Author Topic: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)  (Read 478071 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #525 on: September 10, 2010, 19:34:42 »
Can anyone prove that the 60mm being cut is specifically because of the adoption of the C16?

I have heard everyone from DLR to LGen Leslie compare the two and I get the feeling that the 60's retirement is more due to it's age and condition than it has to do with capability.

It seems just a coincidence that we are going after this at the same time.  It may have hastened the exit, but I don't think it was what started it.
I have the references at work as they are all DIN-specific.
So, there I was....

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,025
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #526 on: September 10, 2010, 19:44:45 »
I do know that a very, very  senior army officer referred to the mortar as an obsolete weapons system in a discussion with me in the middle distant past.

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #527 on: September 10, 2010, 21:28:08 »
I do know that a very, very  senior army officer referred to the mortar as an obsolete weapons system in a discussion with me in the middle distant past.

I have the references at work as they are all DIN-specific.

And that's where I'm coming from: All the references I have seen would suggest they are related but not in the way that everyone seems to get worked up about.

I do not think that the 60mm was going to be around for a lot longer and then all of a sudden the C16 came along and someone said "this thing is far better than the 60mm so the mortar has to go".

Reading between the lines, I do in fact see something resembling "if we adopt X then we need to divest Y", I don't think it was the C16 that started it; I get the impression that the 60mm mortar was already on the way out because of its age, and it was more of a coincidence that something came along that was also a suppression quasi-possible-to-do-indirect weapon and someone said "okay if we're going to buy the C16, what are we going to get rid of?", and then the decision was made that since the 60mm was going soon anyway that this would just be the last straw.

If anyone can show me a ref that says otherwise though I am very interested to see it.  Basically, something that states "The 60mm was still going to be in service for a long time, but due to the C16 being 'so much better' the 60mm must go".
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #528 on: September 10, 2010, 21:40:30 »
Well, not in so many words, but that one document that compares the capabilities of the "CASW" to the M19 CDN is flawed, but its inference is that "due to the C16 being 'so much better' the 60mm must go".  Not in so many words, however.  But as Old Sweat stated, ingornant staff officers who didn't know what the 60 could do just showed that they were out of the loop.  But that misconception wasn't limited to staff officers.

In 2002, on ex ROYAL FIST, then LCol Vance was out when G Coy did an attack or defence of whatever.  We had just disbanded the mortar platoon, and on the recommendation of the 2IC of G Coy (not me), the 4 coy mortars were brigaded and were used in the fireplan.  Watching the fire come in, he mused that "I have 12 of those in my battalion?"  Oh, the coy inserted via chinook, so those mortars were carried in, and did quite the number down range.

Granted, it was a fairly staged "event" (as most live fires are); however, until then, he wasn't aware of the full potential of the 60s.  The "old obsolete" 60s.

So, there I was....

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #529 on: September 10, 2010, 21:51:35 »
You're talking capability again though, not the specific tubes.  What I understood is that the specific systems we had were too old, not the capability itself.  It wasn't that we were divesting mortars so much as what we had was now dangerous to use.

That being said, I do not know if a decision was ever made that we should just buy new 60mm mortar tubes that were cheaper/better/lighter like the new 84s we bought, but I would be interested in seeing that, too.

Perhaps we were going to start looking at new 60mm (or 50s, or whatever) mortars and then the C16 is what derailed that, but if there's one thing I'm trying to get across is that the actual mortars we have been using for decades were ending their life cycle.

But for whatever reason, unlike the .50, the C6, or even Star Trek, it was not given a chance at a next generation.



"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #530 on: September 10, 2010, 22:15:51 »
You're talking capability again though, not the specific tubes.  What I understood is that the specific systems we had were too old, not the capability itself.  It wasn't that we were divesting mortars so much as what we had was now dangerous to use.

That being said, I do not know if a decision was ever made that we should just buy new 60mm mortar tubes that were cheaper/better/lighter like the new 84s we bought, but I would be interested in seeing that, too.

Perhaps we were going to start looking at new 60mm (or 50s, or whatever) mortars and then the C16 is what derailed that, but if there's one thing I'm trying to get across is that the actual mortars we have been using for decades were ending their life cycle.

But for whatever reason, unlike the .50, the C6, or even Star Trek, it was not given a chance at a next generation.
Nice star trek reference ;D

But, the pieces I had seen all referred to the age of the M19 CDN, and not the fact that there are newer, lighter and longer ranged 60mm mortars that fire the same ammo that we already have.
So, there I was....

