C3 Howitzer Replacement

[KevinB]

Most of the best gun barrel alloys (and a lot of Aerospace stuff) comes from Albert and Duval in France.
The issue would be drilling it, and rifling it.
As well as further heat treat and coatings.

I suppose one could anneal the steel to a softer state and cut then on older machines, then heat treat to the desired state. I know you can do that on smaller caliber barrels, but I haven’t seen it tried on anything past 25mm.


Watervliet Arsenal in NY does the cannon and tank barrels here, they have gone through a multi million modernization program in the last 10 years.

I suspect it would be a billion dollar program to get something capable in Canada going, that’s just the capital cost of the equipment and facility — let alone manufacturing and material costs.

So I’m not kidding when I say it would be at Least 2-3x more than a MOTS offering from a Ally (frankly looking at M109A6 and Archer costing - maybe 10-20x would be more realistic.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Actually if I'm not mistaken SRC may still be in business. They used have a test range and facility near Valcartier .

 

[KevinB]

Actually if I'm not mistaken SRC may still be in business. They used have a test range and facility near Valcartier .

SRC Can Ltd - An SRC International Company | SRC, Inc.

Based on their website they are out of that game.

 

[FJAG]

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

Yup. 1997 - not sure if that was the start or finish date or both.

 

[FJAG]

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

In Afghanistan the standard setup was to use an HLVW as gun tractor and a TLAV as the detachment carrier.

Gun tractors have been a perpetual problem for the artillery for the last two decades. We've used MLVWs for LG1s in Kabul and Bisons in Bosnia. At this point there is an MSVS-SMP used with the M777. The Navistar MSVS-MILCOTs pictured above is used by reserve units with the C3.

 

[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.

We already have direct ties with BAE, GLS etc, I am sure if we cant hammer forge the new barrels ( I am sure there are at least two companies in Canada that could to do this) we could order them. Afterall we ordered spare ones for our M777s I doubt very much they cost F-35 price range. When I look at other countries with less capability's then we do in manufacturing I have to balk at the cant do attitude I read here and other sites about Canada.
I bet if you got rid of the kickbacks and long drawn out process we could have a Artillery system drawn up and manufactured here in short order. I doubt very much it would cost 3 to four times the cost of current systems. I can see 1.5 times. But if we build a good system or get the rights to another manufactures program I am sure we would have orders in short.

But the cant do attitude with kickbacks and support out east is the biggest hurdle.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In Afghanistan the standard setup was to use an HLVW as gun tractor and a TLAV as the detachment carrier.

Gun tractors have been a perpetual problem for the artillery for the last two decades. We've used MLVWs for LG1s in Kabul and Bisons in Bosnia. At this point there is an MSVS-SMP used with the M777. The Navistar MSVS-MILCOTs pictured above is used by reserve units with the C3.

Has anyone tested the Navistar MSVS-MILCOT pulling a M777 cross country?

 

[FJAG]

Has anyone tested the Navistar MSVS-MILCOT pulling a M777 cross country?

I don't know but I presume someone somewhere would have evaluated them and made a decision to buy 98 of the MSVS-Milcot for the reserves and 37 MSVS-SMP as gun tractors for our 37 M777s. It was all part of the same overarching project (albeit over several phases and years).

 

[KevinB]

We already have direct ties with BAE, GLS etc, I am sure if we cant hammer forge the new barrels ( I am sure there are at least two companies in Canada that could to do this) we could order them. Afterall we ordered spare ones for our M777s I doubt very much they cost F-35 price range. When I look at other countries with less capability's then we do in manufacturing I have to balk at the cant do attitude I read here and other sites about Canada.
I bet if you got rid of the kickbacks and long drawn out process we could have a Artillery system drawn up and manufactured here in short order. I doubt very much it would cost 3 to four times the cost of current systems. I can see 1.5 times. But if we build a good system or get the rights to another manufactures program I am sure we would have orders in short.

But the cant do attitude with kickbacks and support out east is the biggest hurdle.

I don’t think you understand TAA’s, ITAR or Industry IP issues.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Did they have a choice? As they were the one ones who submitted to the competition. I also can't recall a picture of a M777 being towed by one?

 

[Kirkhill]

I don’t think you understand TAA’s, ITAR or Industry IP issues.

It's not just the armaments industry. Any industry that requires specialty alloys has a limited range of suppliers. Billets and blanks usually have to be sourced offshore - and then the challenge is to find someone that has done enough to make lots of mistakes, been able to cover them and still stay in business.

I like people that have made mistakes. Lots of them.

 

[childs56]

I don’t think you understand TAA’s, ITAR or Industry IP issues.

I do understand those. I also understand that our Defense industry has been heavily involved in aspects of our NATO partners with defense R&D. The provisions of providing software, hardware etc is part of a process to build a better force for all. You can say cant, wont, never happen. Those are reasons to not do it.
We can, we have and we will are things to make these happen. I guess we are not allowed to buy M777 or their spare barrels because of those. Maybe even the CF18s and part for them due to the above regulations.
I have no doubt Canada could buy some prefabbed Barrels and Breeches for the Paladin platform and build a turret and chassis along with incorporate a FCS that would work well.
We could even go after a AS90 setup, or maybe look at developing a new system as part of the upgrades the US and Britain are looking at currently.

The issue right now is not that we cant, the issue is that to many say we can't so we wont. Those are the SMEs providing advice to the people making the decisions.

heck if we went that route we would not have a Refueling ship at our call. A few said we cant, and we wont. One man stood against them and made it happen. So it became reality not after being told it wont work and it wont suit our needs. here we are years later drinking fuel and accepting supplies from the MV Astrix.

