Persoanally, I think that the new system should be lightweight to complement the LAV equipped brigades. The US is working on a LAV version equipped with the 155mm lightweight howitzer being developed for the USMC. Another good system is the South African G-6. The US is also developing a variant of the MLRS. It carries a single 6 cell MLRS pod, mounted on a wheeled chassis. It is significantly cheaper than the current tracked MLRS, and has greater strategic mobility. Canada should not waste any more money on upgrading the M-109, we should go all wheeled, rapid response.

The LAV III with the Vickers/Royal Ordnance 120mm mortar system should also be evaluated, instead of continuing with the 81mm mortar on the Bison for the mech inf battalions. If you are going to mount a mortar on an armoured mobile chassis, then why use a system that is designed to be man portable? Leave the 81mm for the light inf units of the regs and reserves. Towed howitzers-the LGM andthe c-3 should be exclusively for the reg and resverve light inf.

Just some thoughts. Yours?

Regards,

The only reason to improve artillery are: better fire control systems, increase in rate of fire (weight of fire) or increse in range. all other changes are superficial.

The main reason to get rid of the M109 would be maintaince costs. Even though it is tracked it doesn't have to keep up with the infantry, just stay in range. The only advatage gained with moving to a G6 (for instance) is if it has a greater rate of fire. If not what is the advantage?

The thing we must be looking for now is increased first rd hit capability, faster response times and increases in weights of fire.

--------------------

Regards,

Read all about it here.

I still have doubts as to a 155 fitting on a LAV III. We were given a link to a site discusing this in another topic. Turns out the link only whent to a discussion about the theoretical MAV for the US army. The LAV is the front runner for this, but the site did not say that the vehicle could support the weapon. It is possible that it meats all the other objectives so well, that this fault is overlooked.

Regards,

quote:

---

Originally posted by RCA:
The strength of the Artillery is its ability to put mass fires on the gound. The averge ground pounder doesn' care if its 105 or 155, tracked, towed or wheeled jus as long as its keeping the bad guys head down.

The only reason to improve artillery are: better fire control systems, increase in rate of fire (weight of fire) or increse in range. all other changes are superficial.

The main reason to get rid of the M109 would be maintaince costs. Even though it is tracked it doesn't have to keep up with the infantry, just stay in range. The only advatage gained with moving to a G6 (for instance) is if it has a greater rate of fire. If not what is the advantage?

---

Time spent moving, is time not firing. The more time an artillery system must spend moving so that it keeps the infantry in range, the less time it can be doing its job. Therefore, better speed and mobility does increase rate of fire, and there is value to going wheeled over tracked or SP over towed. The G6, however, lacks commonality with the LAV III which is one objective the CF seems to be striving for at the moment. Niether, does it have the ability to carry as many rounds as the M-109.

What if the Arty Regts employed light Btys with LAV III SP 105's? This would bring increased rate of fire, commonality. There could be a combination of light (105) and heavy (155) Btys within each Rgt.

As for mortars, we sould take a look at the LAV III mortar carrier being purcahsed by the US. It also employs a 120 mm, but has a lower silouhet.

But this has been discussed before:
TOWED OR SELF PROPELLED - What does Canada still require?

The key question though, is what kind of SPH does Canada need for its use over the next 30 years. While there are advantages to an all tracked system, the current emphasis on wheeled platforms (LAVmobile) army means that the next SPH will probably be wheeled.

The French company GIAT has produced an excellent wheeled SPH, the Caesar system. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/index.html

While some posts in this forum have advocated the South African G6, one must remember that while the system is excellent, it is not C-130 transportable.

I agree totally with some of the comments given above (by RCA et al) that on a high intensity battlefield the artillery brings flexibility, all weather guarantee and the ability to direct massive amounts of firepower in accordance with its traditional role.

However, given the chances of Canada participating in a major conflict are realitively negiable why spend to replace it? Secondly, the will of Canada's politicians and people to accept the fact that a one or three regiment fire for effect on an enemy position in a town may cause unacceptable collatorial damage (read women, children, dogs, cats, donkeys, etc, etc), why spend money on a system that wouldn't be used.
Ok so threat wise and politically traditional tube artillery won't be of much use in the future...where does that leave the artillery? With no role? Not quite. LGen Jeffery, CLS, spoke on the changing nature of Canada's Army recently using very similar points as I mentioned above. His vision would see the traditional tube artillery reduced to approximately a regiment of guns with the Reserves responsible for generating additional CS, GS, GSR, etc. tasks.