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 588,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,541
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #531 on: October 08, 2010, 11:24:11 »
Just got an email from Ottawa:
Quote
Contract for C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher Systems Announced

The Government of Canada has awarded a contract valued at $95 million to Rheinmetall Canada Inc., of Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, Québec, for the acquisition of 304 C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher Systems under the Close Area Suppression Weapon (CASW) project.

The C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher System is a modern high-velocity 40 mm weapon system which has multiple interrelated components that include a “grenade machine gun” and an advanced Fire Control System (FCS). The FCS, which has direct and indirect firing capability, is also equipped with full GPS and a laser range finder.  The C16 system also includes a ground mount group (cradle and tripod), a thermal weapon sight, and multi-purpose and airburst ammunition. The contract also includes the provision of ancillary equipment, logistics containers, tactical containers, project management, system engineering, spare parts, interim support, and training.

The first systems will be delivered to train the trainers in February 2011.  The Infantry School and the Canadian Forces School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering will receive systems in April 2011, and units will begin receiving systems in May 2011.
I guess NDHQ wasn't following the discussion here   ;)

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 366,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,695
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #532 on: October 08, 2010, 11:28:08 »
Just got an email from Ottawa:I guess NDHQ wasn't following the discussion here   ;)

Outside information is counter-productive to the well situated estimate.   ;D

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #533 on: October 08, 2010, 12:20:44 »
Outside information is counter-productive to the well situated estimate.   ;D
Neither is any information that goes against assumptions that help to situate that estimate.
So, there I was....

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 30,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,990
  • What the????
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #534 on: October 08, 2010, 20:54:29 »
"situate the estimate" your bringing back memories of 3B. The do and don'ts of the combat estimate. (Flashing back to trying to sit on snow shoes and scribble out my plan all while battling sleep and hoping the DS does not pick me for the next brief).
M'eh

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 456,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,993
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #535 on: October 14, 2010, 14:18:34 »
News release now out via Army's web page here.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #536 on: October 14, 2010, 20:00:23 »
Ladies and Gentlemen
Come one, come all, and witness the marvel that is our procurement system!  Conceived as the "be all, end all" for infantry platoon support weapons that was thought of before combat in Kandahar, and deemed so important, that it was brought into service just as soon as we left combat.  That's right, it's the C16 AGLS!  Bigger, stronger and faster (and heavier!)  than anything we have ever had!  So good, we could not wait until our next deployment, we are implementing it now!  Write your MP, and thank him or her personally for the government expending millions of your dollars on a weapon system that the users neither desired or know how to use effectively.  Egos trump common sense once again as a complex and overly heavy weapon system will replace a simple and man-portable weapon system. 
If our robust soldiers can carry it beyond 50 metres from the truck, it will be worth its weight in gold.  Once again, the army shows its true colours in maintaining the aim of situating the estimate and ignoring the hard work, back-breaking effort and lives and blood spilled on the field of battle by bringing in a modern-day Ross Rifle that its prime user, the Infantry, has just collective just realised is too heavy to carry. 

Once again, we are ******.  Thank you kindly, motherlovers.  God bless the PBI.
Quote
Thursday, October 14, 2010

  Ottawa, Ontario — The Government of Canada has awarded a contract valued at $95 million to Rheinmetall Canada Inc., of Saint-Jean-Sur-Richelieu, Québec, for the acquisition of 304 C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher Systems under the Close Area Suppression Weapon (CASW) project.


Click to enlarge  The C16 features ground mount capability with cradle and tripod. The C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher System is a modern high-velocity 40 mm weapon system which has multiple interrelated components that include a "grenade machine gun"  and an advanced Fire Control System (FCS).

The FCS, which has direct and indirect firing capability, is also equipped with full GPS and a laser range finder.

The C16 system also includes a ground mount group (cradle and tripod), a thermal weapon sight, and multi-purpose and airburst ammunition.

The contract also includes the provision of ancillary equipment, logistics containers, tactical containers, project management, system engineering, spare parts, interim support, and training.

The first systems will be delivered to train the trainers in February 2011.  The Infantry School and the Canadian Forces School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering will receive systems in April 2011, and units will begin receiving systems in May 2011.
So, there I was....

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 219,975
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,087
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #537 on: October 14, 2010, 21:48:12 »
COMPANY / Close Area Support Weapon

304 Weapons

3 Regiments
9 Battalions
27 Companies
81 Platoons
243 Sections

Ah..... I get it.