 

[childs56]

I don't know but I presume someone somewhere would have evaluated them and made a decision to buy 98 of the MSVS-Milcot for the reserves and 37 MSVS-SMP as gun tractors for our 37 M777s. It was all part of the same overarching project (albeit over several phases and years).

The specs on the truck are pretty impressive. I have not seen any towing specs for the truck but it has a 20,000lb payload capacity. Can be fitted with armor, mine plow etc. I would assume that truck would rip around a M777 with no issues with the right tires and maybe chains with it gets to muddy. They could even equip it with floater tires for sandy/ really muddy areas.
I use to run medium duty picker trucks towing 10,000plus lbs and never had a problem driving through some pretty crappy conditions.

 

[childs56]

It's not just the armaments industry. Any industry that requires specialty alloys has a limited range of suppliers. Billets and blanks usually have to be sourced offshore - and then the challenge is to find someone that has done enough to make lots of mistakes, been able to cover them and still stay in business.

I like people that have made mistakes. Lots of them.

I have worked with more then a few companies who have used all kinds of exotic metals, some failed some worked for their applications. Often not they had a good idea what and how things worked. Sourcing metal is a interesting process, it comes from China, sourced through Indonesia, paid to Japan, delivered by Korea via a Antonov. Weird stuff when dealing with specialty products.

Even better is when a company was told it would not work for their application, buys the product, does some special treatments then sells the stuff back to the original supplier for triple the cost.

 

[MH2022]

Has anyone tested the Navistar MSVS-MILCOT pulling a M777 cross country?

Formally I have not, but I've bombed through a fair bit of Gagetown and have only gotten it stuck once towing 777 and that was attempting to do a right hand turn up a hill while up to the diff in mud

 

[Kirkhill]

Really interesting article on what Ukraine might mean for guns and missiles.

ANALYSIS: Ukraine War Proves Big Guns Are Back

ANALYSIS: Ukraine War Proves Big Guns Are Back

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Not thrilled with this apples and oranges comparison but otherwise worth a couple of minutes.

Compared with weapons such as Russia’s BM-30 Smerch multiple rocket launcher — with a range of around 45 miles — the U.S. M109A7 Paladin 155mm self-propelled howitzer only has a range of around 15 miles with conventional shells, and 20 miles with rocket-assisted projectiles.

Personally, as a taxpayer, I am concerned with the impact of allied industry overselling enemy capabilities to justify ever more investments in the next great thing.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Most of the best gun barrel alloys (and a lot of Aerospace stuff) comes from Albert and Duval in France.
The issue would be drilling it, and rifling it.
As well as further heat treat and coatings.

I suppose one could anneal the steel to a softer state and cut then on older machines, then heat treat to the desired state. I know you can do that on smaller caliber barrels, but I haven’t seen it tried on anything past 25mm.


Watervliet Arsenal in NY does the cannon and tank barrels here, they have gone through a multi million modernization program in the last 10 years.

I suspect it would be a billion dollar program to get something capable in Canada going, that’s just the capital cost of the equipment and facility — let alone manufacturing and material costs.

So I’m not kidding when I say it would be at Least 2-3x more than a MOTS offering from a Ally (frankly looking at M109A6 and Archer costing - maybe 10-20x would be more realistic.

I think the real question is; "What civilian uses does this technology have?" Canadian industry has had some decent successes in the defense realm, with the Diemaco rifles, the LAV, various aerospace products to name a few. Canada is politically stable, has a well educated work force and ample power. We could take on new technology, as long as we could also apply it to the non-defense world and the reality is that we be better off focusing on niche stuff, rather than competing on mass production. It sounds like the Western world needs more depth in regards to speciality arms productions methodology.

 

[childs56]

I think the real question is; "What civilian uses does this technology have?" Canadian industry has had some decent successes in the defense realm, with the Diemaco rifles, the LAV, various aerospace products to name a few. Canada is politically stable, has a well educated work force and ample power. We could take on new technology, as long as we could also apply it to the non-defense world and the reality is that we be better off focusing on niche stuff, rather than competing on mass production. It sounds like the Western world needs more depth in regards to speciality arms productions methodology.

Alot of defense research applies to all other industries.
Many of the exotic metals developed for the military are used in manufacturing various products from aircraft, cars, oilfield products etc.
Many of the machining processes are shared across the board am become standard practice.

One part of advancement lately (the last 15 or so years) has been coatings and treatments of metal and metal alloys. Which have been worked on for decades by various groups.
Time will tell if Canadian idustry gets behind this or not.
Most Military manufacturing for Canada has been out east. Which limits some aspects of design and forward thinking. But also allows the concentration of effort. You have trade offs.
I think if Western manufacturers are not to busy and were given a fair chance to bid on defence projects one might be amazed what might come of it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the real question is; "What civilian uses does this technology have?" Canadian industry has had some decent successes in the defense realm, with the Diemaco rifles, the LAV, various aerospace products to name a few. Canada is politically stable, has a well educated work force and ample power. We could take on new technology, as long as we could also apply it to the non-defense world and the reality is that we be better off focusing on niche stuff, rather than competing on mass production. It sounds like the Western world needs more depth in regards to speciality arms productions methodology.

Shelf-stable, prepackaged small flying objects appeal to me as a military niche Canada should exploit.

But your larger point about military - civil crossover is dead on. In the civil field Canadians are experimenting. That needs to be exploited.

If piano builders could build Mosquitoes and John Inglis could build Brens then there should be exploitable opportunities for Canadians. The Aussies certainly aren't shy about giving it a go.

John Inglis and Company - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Related thought -

Why did the Brits make the Sten in 9mm. Because they figured there would be a lot of German ammunition available when they got to the continent. In the meantime it solved the problem of supplying the Resistance.