C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

The current fleet of Canada's 105mm howitzers is something of a disaster. But upgrading them might be a good choice. Modern 105mm still pack a usable punch in a modern day situation. Cost wise, operational wise I think there is still a spot for them.
It will be interesting what the AAR from Ukraine will be on the use of 105mm in theatre.

Ideally I would love to see mixed fleet of towed 155/105 (some are saying towed artillery is a thing of the past) A fleet of Mech 155/105
Also some form of MLRS would be good also, with the ability to cross use Missile systems from the Navy and Maybe Airforce.

A G7 artillery gun mounted on a truck chassis would be a pretty good system. You wont over stress the chassis, you can carry a fair bit of ammo, maintenance would be manageable for all units Reserve and Regular Force.

I would say anything we get we need to be able to produce it here in Canada along with provide the ammunition for it domestically.

What do you think the 105mm SPA would do that a 155mm won’t do 1000x better?

No one is going to give the CAF production rights to build 40-120 systems, further it would cost an astronomical amount more due to low volume and initial start up costs.

Keep in mind Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine is in. So one can take time and get the more practical kit for the Mission as opposed to taking handouts of unwanted or surplus items.

 

[Kirkhill]

The current fleet of Canada's 105mm howitzers is something of a disaster. But upgrading them might be a good choice. Modern 105mm still pack a usable punch in a modern day situation. Cost wise, operational wise I think there is still a spot for them.
It will be interesting what the AAR from Ukraine will be on the use of 105mm in theatre.

Ideally I would love to see mixed fleet of towed 155/105 (some are saying towed artillery is a thing of the past) A fleet of Mech 155/105
Also some form of MLRS would be good also, with the ability to cross use Missile systems from the Navy and Maybe Airforce.

A G7 artillery gun mounted on a truck chassis would be a pretty good system. You wont over stress the chassis, you can carry a fair bit of ammo, maintenance would be manageable for all units Reserve and Regular Force.

I would say anything we get we need to be able to produce it here in Canada along with provide the ammunition for it domestically.

Which brings us to this - the 32 km G7/T7 105 on a LAVIII or an L52 155 Archer on a Rheinmetall MAN truck.

 

[childs56]

What do you think the 105mm SPA would do that a 155mm won’t do 1000x better?

Lighter, carry more ammo, Still reach out to 30km using the G7 style. Better for urban areas, less maintenance on the chassis due to lighter recoil.
More then likely extremely more portable then any 155 SPA. Less crew required

No one is going to give the CAF production rights to build 40-120 systems, further it would cost an astronomical amount more due to low volume and initial start up costs.

I disagree with that, lots of ability to build locally, the transfer of technology between allies is pretty good, I am sure a transfer of plans could be facilitated.
The are a few lathes that used to make the barrels for tanks and the Navy are still operating to this day in Edmonton from WWII.
We have some of the best design and machine shops around. They could easily machine and build these systems for a good price point.
This has more to do with Government Procurement process here then actual ability to design, manufacture and build a system. Or even buy a current system rights and tool up for it.

Keep in mind Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine is in. So one can take time and get the more practical kit for the Mission as opposed to taking handouts of unwanted or surplus items.

You are correct, we are not in the same situation. More practical kit means what can we use within our current means of transport and future means. Which is very lacking.
Having a large heavy setting of equipment does us very little if we can not transport it to the battle. Right now or the near distantish future we can not.

Pre positioning equipment would be the best idea, but we can barely maintain a small fleet here, let alone any where over seas.

First and foremost we need a proper defense doctrine. (we have not had in decade)First focus should be Defensive, second offensive, third other operations.
We have neither the capacity to conduct any one of those three effectively at any level of self sustainment.
We need a complete overhaul from boots, aircraft and ships.