1 CASW per section with 60 left over for Maintenance, Testing and Warstocks.

Welcome to the Foot Artillery.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #538 on: October 14, 2010, 21:50:10 »
COMPANY / Close Area Support Weapon

304 Weapons

3 Regiments
9 Battalions
27 Companies
81 Platoons
243 Sections

Ah..... I get it.

1 CASW per section with 60 left over for Maintenance, Testing and Warstocks.

Welcome to the Foot Artillery.

But, with 51 (!) reserve units, that's 51 there, still leaves 9.  I hear that the AGLS is going to replace the C9 LMG.   
So, there I was....

Offline dangerboy

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 342,109
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,110
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #539 on: October 14, 2010, 21:52:45 »
Just as long as we don't get told May 2011 all CQs will turn in their 60mm.
All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time.
- Lt Gen Lewis B. Puller, USMC

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 329,850
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,616
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #540 on: October 15, 2010, 23:52:31 »
Ladies and Gentlemen
Come one, come all, and witness the marvel that is our procurement system!  Conceived as the "be all, end all" for infantry platoon support weapons that was thought of before combat in Kandahar, and deemed so important, that it was brought into service just as soon as we left combat.  That's right, it's the C16 AGLS!  Bigger, stronger and faster (and heavier!)  than anything we have ever had!  So good, we could not wait until our next deployment, we are implementing it now!  Write your MP, and thank him or her personally for the government expending millions of your dollars on a weapon system that the users neither desired or know how to use effectively.  Egos trump common sense once again as a complex and overly heavy weapon system will replace a simple and man-portable weapon system. 
If our robust soldiers can carry it beyond 50 metres from the truck, it will be worth its weight in gold.  Once again, the army shows its true colours in maintaining the aim of situating the estimate and ignoring the hard work, back-breaking effort and lives and blood spilled on the field of battle by bringing in a modern-day Ross Rifle that its prime user, the Infantry, has just collective just realised is too heavy to carry. 

Once again, we are ******.  Thank you kindly, motherlovers.  God bless the PBI.

You just don't understand, do you? The aim is not to give the infantry what we need in time of war, the aim is to spend millions of tax dollars in Quebec.  ;D
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Andyboy

  • People want toast, not toasters.
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 15
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 323
  • Trying to keep it real...
    • Longbow Product Development Services
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #541 on: January 04, 2011, 16:36:16 »
From my extremely limited perspective the capabilities of the system might make it worth humping. As for the manportability the spec calls for it to be broken into 3x30kg loads. I've (very briefly) shoudlered each load and it is manageable-i wouldn't want to do it for a living but it is doable. In practice I doubt the loads will be limited to 30kg but that is the baseline.

Anyway here are a couple of pics showing how the Germans and Swiss hump it.

Regards,
Andrew
Andrew Kent CD, BID
longbow-pds.com
416 988 6409

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 220,935
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,982
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #542 on: January 04, 2011, 16:48:52 »
Having humped a PRC-25 (23.5 lbs) on top of my ruck and all, I don't envy anyone having to haul this any distance.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 189,291
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,099
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #543 on: January 04, 2011, 18:55:33 »
From my extremely limited perspective the capabilities of the system might make it worth humping. As for the manportability the spec calls for it to be broken into 3x30kg loads. I've (very briefly) shoudlered each load and it is manageable-i wouldn't want to do it for a living but it is doable. In practice I doubt the loads will be limited to 30kg but that is the baseline.
I could not disagree more.  3 x 30 kg loads = 90 kgs.  I think that's just the system itself, no?  Add onto that mass you're carrying such sundry items as your frag vest, your personal weapon and ammo, water, food, etc.  You carry more than 30 kg.  You see, many of us here do carry crap like this for a living.  Just because there is a pic of some Germans and Swiss dudes carrying the thing in a photo op...

Anyway, I've spoken more than enough on this.
So, there I was....

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 202,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,905
  • Freespeecher
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #544 on: January 04, 2011, 22:03:07 »
I can find pictures of Russian and Chinese soldiers humping their AGL's as individuals, and I would doubt anyone on the receiving end of an AGS-17, AGS-30 or a QLZ-87 will enjoy the experience.

