need a gun to blow up ,, killing and maiming a gun crew of Reservists to get the issue on the front page of the media.

I don’t think it will need to go that far, I have some confidence that the CA is at least somewhat aware of the needs of Artillery and the fact that the RegF are PY limited for the requirements of the tubes etc that are needed.

 

[markppcli]

View attachment 87031

Related - the mailed fist of the RCAC.

The RCAC as a projectile that can be thrown against the enemy to punch through the lines - Armoured guns (tanks and howitzers), Armoured engineers and Armoured infantry.

Not reallly related at all. Tanks provide mobility, direct fire, and shock action - they are organized and led to achieve this. Artillery provides indirect fires, and is organized and led to achieve and coordinate that. Infantry, be it in an IFV or a parachute, is organized and led to be optimized for the dismounted fight. Three distinct task organized in three distinct corps to achieve three distinct effects which are synchronized to achieve the mission.

I further suggest that infantry equipped with sensors and broadly distributed so as to give a continuous common picture of the battlefield is reducing the need for dedicated recce.

Not reducing, changing the way it’s achieved.

I'll go further and suggest that infantry will do much of the job of Forward Observers.

I’ll echo @FJAG, you’ve never been exposed to how or what a FOO does and thus do not understand it. We see FOOs hard pressed to keep up with fire planning when it’s their only job, I can’t imagine trying to do it while leading a section or a platoon. There’s a reason why the USMC isn’t perusing their idiotic JFO dreams.

What infantry can't do is make use of that which has been observed.

The business of seeing all that has been observed, analyzing that which is seen, and then deciding which targets need to be served, for how long and with what - that obviously requires co-ordination. Now the question in my mind is this:


View attachment 87032 OR View attachment 87033

Ah yes such a deep question, if only we had some sort of system that linked ground and air based fires and sat them side by side for better communication and deconfliction. Ah science fiction I’m sure.

——————————————————————————-

So anyways I like the m109A* but I wonder how that would work for some far flung armouries. Is that an argument in favour of wheeled systems or is it an obstacle that we can overcome via simulators?

 

[FJAG]

UOR's will be their bandaids and the average voter does not understand how dilapidated our Reserve artillery is.

Agreed on both but, don't forget, even UORs need funding and approval at the government level. It's just a bit easier to talk in small amounts and immediate needs. UORs greatly complicate the in-service support of the system which is tied to the project and not to the life cycle maintenance and manning of the weapon system involved. It creates major second and third order effects on the system beyond maintenance but including manning and training for them which are generally not programmed in but sliced out of existing resources.

We'll never get the voters interested until a public education program is put in place - preferably through massive and pointed recruit advertising. I'm not sure if dead gun dets will do it albeit that seemed to work on Iltis and various pieces of Brit equipment.

So anyways I like the m109A* but I wonder how that would work for some far flung armouries. Is that an argument in favour of wheeled systems or is it an obstacle that we can overcome via simulators?

I'm kind of on the M109 side myself - and not just because of nostalgia but because of the continental access to parts and factory level support. The L52 barrel bugs me and I think will be the modification requirement that will forever be dropped down on the army's priority list because - we're not at war right now. There may be an M109-52 available at BAE but my guess is it will cost twice or more as much as a refurbished M109A6 out of US war stocks.

As for ResF units. As you know, I'm a hybrid fan. I think that you can easily get by with concentrating the live-fire guns at Meaford and Shilo. Invest in a turret simulator or two on each armoury's floor to run through all the drills. Invest in a good computerized driving simulator (and if necessary several turretless chassis (maybe six complete guns broken into six turret simulators and six driver chassis.)) Place those chassis in Meaford and Shilo as well. Invest in a low-cost, short range 155 mm practice shell and fuze and a few dozen dummy training shells and charge bags that can be manipulated and loaded like the real thing but won't rammed all the way so that they can be easily "unloaded." That just leaves CPs and other vehicles (except LAV OPVs) like ACSV CPs and maybe TAPVs for BKs, BSMs, Recce and TSMs and Bob's your uncle.

I'll go a step further. I think any armoured brigade (or a mech brigade with some armour) needs a HET company in its Svc bn or as an available div sustainment asset. HETs are something easily run by mostly ResF pers. That would let you station a pair of SP guns at each of say Edmonton or Downsview and CFB London for Toronto, Brantford and Guelph based batteries. They don't need to go on the armory's floor - just in a proper storage shed outside. Then use the HETs to transport them to a range and back once or twice per year for live fire.