 

[Spencer100]

I disagree with that, lots of ability to build locally, the transfer of technology between allies is pretty good, I am sure a transfer of plans could be facilitated.
The are a few lathes that used to make the barrels for tanks and the Navy are still operating to this day in Edmonton from WWII.
We have some of the best design and machine shops around. They could easily machine and build these systems for a good price point.
This has more to do with Government Procurement process here then actual ability to design, manufacture and build a system. Or even buy a current system rights and tool up for it.

There's a more to it than machining a chunk of cast iron.

I would think there is not a company in Canada that could do this. That is not a sub of an international weapons manufacturer, BAE could do it at cost plus and bring over the people. That said we could put together the frame and automotive parts of the system and integrate the purchased fire control. It would have to purchased barrels by someone else. The cost of those 40-100 would be in the F-35 price range. Well maybe not that high.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Keep in mind Canada isn’t in the same situation as Ukraine is in. So one can take time and get the more practical kit for the Mission as opposed to taking handouts of unwanted or surplus items.

I will argue against that timeframe, it is likely that the current fleet of 105's are going to self divest over the next decade, unless of course we limit the number of rounds to almost nothing and never tow them anywhere, which would be such a Canadian solution. There is barely any support for the super simple 105's for the Reserves, there will be no support for the 155's and likley some units would struggle to get them into their buildings. I suspect the current gun tractors could pull the M777, but not sure if they could do it cross country, I wouldn't mind if someone confirmed that? The amount of ammunition they get for live shots of the 105 is a pittance and that will mean less for the 155's.

If Canada goes 105mm for the Reserve, order 300, put some away in war reserve.

 

[childs56]

There's a more to it than machining a chunk of cast iron.

I would think there is not a company in Canada that could do this. That is not a sub of an international weapons manufacturer, BAE could do it at cost plus and bring over the people. That said we could put together the frame and automotive parts of the system and integrate the purchased fire control. It would have to purchased barrels by someone else. The cost of those 40-100 would be in the F-35 price range. Well maybe not that high.

I am pretty sure the manufacturing industry in Canada could be competitive in the arms market. General Dynamics Canada could bring in any specialty needed to make the equipment or perform the process.
I will be honest the machine shops out in Alberta have the tooling required to build what ever we want, I assume the shops across Canada have the same or similar capacity.
This is more of want then actual capacity. Canada does not want to be known as a arms manufacturer, which is silly because we would be good at it.
I look at the Frigate situation we built some of the most technological frigates of the time. The envy of NATO, we were suppose to use them as a bases for a future ship building capacity. Typical Canadian thing to do is erase all semblance of a program, run what you have into the ground then start from scratch again. Costing even more money. Then blame Harper for it all.

 

[KevinB]

I will argue against that timeframe, it is likely that the current fleet of 105's are going to self divest over the next decade, unless of course we limit the number of rounds to almost nothing and never tow them anywhere, which would be such a Canadian solution.

Colin, most Armies can field a MOTS solution in 2 years. The fact that the CA can’t is just another issue.

The CA has a number of LO’s in NATO Armies , including their Training and Capabilities billets. I would put it to you that the CA could easily get onboard with a US, Uk etc SPA program very easily. The RCAC should be able to draft a Sole Source requirement very easily.

There is barely any support for the super simple 105's for the Reserves, there will be no support for the 155's and likley some units would struggle to get them into their buildings. I suspect the current gun tractors could pull the M777, but not sure if they could do it cross country, I wouldn't mind if someone confirmed that?

Not being current, I hope the current gun tractor isn’t what I used in the 80’s in 30RCA?

The amount of ammunition they get for live shots of the 105 is a pittance and that will mean less for the 155's.

If Canada goes 105mm for the Reserve, order 300, put some away in war reserve.

As pointed out before, the cost delta between 105mm and 155mm is fractional, but the down range effect is significantly different

Lighter, carry more ammo, Still reach out to 30km using the G7 style. Better for urban areas, less maintenance on the chassis due to lighter recoil.
More then likely extremely more portable then any 155 SPA. Less crew required

See my above about down range effects.
Also If you had a real helicopter instead of the Griffon your TACHEL guys could also lift 777’s.