Regular artillery would be become focussed on "smart weapon and brillant weapon" technology. Use of missle technology combined with the RMA would provide precision capablity with the delivery means 50kms away. This solves alot of problems that traditional use of artillery would cause in the current environment.

I'll throw these comments out for discussion.

[ 14 April 2001: Message edited by: Gunner ]

--------------------

An alternative to purchasing a new 155mm howizer would be to purchase the LAV III with a 120mm heavy mortar turret and the truck mounted rocket system or HIMARS. Both options have advantages and disadvantages. The 155mm option is less effective when the vehicles are in built up areas as they are unable to shoot as safely due to the high rise buildings. They can however deliver fire to 30,000m extremely accurately. The second option is more versatile. in built up areas. The mortars with their armoured turrets can deliver fire in almost any location, but are limited by their range. Counter battery fire with the rockets is much more effective than with 155s, but they are not well armoured and must operate away from the main group. Both options are extremely flexible. Thesecond option is available immediately while the first option might not be available until 2005. Either one is good in my opinion.

--------------------

We could end up much like the Armoured Corp-No use for tanks today or in the forseeable future so why have tanks?

However I would argue that once a skilll is lost (ie Regt fire plans, etc) in becomes difficult to bring them back if ever required. Our role is (given to us by the gov't) is a muti-capable combat force which means an artillery fully capable of CS,GS and counter battery. Remember our skills include Arty planning, command and control which would be lost.

I don't believe that we won't deploy in the future. Witness 1 RCHA deloyment to Bosnia. We need to keep the tubed arty to furfill our treaty commitments. As well the Gulf War-where Artillery played a key role- wasn't that long ago and plans where made to commit 4 CMBG but the poltical will wasn't there. This could change in the future. With NATO as opposed to the UN starting to make the peace, we could see Battle Groups deploying with intergal arty support.

I have another proposal to throw out. As every gunner knows, the weapon of the Artillery is the projectile. The platform is just the delivery system. Therefore maybe we go all towed 105s-cheaper and therefore more guns and therefore more rds downrange. As mentioned above. a gun moving is a gun not firing. But our doctrine calls for leapfrogging so when one battery is redeloying. you will have numerous other batteries in support. Put the M109s into staorage. If the **** ever hits the fan, then The Reg F would convert to them (an easy task) to thicken up the fires, with numerous Reserve 105 Regts being in CS.

--------------------

Here is another option: Mount the HIMARS and Ceasar systems on a common vehicle platform for use by the CF (maybe on an HLVW?). Employ two batteries of each in a Regiment, as each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Purchase the LAV III 120 mm mortar carrier (with or without turret) to increase the fire power of the infantry over their current capability. And if we choose to go towed artilery, lets look at towed 155's.

--------------------

And I don't care what anyone says, I've commanded detachments (using 105mm C1) that could put more rounds in the air in 3 min than any highly automated self-propelled 155mm howitzer on a LAV. Shoot and scoot only works if the infantry doesn't need you. When in DS we are tied to the infantry's needs (as it should be).

--------------------

--------------------

The 120mm mortar system would be a good replacment for the Bison/M113 81mm mortar system. Again, the lighter formation is balanced with heavier firepower. These three systems in combination would give the mech brigades much improved DS capabilities and optimal coverage, as well as intratheatre mobility (all can be transported by C-130).

Regards,

First off, the cost of the Caesar would probably be far less than a LAV III mounted SPH.

Next, the actual gun on the Caesar has a superior range compared to that on the LAV.

The proposed gun on the LAV is a modified XM77 Light Weight Howitzer. This weapon is 39 calibre and has a max. range of 24, 700 metres with conventional rounds and 30, 000 with rocket assisted rounds.

The Caesar has a max. range of 42, 000 metres with conventional ammo.

The XM77 would have been a far superior choice of weapon for the 105mm howitzer equipped RCA units to have been equipped with rather than upgrading an overly obsolete system.

I personally think that a mix of XM77's, Caesars and HIMARS would be an ideal force for the CF's.

Here in the Marine Corps, the 14th Marine Regiment (4th Marine Divisions artillery regiment) is to have 2 battalions (Canadian regt. equiv) equipped with all the Marine Corps HIMARS. Incidentally the 14th Marines and 4th Marine Division are all reserve forces.

Given the nature of HIMARS employment as counter-battery fire for use against an opponent with significant artillery assets, such as Iraq during the Gulf War, or any future major conflict (in which reserve call-ups would be likely) it makes sense to have the HIMARS tasked to reserve units.