• 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

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
5,227
Points
1,040
IMO - not that it counts - is that once you purchase a vehicle and start and bolting shit on it then you start taxing the power train, which then burns out........I am sure you get the point.
Absolutely. I know that the base chassis for the M1299, like the M109A7, is the same as for the Bradley but I'm not sure whether the armour on the M1299 in the pictures is "additional" armour bolted on or whether its just that way in the prototype models.

I expect that a large weight component of the M1299 over the M109A7 is going to be the longer heavier tube and the autoloader system. I note that both the Bradley and M1299 sport the same Cummins 600hp diesel engine with the Bradley coming in around 27 tons while the only estimates that I've seen for the M1299 put it around 40 tons. Earlier M109s came in at around 27 tons but the A7 upped that to around 35 tons.

That's why I said I'm more interested in what's in the turret and what's under the hood than what it looks like on the outside.

🍻
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
5,227
Points
1,040
There's a lot of good things to be said about the PzH 2000. There were, however, several issues for the Dutch in Afghanistan with overheating, much higher preventative maintenance requirements than the M09, electronics with dust issues, and spare parts supplies from the manufacturer. Per unit cost is very high. For the cost of one PzH 2000 you can buy two sets of M109A7 Paladins and their M992A3 ammo carriers.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,953
Points
1,140
There's a lot of good things to be said about the PzH 2000. There were, however, several issues for the Dutch in Afghanistan with overheating, much higher preventative maintenance requirements than the M09, electronics with dust issues, and spare parts supplies from the manufacturer. Per unit cost is very high. For the cost of one PzH 2000 you can buy two sets of M109A7 Paladins and their M992A3 ammo carriers.

🍻
And get to use the Paladins too ;)
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
102
Points
460
I think this posts has travelled far from the intent of replacing the 105MM guns.

I still think as the barrel life wears down and the guns get red tagged for cracks, and anything else, the following will happen

1) the working guns will be pooled at a training area for all units to use and shoot. Just like they did with the AVGP fleets in the 90s, took them out of the hands of the Res Units and pooled them in places like Meaford for all units to use. Better use of maintainer funds and having full time staff to work on them to keep them running.
2) Units who do the ceremonial stuff like 30 RCA in Ottawa, 7 Toronto, they will get 1 or 2 guns to just do the taskings as they come up. ( can a red tagged gun fire blanks?)
3) As the working pool wears out, guns will be cannibalized for parts to keep a small number of guns working. Limited to a number of live fires a year, to preserve barrel life.
4) Res Arty units will be retasked just like some of the former Inf units and Res Armoured Units to another roles. Or will just disappear from the order of battle, or be merged with other units.
5) If a new gun is purchased it will be in much smaller numbers and end in a pool at the training areas to maintained and to be shared
6) mortars will become the main weapon of res arty, making them ineffective as members of a gun crew if required by the Reg Force for taskings without serious upgrades in training.

but what do I know I was just a Fin Clerk way back when
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,953
Points
1,140
I think this posts has travelled far from the intent of replacing the 105MM guns.

I still think as the barrel life wears down and the guns get red tagged for cracks, and anything else, the following will happen

1) the working guns will be pooled at a training area for all units to use and shoot. Just like they did with the AVGP fleets in the 90s, took them out of the hands of the Res Units and pooled them in places like Meaford for all units to use. Better use of maintainer funds and having full time staff to work on them to keep them running.
Common Pooled equipment tends to disintegrate at a vastly higher rate. Because it’s ‘Ridden hard and put away wet’.
2) Units who do the ceremonial stuff like 30 RCA in Ottawa, 7 Toronto, they will get 1 or 2 guns to just do the taskings as they come up. ( can a red tagged gun fire blanks?)
One can shoots blanks with eroded barrels. Would depend what was N/S on a gun to determine if it is fit for saluting usage only.
3) As the working pool wears out, guns will be cannibalized for parts to keep a small number of guns working. Limited to a number of live fires a year, to preserve barrel life.

There is apparently a new SPA program working. If that comes to fruition- it allows for the few 777’s to move to relevant PRes Arty units. For instance if 2 CMBG went light the Ont units could go 777 with 2Horse.
4) Res Arty units will be retasked just like some of the former Inf units and Res Armoured Units to another roles. Or will just disappear from the order of battle, or be merged with other units.
Consolidation of units is a possibility too.

