Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[Kirkhill]

I would suggest that Canada’s treasure be spent on a more useful defense endeavor.

NORAD and the RCN are much better tools for the Defense of Canada’s North than a few batteries of missiles that won’t be mobile due to climate and terrain.

For Canada it is currently bend over kiss your ass goodbye.

With the River class you will have the ability to track and defeat ballistic missiles, and the NORAD aircraft can and have conducted interdictions for years of Russia or unknown origin threats.

The fact that we (USA) didn’t aggressively counter the New Jersey or Langley events should be telling, as we have the capabilities. Either it was a blue force effort, or we felt that observing the red force action was more beneficial.

Sorry. My money. My kids.

 

[KevinB]

Sorry. My money. My kids.

Well if you want to follow POTUS47 and his ‘Golden Dome’ concept be my guest.

But it’s economic suicide. Neither country is like Israel, in terms of size, direct threat, or the localized nature of threats.

You can’t get enough launchers to cover the country in a manner that would give a reliable PK on threats.

I’m out of this sidebar.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I do agree with Kirkhill that with the changing nature of our alliance with the US, having the abilty to project from our shoes out to 500km+ from land based assets, certainly helps Canada's sovereignty case. Particularly with the Halifaxs dying on us, likely quite some time before we get the RCD's and a lag in getting new jets, meaning a capability gap. Building a land based coastal defense missile system for the West and East coast and then looking at the North. That will show that we take sovereignty seriously and means that even a non surface combat aircraft like the P8 can call for fire onto a target.
You don't need that many launchers and missiles on each coast to give good coverage, so cost wise it's is way to create a effective shield with minimal outlay and PY's, Use a mix of Regs and Reserves to man them. Part of the goal is deterrence and having multiple locations to fire from and mobile systems, means anyone approaching our coast has 3 things to worry about.

 

[Underway]

On board a ship, what checks of the ESSMs in the Mk48 VLS are necessary? How about the Harpoons?

Here is the expectation of the SM6 as deployed aboard USN ships.

Weekly BITs to ensure they are communicating with the launch system. The launch system has dailys, weeklys and monthly PM's. And of course there are all the other systems that need checking to ensure the missiles can do their job, like the Combat Management System and Radars.

To end the argument on radars, the A-OTHR which we are getting from Australia will be in Southern Ontario. Security isn't going to be an issue for it. There may be some anntenna scattered around but those are just anntenna and if you build them in some farmers field like a cellphone tower no one will screw with them I don't think.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Yep, it's not the missile that needs maintenance, although it has to work at extreme temps. Everything that makes it go pfft, pop, whoosh is the problem. The hydraulics to erect the launcher need to work at -60, plus all the other bits.
If they have a range of 1-2k, then they may be in impossible weather while the target is cruising through sunshine.

 

[childs56]

Could we make a system where the missile systems were in or near these communities?
Could we look at systems that have a range of 500-1000km for interceptors? If we think outside of the box, look at using use the European Aster or Israeli Arrow system and or a mix of systems. Kind of an interesting talk I think.

Gander

Goose bay

Iqaluit

Cape Dryer

Nanisivik Naval Facility

Alert

Cambridge Bay

Tuktoyaktuk

 

[FJAG]

Leaving aside the North to get back to M777 replacement . . .

Just to reiterate my viewpoint - do not replace the M777; augment and expand the artillery with more kit but retain the M777s.

Anyway . . . I'm just reading Watling, on Ukraine and came across this:

Most brigades have a UAV company or battalion. . . . Ukrainian officers on multiple axes and from multiple brigades – two of which had an exceptionally high rates of efficiency with FPVs – the officers repeatedly reiterated that they needed artillery. They emphasised that UAVs alone were inadequate and that they were most effective when used in combination with artillery. For example, artillery was effective at suppressing or displacing EW and air defences or suppressing infantry protecting key targets from bomber UAVs. Artillery was also able to defend the front in poor weather and was generally more responsive. Combined UAV and artillery operations often maximised the destruction achieved with, for example, an FPV immobilising a vehicle and artillery killing dismounts as they emerged. pp. 10-11

This more than ever reinforces in my mind that we need to adapt Canadian close support artillery to facilitate the employment of both guns and FPVs regardless of where else we decide to allocate UAVs and particulalry FPVs and/or loitering munitions.

