• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
Rather than an infantry battalion in Latvia how about an artillery regiment?


Or even an appropriately equipped pair of Type 26s (Rockets and UAVs?)

Or a combination?

With launchers that can be transported in AORs and Type 26 Mission Bays, moved ship to shore by Cyclones or Chinooks and netted into the Type 26 CICs?

1621530837488.png


The RAND Corporation’s 2016 report on the Baltic scenario highlighted the region’s vulnerability, concluding that within 60 hours, Russia could seize enough terrain to “demonstrate NATO’s inability to protect its most vulnerable members and divide the alliance.” While this grave prediction that Russia could overrun the Baltics in under three days has created controversy and driven change within the alliance, it is no longer a valid conclusion, and rocket artillery is the reason why.
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
Here's something called park defence. The premise is what can be done from the carpark of local defence establishments like armouries.

The driving force was the realization that the 155 mm gun has become a universal launcher and one of its bullets is an anti-aircraft round capable of taking out aerial threats at 100 km. Other rounds are capable of taking out ground and maritime threats at similar ranges.
Car Park Defence 2.docx.jpgCarpark Defence.jpg
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
524
Points
940
It appears to me that 155mm is becoming a defacto standard as a launch platform. On the same grounds as 7.62mm and then 5.56mm became standards. The Americans have lots of bullets and rifles in stock.

The fact that the capabilities of the 155s are being stretched in terms of range and flexibility is a good thing that opens up all sorts of possibilities on the domestic front for justification. I believe our fellow citizens are likely more alive to aerial threats than they are many others. The certainly know about the 9/11 air patrols. They know about Russians skirting our airspace. They might remember the deployment of the Arty to defend Kananaskis. And UAVs/Missiles are on the news regularly. An ability to counter those potential threats by local artillery might not be a hard sell.

100 km guns to take out aerial threats
1500 km missiles launched from trucks to take out seaborne threats
Satellites, Pseudo Satellites, JUSTAS, LRPA and F35s to spot all threats.

The US, as noted above is redividing its world into new theatres based on the range of its Long Range Hyper Velocity Missile (2775 km)
Two of those theatres are in the Pacific, which we border. One is in Europe, on the other side of the Atlantic, which we border. One is in the Arctic, in which we have a proprietorial interest. And then there is the US Homeland. Which we border.

We are the hole in the doughnut. I am pretty sure the Americans want that theater sized hole closed. We may not have any use for the LRHW given its apparent inability to hit our predominant threats, all moving targets, but I think it would be better to do a Bomarc on this one and offer to buy a theater set and install it to cover the Canadian Theater (re). I'd much rather have a Canadian Lt General on the trigger than an American.

This would be in keeping with our existing NORAD obligations and would tie the RCA, RCAF and RCN into the daily operations of NORAD.

Now if only we could come up with a common missile launch pallet that would accommodate all of the truck-launchable missiles. Then the planned/existing MSVS/HSVS fleet could be employed both as transports to move launchers from ground mount to ground mount as well as being able to launch from their backs.

Then with trucks mounting Archer 155s and Missile launching pallets you have a system that has domestic utility, a recruiting and training focus and an expeditionary capability that can be exploited by both Regs and Res.

In addition - the guns need spotters - bring on the Cavalry with light vehicles and UAVs - and they need defending - jobs for infanteers. They need supplies from the Service Battalion and they need RCEME types to maintain them at a high readiness level.

Jobs that can be done locally on a part time basis.
The key about any use of reserves is we need to be organized, given the right tools and training. Equipment is getting more complex but many CSS trades have civilian equals, I think we would get more bang for our buck if we paid people to go to civilian schools for Vtech, cook, supply management for example and had a military delta package for the summer.

Other militaries do have big Equipment used part time, we don't because there is a lack of will to make it work.
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
170
Points
630
Rather than an infantry battalion in Latvia how about an artillery regiment?
I think modern rocket artillery, GBAD, & EW would be a great way to contribute to NATO in Europe. If only we had such things.

If we must send Inf & Armd, have it be as some form of light or medium cavalry and task them with finding targets for LRPF.
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
Going back to the 155s for a minute....

Whatever happened to the Liquid Propellant guns? I understood that they were viable but they needed some tweaking and that the tweaking wouldn't be possible in the timely fashion that the DOD required. But that was 25 years ago.



In 1991, the Army selected liquid propellant (LP) as the propellant of choice for its 21st century artillery weapon system. In 1992, the Army successfully completed LP firings at Yuma Proving Grounds, Arizona; demonstrated fuze and projectile compatibility; demonstrated high output and quality LP manufacturing process; and successfully demonstrated the firing of a multi-option Fuze for Artillery. In 1993/1994, the Army fabricated/assembled a RLPG weapons hardstand which demonstrated 12 rounds per minute automated ammunition handling, azimuth and elevation slew rates, pointing accuracy and integrated technical and tactical fire control; fabricated and assembled an Automotive Test Rig with a LV100, 1500 horsepower engine, electric drive and self-cleaning air filter; fabricated and assembled a four-man reconfigurable crew module which demonstrated man machine interface, full audio, video and data collection capabilities; successfully pumped LP at greater than rates (60+ gallons/minute); and demonstrated ammunition transfer rates of 12 rounds per minute.