5) If a new gun is purchased it will be in much smaller numbers and end in a pool at the training areas to maintained and to be shared
6) mortars will become the main weapon of res arty, making them ineffective as members of a gun crew if required by the Reg Force for taskings without serious upgrades in training.
I think most seeing what has occurred in the Ukraine will be hard put to accept a Mortar instead of a 155mm or Rocket system for Artillery.
but what do I know I was just a Fin Clerk way back when
It’s in the hands of the chicken bones at this point.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,932
Points
1,090
There is apparently a new SPA program working. If that comes to fruition- it allows for the few 777’s to move to relevant PRes Arty units. For instance if 2 CMBG went light the Ont units could go 777 with 2Horse.

I've heard about this program but unless they accelerate things, don't expect anything till next decade
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,305
Points
1,160
I will still argue light 105mm for Reserve units who are away from nearby ranges, M777 to Reserve units close to Wainwright and Shilo. M777 and mix of wheeled and tracked SPG for the regular force, with perhaps a training unit for reservists to train on the M777 and SPG's either in Shilo or Wainwright. Where individuals can go for a short familiarization course on one of those systems.

This gives you a mix and match resource to fit whatever conflict the Army is sent to.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
808
Points
1,040
I will still argue light 105mm for Reserve units who are away from nearby ranges, M777 to Reserve units close to Wainwright and Shilo. M777 and mix of wheeled and tracked SPG for the regular force, with perhaps a training unit for reservists to train on the M777 and SPG's either in Shilo or Wainwright. Where individuals can go for a short familiarization course on one of those systems.

This gives you a mix and match resource to fit whatever conflict the Army is sent to.
I am sure it's back some 50 pages but which light 105mm would you choose? I am sure a towed one.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,305
Points
1,160
M119 for the Reserves, A wheeled 105SPG for the LAV forces. Less effect than a 155, but more stowed rounds.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
808
Points
1,040
M119 for the Reserves, A wheeled 105SPG for the LAV forces. Less effect than a 155, but more stowed rounds.
Ok where do we get them? Used from the Americans? They not making anymore it looks like. I was thinking a current product but I don't know they are making a current 105mm.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,464
Points
1,090
How about...a HIMARS for all the Reserve forces - and figure out a way to use the old classic and cheap FFAR rockets as sub-caliber reduced range training rounds for all of them?

The HIMAR truck would be easier to maintain by the PRes than other more advanced systems.

The reduced range would let smaller ranges be used for practice. (11,500 yard max range according to Google.)

The reduced cost would let more training happen more often all around.

Imagine the Arty guys in Halifax swapping in their old LG-1's for HIMARS - and using Osborne Head for short range FFAR shoots, and then coordinating with the Navy for long-range clearance of the gunnery range enabling actual long-range firing into the OP Areas offshore.

I realize it's a flight of fancy because it doesn't exist, but we really need to do something...and subcaliber kits or training packs are not something new.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,953
Points
1,140
I will still argue light 105mm for Reserve units who are away from nearby ranges,
What Canada doesn't need is YET another 105mm towed gun...
Distance from a range is an issue with any platform.

M777 to Reserve units close to Wainwright and Shilo.
If one is looking at potentially making Petawawa the Lt Bde area - then Ontario Res units are the only ones that makes sense for the 777, the rest need to make do with what they have until a SPA/Rkt option can be acquired.
Pet isn't huge - but it can shoot 155mm, your going to need Wx and Suffied for any rocket systems.

I would suggest that HIMARS be a good system for most Res Arty units -- as it is very easily trained on - and there are advanced simulators so Units without easy access to ranges can still conduct Individual and Collective Training.


M777 and mix of wheeled and tracked SPG for the regular force, with perhaps a training unit for reservists to train on the M777 and SPG's either in Shilo or Wainwright. Where individuals can go for a short familiarization course on one of those systems.

This gives you a mix and match resource to fit whatever conflict the Army is sent to.
I will reiterate my opinion that the 105mm Artillery has gone the way of the 105mm tank gun.

M109A7 SPA
HIMARS
M777

Color the box checked.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,953
Points
1,140
How about...a HIMARS for all the Reserve forces - and figure out a way to use the old classic and cheap FFAR rockets as sub-caliber reduced range training rounds for all of them?
Great minds ;)

The HIMAR truck would be easier to maintain by the PRes than other more advanced systems.

The reduced range would let smaller ranges be used for practice. (11,500 yard max range according to Google.)

The reduced cost would let more training happen more often all around.

Imagine the Arty guys in Halifax swapping in their old LG-1's for HIMARS - and using Osborne Head for short range FFAR shoots, and then coordinating with the Navy for long-range clearance of the gunnery range enabling actual long-range firing into the OP Areas offshore.

I realize it's a flight of fancy because it doesn't exist, but we really need to do something...and subcaliber kits or training packs are not something new.