For me the question of wheeled or tracked has to do with how we intend to use them tactically in the framework of the overall brigade structure. The issue of how you train reservists on them is simply an administrative problem that can easily be solved if the will is there. Unfortunately I find that too few people have the will and instead too many people see this problem as an insurmountable one and dismiss the concept out of hand. IMHO, those people should not be in a leadership role as this attitude prevents the overall optimization of the army as a whole.

I keep saying, if the ARNG can run M109A7 battalions and HIMARS battalions then we can do it if we simply grow a pair. Can you imagine what it would do for recruiting if we but four ResF M109A6 or A7 batteries into Southern Ontario. Or four ResF M777 batteries into southern Quebec. We'd have to beat them off with a stick.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could also lease some M109A7, keep them in Yakmia with contracted US support and cycle 15th and 5 FD through there.

 

[KevinB]

The problem I see with the M109A6/7 idea is the CA will never then get the larger barrel version

 

[quadrapiper]

As for ResF units. As you know, I'm a hybrid fan. I think that you can easily get by with concentrating the live-fire guns at Meaford and Shilo. Invest in a turret simulator or two on each armoury's floor to run through all the drills. Invest in a good computerized driving simulator (and if necessary several turretless chassis (maybe six complete guns broken into six turret simulators and six driver chassis.)) Place those chassis in Meaford and Shilo as well. Invest in a low-cost, short range 155 mm practice shell and fuze and a few dozen dummy training shells and charge bags that can be manipulated and loaded like the real thing but won't rammed all the way so that they can be easily "unloaded." That just leaves CPs and other vehicles (except LAV OPVs) like ACSV CPs and maybe TAPVs for BKs, BSMs, Recce and TSMs and Bob's your uncle.

For routine maintenance beyond whatever the battery might be expected to provide, would a locally-contracted heavy equipment shop likely be able to deal with everything that isn't armament or comms?

 

[FJAG]

You could also lease some M109A7, keep them in Yakmia with contracted US support and cycle 15th and 5 FD through there.

Just as a very rough review (using Wikipedia and photos) there are USAR or ARNG M09 bns in Utah, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, and Georgia. There are HIMARS bns- N Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky. And an MLRS bn - South Dakota.

That's just the reserve side. Many of these have equipment and ranges easily accessible by a short to moderate CC330 flight or CC130 flight.

But the real issue is not the access of borrowed equipment in the US but actually equipping them at home.

Incidentally, 5 BC and 15th field IMHO would jointly become a single light battery supporting a single large (four company) infantry battle group in BC concerned with mountain ops.

The problem I see with the M109A6/7 idea is the CA will never then get the larger barrel version

Probably not, but right now neither is the US. That's down the pipes yet.

Everything that I read - which to date is glossy brochure stuff - shows that upgrading various versions of the M109 with the Rheinmetall L52 is viable and a less expensive option than buying a new armoured L52 system made in Europe.

Maybe we should remilitarize a whole bunch of M109 monuments around the country.

I'd only be speculating as to what Canada intends to do albeit that I have an educated guess. The UOR is short term and Latvia specific. I think that pretty much excludes an M109-L52 and probably most European L52 guns whose production cycles are already booked up for several years.

For routine maintenance beyond whatever the battery might be expected to provide, would a locally-contracted heavy equipment shop likely be able to deal with everything that isn't armament or comms?

It depends on the system. M109 engines are pretty standard North American diesels and most diesel mechanics with access to parts and a manual could handle basic repairs. The basic track system isn't rocket science either and most mechanics who deal with tracked bulldozers and the like should be able to adapt. In fact much track maintenance is done by the gun det itself.

As you say, Communications and digital gun management systems are highly specialized and need a specially trained and security cleared electronics tech. The cab itself has hydraulics (for older systems - electric for the A7) and weapon systems that are also very specialized and would need a trained army weapons tech.

I generally do not like the idea of contracting to civilians. Not because I don't think that they can do it but because actually doing maintenance - whether by the dets or technicians - is training in its own right. Every military unit should be designed for and should expect that at some point they'll go to war. That means that you need all the proper personnel who will maintain things in combat fully trained during peacetime. Canadians undervalue and under resource logistics. That's why we have such a high VOR rate. IMHO, using civilians, even for commercial pattern vehicles, has become a band-aid solution that will bite the army in the ass. I'm not a fan of the wide use of commercial pattern vehicles for the same reason. You can't go to war with them.