In May 1994 the House Committee on Armed Services expressed concern about the decision to proceed with liquid propellant (LP) for the advanced field artillery system (AFAS) cannon. Recent test results had created doubt that the current schedule can be maintained. The LP cannon promised greater range and lower per round cost, but stretched the AFAS schedule by two years. If the LP program cannot improve its performance it will take the Army several more years to develop LP. This will require a restructuring of the program for the alternative unicharge cannon propellant. The committee believed that this risk was unacceptable. It directed that the Army should focus on fulfilling fundamental deficiencies in its artillery for range, rate of fire, and mobility in the most prudent and cost-effective way. The committee directed the Secretary of the Army to: (1) Continue AFAS chassis work to take advantage of the nearly $1 billion in prior investment; (2) Bring forward both LP and unicharge gun concepts through a maximum 12-month intensive test and evaluation phase. Downselect to a single cannon once sufficient testing has been completed to assure that overall AFAS program goals will be achieved without further backtracking; (3) Unify a contractor team to undertake integration designs to accommodate either unicharge or LP; (4) Slow the field artillery resupply vehicle (FARV) development. Develop a strategy that would provide the highest priority for early selection of unicharge or LP in the demonstration / validation phase. This will permit the FARV to be accelerated for integration into the latter portion of the demonstration/validation schedule.

The Government made a decision in early 1996 to transition Crusader armament to the Army's Solid Propellant Development Activity. This decision was based on the projected inability to reduce development risk for the Regenerative Liquid Propellant Gun (RLPG) to acceptable levels in time to support the Crusader schedule.

The autoloader would become a whole lot simpler.

 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,297
Points
940
One can dream
I like the K9 but prefer manufacturing in North America where we do not risk being overrun in the first few days of conflict and where we would have commonality with the US manufacturing lines. Day by day I look to the US for a common/integrated more secure defence industry.

🍻
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
502
Points
890
I like the K9 but prefer manufacturing in North America where we do not risk being overrun in the first few days of conflict and where we would have commonality with the US manufacturing lines. Day by day I look to the US for a common/integrated more secure defence industry.

🍻
Our best friend, even if they have some annoying habits. Our biggest trading partner. Our next door neighbour. And militarily, the country we are mostly likely to deploy in support of.

Having commonality makes a ton of sense.

While we shouldn’t be the ‘cheap neighbour from next door’ - in the immediate term, we could get a steal of a deal on some much needed equipment.

Large user base for capital equipment - makes spare parts and repairs much easier.

Officially partner up with them, would be a MASSIVE boost to the Canadian economy in terms of defense contracts. (Aka, usually high paying and skilled jobs). More regular orders and the possibility of manufacturing lines being moved here. (If governments were aggressive and smart).


The EU wouldn’t be happy, and to be fair the EU does produce some pretty top notch equipment now - which the US manufactures under license. There would still be plenty of opportunity to do business with EU companies.

The Canadian public might be “outraged” for a day or two. But they’d go back to not knowing or caring within a week or two at most 🤷🏼‍♂️
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
524
Points
940
Most of our kit is American any way, I bet if we worked with the states to do a bulk buy of vehicles or other kit together, we could get more for less.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,180
Points
940
If there was will, we could convince them to lease us some of their stockpiled Paladins. As a stop gap we could buy some of SK stockpiled 105mm Howitzers and rebuild the seals in the recoil system locally. Not the best solution, but would require very little work to resolve the Reserve artillery crisis.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
The K9 still requires a crew of 5 (Driver, Commander, Gunner and 2x Loaders) in a manned turret.

K9 Thunder Self-propelled Howitzer image


If not the BAE Archer with its 1-2 man crew, room to transport gun techs under armour and the autonomous gun and loader

BAE-Systems-Archer-800x445.jpg


Then the Rheinmetall (a Quebec company) Autonomous Gun Module mounted on an Armoured 8x8 or 10x10 Flatbed Truck. 2x Crew under armour, separate from the gun and loader.

1623092624883.png


Tracks don't move at highway speeds without a transporter and crew.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
If we replaced the C3 with the Rheinmetall or BAE solution, either with a crew of two,
Then, with the PYs saved we could another couple of 155s or, in addition to the 155s and AMOS or Mjoelner 120mm Mortar Carrier.

This?

1623093690644.png1623094147767.png

Or This?

1623093739421.png

Or both of these?

1623093771133.png1623093837482.png

Same number of PYs on the gun line in all cases.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
By the way, every time you by a piece of kit with tracks?

Don'f forget these

12232691_858358724262451_5735603319447198695_o.jpg
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,180
Points
940
You can man a 105 with 4 men, did it frequently and requires minimal maintenance. i know you don't like "training guns", but going by the utter indifference to the slow but steadily advancing crisis that is coming, I can see this as a simple solution to allow gunners to actually have a working gun and provide some politically tasty jobs. In fact i suspect it could easily be done within the existing DND budget and we could acquire the old guns in batches, sent off to GDSL to have new seals, inspections, rims, tires, etc. Dust off the old firing tables and off to training you go. The biggest downside is the senior management would go "Problem solved, now we can ignore it for another 20 years". I follow the Artillery Association and I feel like I am watching the band on the Titanic.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
415
Points
910
It's not that I don't like "training guns". It's that once PYs are allocated and capital is spent you are never going to get them back to work with something that will actually advance Canada's interests.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
524
Points
940
It's not that I don't like "training guns". It's that once PYs are allocated and capital is spent you are never going to get them back to work with something that will actually advance Canada's interests.
I agree, and while a training gun is fine and all, we need tubes we can get to the fight if needed. Invest in some kind of simulator if you want a training gun, if they can do it for tanks, why not an artillery piece?
 

markppcli

Member
Reaction score
77
Points
380
If we were to adopt something like archer surely a great deal of the training could be done in a simulator mock up of the cab and mission module?
 
Top