I don't think you need to use FFAR's - the new sims are good for all the user drills - and FFAR isn't going to be a FOO training aid of value.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,464
Points
1,090
True, but letting the troops fire rockets is important...the digital drills and sims are one thing, but having an actual whooosh-bang! is important too. The processes for loading could be similar, the handling would be effectively identical (weighted cells to match actual weight of the loaded packs) along with maintaining ammo handling procedures...all important things that get glossed over in digital simulations.

The ability to 'run a range' using SATS has meant that many troops are not familiar with all of the background activities that are required - ammo point management, weapons clearance, ammo declarations, effectively run butts...etc.

Giving the PRes a fully capable HIMARS system, but only issuing them short range practice rockets for training would mean that they can use any range that has the ability to operate a .50 Cal in open field firing (12km template)

Again - a pipe dream because the sub-caliber training option doesn't exist, and I suspect that because we have so much 105mm in stock...because we already have 105mm's....we'd just end up buying another 105mm...even though we need something different.

Our procurement system seems designed to get us the stuff we don't need, at the wrong time, for too much money, and not enough service life.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
28
Points
480
The idea of pooling guns at training centres isn't new, it just doesn't work very well for IT throughput, this has more to do with availability of staff and students, as well as conflicting task priorities during the summer (ceremonial guard tasks having higher priority for example)
In the past six years, the P Res Arty units in 4 Div went from centralized training at RST to a dispersed IT model running year round. The results after just the first four years were very positive (which can be seen in this example of 56 Fd alone). They are now running DP 2 and 3 NCM and Officer courses within their own armouries. Incredibly, there are critics of this approach, but it's hard to argue against success

But even that marginal increase of use resulted in additional wear, with maintenance and logistics problems being exacerbated.
The C3 needs to be replaced in the near term, because P Res Arty units are still tasked to FG Gun Dets, not mortar Dets (which are back with the infantry where they belong BTW) to fill all the holes in Reg F Regt, even future structuring still counts on this. This has been identified within the RCA campaign plan now for more than a decade, and is not likely to change anytime soon

Whatever the solution looks like, it's clear it needs to be able to work within the context of dispersed IT, as that certainly seems to be the best model to adapt to build the mass needed. Once the replacement shows up, instead of "divesting" the C3, as is the habit when new kit arrives, it should be kept for ceremonial purposes. For Avcon they should look at doing that with the LG1, which although it has problems too, it does have OEM support, the C3 does not. (BTW, the LG1 was used for Op Palaci temporarily in 2011 when the C3 fleet was grounded)
 

Attachments

  • 56 Fd IT progress.jpg
    56 Fd IT progress.jpg
    327.8 KB · Views: 17

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
8,953
Points
1,140
True, but letting the troops fire rockets is important...the digital drills and sims are one thing, but having an actual whooosh-bang! is important too. The processes for loading could be similar, the handling would be effectively identical (weighted cells to match actual weight of the loaded packs) along with maintaining ammo handling procedures...all important things that get glossed over in digital simulations.

The ability to 'run a range' using SATS has meant that many troops are not familiar with all of the background activities that are required - ammo point management, weapons clearance, ammo declarations, effectively run butts...etc.

Giving the PRes a fully capable HIMARS system, but only issuing them short range practice rockets for training would mean that they can use any range that has the ability to operate a .50 Cal in open field firing (12km template)

Again - a pipe dream because the sub-caliber training option doesn't exist, and I suspect that because we have so much 105mm in stock...because we already have 105mm's....we'd just end up buying another 105mm...even though we need something different.

Our procurement system seems designed to get us the stuff we don't need, at the wrong time, for too much money, and not enough service life.
Interestingly enough some of the Simulator options are not just Digital - you can integrate the entire vehicle - so you need to load, fire, etc -- everything that is done for real, just not live rockets.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
4,305
Points
1,160
BAE appeared to be offering new or upgraded M118/M119's. The nice thing is that they have a very small footprint and do not require the Gin palace gun tractors we currently have. HIMARS is great, but hell people here caution on the work just to get 120mm ammunition into the system, good luck getting a whole new capability before all of the Reserve have no functional guns left. I suspect that if Canada looked at doing a combined buy of 105's with a couple of other nations, BAE would happily do it.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
753
Points
1,060
It still seems to me that the questions remain

Does a towed 105mm have the range and mobility on the battlefield?

And I think the answer also is still the same-NO

We have seen counter battery fire at sub 1 minute from Ukraine so to me any artillery piece needs to fire and move within that window
 
Top