C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes the M119 is an attractive option as a direct replacement for the C3

 

[FJAG]

Yes the M119 is an attractive option as a direct replacement for the C3

Viable as a lightweight, operational weapons system that could be plugged into reserve units, especially since it includesdigital fire control that could be a stepping stone to the M777? Yes. Attractive as the most modern, necessary operational weapon system that Canada need? No.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As I previously mentioned, time is of the essence and likley a system either based on the M119 or a 120mm mortar is likley the only doable solution within the budget, industrial capacity and timeframe that currently exist. It may not be the perfect solution, but it will be good enough. Pitching a system that could be partial or fully built here increases the likelihood of surviving the coming defense budget cuts, otherwise the Canadian Reserve artillery will become a professional reenactment force sleepwalking through the drills on non-functioning guns.

 

[MilEME09]

As I previously mentioned, time is of the essence and likley a system either based on the M119 or a 120mm mortar is likley the only doable solution within the budget, industrial capacity and timeframe that currently exist. It may not be the perfect solution, but it will be good enough. Pitching a system that could be partial or fully built here increases the likelihood of surviving the coming defense budget cuts, otherwise the Canadian Reserve artillery will become a professional reenactment force sleepwalking through the drills on non-functioning guns.

Agreed l, the C3 needs a replacement by the end of the decade at the latest, but the sooner the better. At this point a system that checks most of the boxes is better then nothing.

 

[FJAG]

Agreed l, the C3 needs a replacement by the end of the decade at the latest, but the sooner the better. At this point a system that checks most of the boxes is better then nothing.

Loitering munitions are relatively inexpensive and the training systems are even cheaper.

And you do not need to redesign the armouries to store them.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Loitering munitions are relatively inexpensive and the training systems are even cheaper.

And you do not need to redesign the armouries to store them.

Right, because they could hover a few feet above the parade square when not being used, like the guns that are parked there now

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Loitering munitions are relatively inexpensive and the training systems are even cheaper.

And you do not need to redesign the armouries to store them.

Imagine the fun and games of doing salutes

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=316210319796704

Cool little video of British reservists using the M270 on EX. Just goes to show our system isn't designed to create an effective reserve. If our allies can operate kit like this part time, there is no good reason we can't too.

 

[FJAG]

I rest my case. The HIMARS is equally effective and easier to maintain and is used by a number of National Guard units. A perfect fit. A system that is rarely used and only necessary in case of a major war run by part time soldiers thus creating a very low cost to sustain annually. Note the practice rockets which have a range of five to nine miles, can be used on any standard artillery range and cost a fraction of a service rocket.

We planned on HIMARS once and then figured we'd never be going back to a peer war so why bother?

Command and control of artillery is complex and we need full-time gunners for that. Delivery systems from guns to rockets, even the modern ones, are relatively easy and should, in large part, be manned by reservists.