I disagree with that, lots of ability to build locally, the transfer of technology between allies is pretty good, I am sure a transfer of plans could be facilitated.

It isn’t just ITAR it’s a non viable business plan. You need to pay for the IP, setup a production facility (and Canada no longer has the ability to produce a lot of those items, which will require more foreign tech support ($$$) and then a short production run / so they will be 2-3x of an allied production item.

The are a few lathes that used to make the barrels for tanks and the Navy are still operating to this day in Edmonton from WWII.

Yeah those aren’t even relevant to discuss at this point. New alloys won’t get cut on those.

We have some of the best design and machine shops around. They could easily machine and build these systems for a good price point.

Your delusional there.

This has more to do with Government Procurement process here then actual ability to design, manufacture and build a system. Or even buy a current system rights and tool up for it.

It’s both.

You are correct, we are not in the same situation. More practical kit means what can we use within our current means of transport and future means. Which is very lacking.
Having a large heavy setting of equipment does us very little if we can not transport it to the battle. Right now or the near distantish future we can not.

Pre positioning equipment would be the best idea, but we can barely maintain a small fleet here, let alone any where over seas.

Again that is a failure of the CAF/DND and GoC

First and foremost we need a proper defense doctrine. (we have not had in decade)First focus should be Defensive, second offensive, third other operations.
We have neither the capacity to conduct any one of those three effectively at any level of self sustainment.
We need a complete overhaul from boots, aircraft and ships.

110%

 

[KevinB]

I am pretty sure the manufacturing industry in Canada could be competitive in the arms market. General Dynamics Canada could bring in any specialty needed to make the equipment or perform the process.

They can’t, there are TAA’s in place that don’t allow for that without US Gov approval.

I will be honest the machine shops out in Alberta have the tooling required to build what ever we want, I assume the shops across Canada have the same or similar capacity.

Again you are mistaken.

This is more of want then actual capacity. Canada does not want to be known as a arms manufacturer, which is silly because we would be good at it.
I look at the Frigate situation we built some of the most technological frigates of the time.

Credit for those belongs also to a long list of allied governments and offshore companies.

. The envy of NATO, we were suppose to use them as a bases for a future ship building capacity. Typical Canadian thing to do is erase all semblance of a program, run what you have into the ground then start from scratch again. Costing even more money. Then blame Harper for it all.

Defense Industrial base has been completely eroded in Canada, there are no truly Canadian companies doing that anymore, all are Canadian Subsidiaries of US, UK and European Defense Firms - that simply exist for Canadian industrial offsets.

But you are correct that the root cause of that is the GoC…

 

[childs56]

Not being current, I hope the current gun tractor isn’t what I used in the 80’s in 30RCA?

They have some International trucks that can easily pull the M777

Also If you had a real helicopter instead of the Griffon your TACHEL guys could also lift 777’s.

We have Chinooks.

It isn’t just ITAR it’s a non viable business plan. You need to pay for the IP, setup a production facility (and Canada no longer has the ability to produce a lot of those items, which will require more foreign tech support ($$$) and then a short production run / so they will be 2-3x of an allied production item.

I disagree with that, We do have the ability to produce these items, we just don't.

Yeah those aren’t even relevant to discuss at this point. New alloys won’t get cut on those.

Your delusional there.

I am not certain your experience is with machining is but the guys I talk to actually would have no issues machining any metal on their lathes, after all they deal with all kinds of exotic alloys used in high pressure, high heat, high stress already.

The one thing the government could do is as many do, put out a bid to machine so many barrels to the specs required, put out a bid to manufacture the the chassis, put our a bid for the operating systems, and a bid to assemble the parts. Do not let some company in Ont or Quebec win the bid because of vote buying. Hold the contractor to their bid and time supply. It would be pretty amazing what could come out of Western Canada if it was allowed.

 

[childs56]

I will be honest the machine shops out in Alberta have the tooling required to build what ever we want, I assume the shops across Canada have the same or similar capacity.