Since these weapons are sold on the international arms market and are eminently man portable (being just a bit larger and heavier than a C-6), my prediction is we will be receiving AGL fire much more often than we will be delivering it....
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline 57Chevy

    widower.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 37,065
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,384
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #545 on: January 04, 2011, 22:14:11 »
I could not disagree more.  3 x 30 kg loads = 90 kgs.  I think that's just the system itself, no?  Add onto that mass you're carrying such sundry items as your frag vest, your personal weapon and ammo, water, food, etc.  You carry more than 30 kg.  You see, many of us here do carry crap like this for a living.  Just because there is a pic of some Germans and Swiss dudes carrying the thing in a photo op...

Like this guy in the photo :camo:

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 253,652
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,191
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #546 on: January 05, 2011, 14:54:16 »
From my extremely limited perspective the capabilities of the system might make it worth humping. As for the manportability the spec calls for it to be broken into 3x30kg loads. I've (very briefly) shoudlered each load and it is manageable-i wouldn't want to do it for a living but it is doable. In practice I doubt the loads will be limited to 30kg but that is the baseline.

Anyway here are a couple of pics showing how the Germans and Swiss hump it.

Regards,
Andrew

You know I could care less what the Germans, Swiss, Americans or one horned one eared flying purple people eaters do. A 30 kg load equals 66 lbs, plus helmet, frag vest, LBV, ammo, pers wpn, now what does that equal?
And you've said you've shouldered it briefly, so what qualifies you  to say its "doable"?
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 588,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,541
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #547 on: January 05, 2011, 15:04:34 »
I've (very briefly) shoudlered each load and it is manageable-i wouldn't want to do it for a living but it is doable.
Quote
I could not disagree more.
Quote
Thanks for reminding me why I seldom post on this forum.
If you're going to offer an inane and unqualified opinion to those who would have to do it for a living, and then sulk because you got called on your dumbass post.....please feel free to post even less often.   ::)

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    is watching the snow melt...

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 306,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,725
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #548 on: January 05, 2011, 15:32:11 »
Back on topic, all. 
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 88,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,222
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
« Reply #549 on: January 27, 2011, 10:20:09 »
From Defense Industry Daily:

Too Late? Canada’s CASW for 40mm GMGs
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Too-Late-Canadas-CASW-for-40mm-GMGs-06694/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=did&utm_medium=textlink&utm_term=Too%20Late?%20Canada%E2%80%99s%20CASW%20for%2040mm%20GMGs

Quote
...
The Americans have deployed 40mm GMGs from the outset of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, mostly General Dynamics’ Mk19. That inventory is modernizing, as the USA has begun buying General Dynamics’ new STRIKER 40, with programmed airburst features. Others have been slower. Britain addressed this gap back in 2006, when it began ordering Heckler & Koch GMG systems to equip its Royal Marines. Canada has been much slower to react, but 8 years after its troops entered Afghanistan, the Close Area Suppression Weapon (CASW) project aims to give Canadians the same options that other militaries already enjoy…

The CASW ****-Up

CASW has been cited, justly, as an example of ongoing, serious problems with Canada’s military procurement system [emphasis added]...

The $100 million CASW project began in 2004, and was originally slated for delivery in August 2006. While Canadians fought and died in Afghanistan, delivery dates kept slipping, first to summer 2008, then to late 2009, and now to 2012.

The key reasons were utterly bureaucratic. After initial delays, the competition had to be restarted in 2009, after Public Works Canada (which, oddly, has a role in Canadian defense buys) ruled that the sole bidder, Rheinmetall Canada, failed to provide enough information on the financial forms attached to its proposal. Rheinmetall Canada argued that it submitted a fully compliant bid, but that argument, and the needs of troops on the ground, were deemed irrelevant by Public Works Canada.

The procurement process was relaunched in summer 2009, and Rheinmetall Canada’s team was said to be the winner in early 2010, beating ST Kinetics’ CIS 40mm CSL in the relaunched CASW competition. The contract wasn’t announced until December 2010, however. The winner, HK’s 40mm Grenade Machine Gun is an excellent heavy weapon choice for infantry engagements, firing up to 340 grenades per minute that burst around enemies up to 1.5 km away. It is used by 16 militaries around the world.

By 2012, when HK’s GMGs finally enter Canadian service, Canada’s presence in Afghanistan is supposed to be a training-only presence. Program delays have ensured that these valuable weapons will arrive too late to make much of a difference to the multi-year mission, except as a base protection weapon.

A separate automatic grenade launcher competition is expected in future, for vehicle mounted weapons...


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.