Again you are mistaken.

How do you figure I am mistaken?

 

[KevinB]

How do you figure I am mistaken?

Lots of new alloys exist for barrels that much higher initial hardness than older renditions. Older barrel drills and methods for rifling aren’t going to provide decent results. Let alone advances in coatings.
You are dealing with at least 3 companies for the IP in most cases as well…

You can’t put out a bid without the spec’s and the Specs are going to be controlled.
So unless the GoC wants to kick start Dominion Arsenals again and run the plant, it’s a non starter.

Could Canada do it? yes, but at a significant cost and it wouldn’t get done over night.

Making a barrel for a MBT or Howitzer is way different than a rifle barrel - and the advances are even more dramatic than those.

My point is for such a small scale of production, even if each Res Arty ‘Regiment’ got 6 guns, it’s a drop in the bucket. Furthermore no foreign entity is going to want Canada making items for the international market — so it’s a 1 and done line, which means even more significant per unit costs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Kevin B

The current Gun Tractor

 

[daftandbarmy]

Kevin B

The current Gun Tractor

But please don't try to take it off road or anything

 

[childs56]

Lots of new alloys exist for barrels that much higher initial hardness than older renditions. Older barrel drills and methods for rifling aren’t going to provide decent results. Let alone advances in coatings.
You are dealing with at least 3 companies for the IP in most cases as well…

You can’t put out a bid without the spec’s and the Specs are going to be controlled.
So unless the GoC wants to kick start Dominion Arsenals again and run the plant, it’s a non starter.

Could Canada do it? yes, but at a significant cost and it wouldn’t get done over night.
P
Making a barrel for a MBT or Howitzer is way different than a rifle barrel - and the advances are even more dramatic than those.

My point is for such a small scale of production, even if each Res Arty ‘Regiment’ got 6 guns, it’s a drop in the bucket. Furthermore no foreign entity is going to want Canada making items for the international market — so it’s a 1 and done line, which means even

Lots of new alloys exist for barrels that much higher initial hardness than older renditions. Older barrel drills and methods for rifling aren’t going to provide decent results. Let alone advances in coatings.
You are dealing with at least 3 companies for the IP in most cases as well…

You can’t put out a bid without the spec’s and the Specs are going to be controlled.
So unless the GoC wants to kick start Dominion Arsenals again and run the plant, it’s a non starter.

Could Canada do it? yes, but at a significant cost and it wouldn’t get done over night.

Making a barrel for a MBT or Howitzer is way different than a rifle barrel - and the advances are even more dramatic than those.

My point is for such a small scale of production, even if each Res Arty ‘Regiment’ got 6 guns, it’s a drop in the bucket. Furthermore no foreign entity is going to want Canada making items for the international market — so it’s a 1 and done line, which means even more significant per unit costs.

I believe we have the capability to do the job, we have the resources to do the job, we have the skill to do the job. We do not have the will to do the job. Are we going to build a gun from scratch, nope. Not a single NATO piece of Artillery has been built from scratch. There are some leading edge process that have been used, along with integration of new systems and tech. They have taken resources from the other developers and made their systems. Been very successful in doing so.
We do the ability to build these systems, I believe at an affordable price.

 

[Spencer100]

I believe we have the capability to do the job, we have the resources to do the job, we have the skill to do the job. We do not have the will to do the job. Are we going to build a gun from scratch, nope. Not a single NATO piece of Artillery has been built from scratch. There are some leading edge process that have been used, along with integration of new systems and tech. They have taken resources from the other developers and made their systems. Been very successful in doing so.
We do the ability to build these systems, I believe at an affordable price.

Where to go with this? I know you don't know me but I have vast industrial base knowledge of the manufacturing in this country. Could we with unlimited money build something yes. Make a 100 guns at some ungodly price. Sure. Maybe we could machine it, (up until two years ago one of my ops had a 6 axis 40 foot rail mill) but then could we cast the metal? I am 100 percent sure the metallurgy in modern artillery is something no one knows in this country. Making artillery is not something I would invest in the Canadian defence industry sector. Canada does have some world class products we should focus on those and build appon them. GDLS-C, L3 Wescam, PWC etc. Yes most are US subs....but the knowledge base is in Canada.

The biggest problems is that DND is just not a large enough buyer of stuff to build a local industry. Our companies have very righty so focused on subsystems and assemblies in other OEM products. Landing gear, navigation systems, drivetrain components etc etc.

And Canada does have a world class frigate....the steel has not even been cut and we are adapting a British design. If you are talking about the over 20 year old Halifax's it was a ok design at the time but not much better that the T22 or any other design of the 80's.

The main take way is as a modern first world G7 country Canada could find away to make some if these things but why? I would say let's do a few well. Buy what we need. Include Canadian industry in the global supply chain like the F35. Build something things like the LAVs. Buy most. We will never build a fighter, a tank, etc.

 

[FJAG]

I believe we have the capability to do the job, we have the resources to do the job, we have the skill to do the job. We do not have the will to do the job. Are we going to build a gun from scratch, nope. Not a single NATO piece of Artillery has been built from scratch. There are some leading edge process that have been used, along with integration of new systems and tech. They have taken resources from the other developers and made their systems. Been very successful in doing so.
We do the ability to build these systems, I believe at an affordable price.

I could be wrong but I don't think that we've built any gun barrels since Sorel Industries did the 105 M2A1 (AKA C1) back in the Fifties. The 1997 C3 conversion was done by RDM in the Netherlands (bankrupt for quite some time now) but I believe that the barrels came from Royal Ordnance in the UK (now part of BAE). The LG1 is of course French.

The last time we wanted to have the C3 "looked at" in detail we went to Picatinny Arsenals in the US.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The carriage and recoil system could be made here, but as stated the barrels, breech and likely FCS would have to be imported.

 

[Kirkhill]

I could be wrong but I don't think that we've built any gun barrels since Sorel Industries did the 105 M2A1 (AKA C1) back in the Fifties. The 1997 C3 conversion was done by RDM in the Netherlands (bankrupt for quite some time now) but I believe that the barrels came from Royal Ordnance in the UK (now part of BAE). The LG1 is of course French.

The last time we wanted to have the C3 "looked at" in detail we went to Picatinny Arsenals in the US.

Wasn't the C1/C3 "conversion" done by RDM of the Netherlands in the 90s?

 

[KevinB]

Kevin B

The current Gun Tractor

Well considering you can tow a 777 with a Hummer in a pinch, I don’t think you’d have an issue.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Where to go with this? I know you don't know me but I have vast industrial base knowledge of the manufacturing in this country. Could we with unlimited money build something yes. Make a 100 guns at some ungodly price. Sure. Maybe we could machine it, (up until two years ago one of my ops had a 6 axis 40 foot rail mill) but then could we cast the metal? I am 100 percent sure the metallurgy in modern artillery is something no one knows in this country. Making artillery is not something I would invest in the Canadian defence industry sector. Canada does have some world class products we should focus on those and build appon them. GDLS-C, L3 Wescam, PWC etc. Yes most are US subs....but the knowledge base is in Canada.

The biggest problems is that DND is just not a large enough buyer of stuff to build a local industry. Our companies have very righty so focused on subsystems and assemblies in other OEM products. Landing gear, navigation systems, drivetrain components etc etc.

And Canada does have a world class frigate....the steel has not even been cut and we are adapting a British design. If you are talking about the over 20 year old Halifax's it was a ok design at the time but not much better that the T22 or any other design of the 80's.

The main take way is as a modern first world G7 country Canada could find away to make some if these things but why? I would say let's do a few well. Buy what we need. Include Canadian industry in the global supply chain like the F35. Build something things like the LAVs. Buy most. We will never build a fighter, a tank, etc.

Gerald Bull enters the chat.

YES. WE. CANNON!