My mind is now pretty much made up that the STA battery in each RegF close support regiment must be restructured so as to provide not only STA functions but also launchers for FPVs and/or loitering munitions and the piloting and coordination function through a joint brigade FSCC/STACC in conjunction with the brigade Air Defence Cell (ADC) which comes from the AD Regt.

Here's my latest interpretation of how an SP close support artillery regiment should look:



Note that:

1) the Forward Support Company is a habitual attachment from the Brigade Service Battalion;

2) all up strength is 525 (190 PY/355 PT) w/o the FSC and 714 (267 PY/447 PT w/FSC - roughly a 36-37% PY ratio - at this ratio, every RegF regiment can spin the requisite PYs for two full CS regiments. Each full CS regiment requires roughly three ResF ARE regiments for manning.

3) each troop has 3 guns for a six gun battery;

4) there is a bty command post/bty recce troop in each gun battery which does not currently exist; and

5) there is one complete RegF battery to provide a) a high readiness sub unit and b) a full gun line career path for RegF personnel

 

[Maxman1]

Should we have a dedicated artillery forward observer LAV variant?

 

[KevinB]

Leaving aside the North to get back to M777 replacement . . .

Just to reiterate my viewpoint - do not replace the M777; augment and expand the artillery with more kit but retain the M777s.

Anyway . . . I'm just reading Watling, on Ukraine and came across this:

Pretty much all observational analysis of recent conflicts have stressed the need for layered fires.
From direct fire ATGM’s, to longer range NLOS ATGM’s, 120mm Mortars, then to 155mm tube guns, and of to Loitering Munitions and Rocket Artillery.

This more than ever reinforces in my mind that we need to adapt Canadian close support artillery to facilitate the employment of both guns and FPVs regardless of where else we decide to allocate UAVs and particulalry FPVs and/or loitering munitions.

My mind is now pretty much made up that the STA battery in each RegF close support regiment must be restructured so as to provide not only STA functions but also launchers for FPVs and/or loitering munitions and the piloting and coordination function through a joint brigade FSCC/STACC in conjunction with the brigade Air Defence Cell (ADC) which comes from the AD Regt.

Agreed.

Here's my latest interpretation of how an SP close support artillery regiment should look:

View attachment 92360

Note that:

1) the Forward Support Company is a habitual attachment from the Brigade Service Battalion;

2) all up strength is 525 (190 PY/355 PT) w/o the FSC and 714 (267 PY/447 PT w/FSC - roughly a 36-37% PY ratio - at this ratio, every RegF regiment can spin the requisite PYs for two full CS regiments. Each full CS regiment requires roughly three ResF ARE regiments for manning.

3) each troop has 3 guns for a six gun battery;

4) there is a bty command post/bty recce troop in each gun battery which does not currently exist; and

5) there is one complete RegF battery to provide a) a high readiness sub unit and b) a full gun line career path for RegF personnel

I’m seeing a high need for Divisional Rocket Artillery assets as well. What had previously been seen as a Corps level asset is now being pushed lower to be able to ensure the CS BN’s are able to operate without a significant CB threat.

 

[Underway]

Should we have a dedicated artillery forward observer LAV variant?

We do. Its the FOO Party LAV.

 

[FJAG]

I’m seeing a high need for Divisional Rocket Artillery assets as well. What had previously been seen as a Corps level asset is now being pushed lower to be able to ensure the CS BN’s are able to operate without a significant CB threat.

I agree. The above structure is for the close support regiment that is a part of the 1st division's artillery brigade and designed to support an armoured brigade. The division, which is located primarily in central and western Canada, also has a divisional HIMARS regiment of three batteries of six launchers each which has an even higher ResF to RegF ratio.

There is also an air defence regiment, which has a higher RegF to ResF ratio. For reasons peculiar to the size of the CF and geographic dispersion, I have made it part of the eastern and more general purpose 2nd Division. I expect that it will be routinely tasked to provide elements to the 1st Division.

As an aside, it was late last night when I finished that chart, there're a few errors in it that are fixed below:

 

[Maxman1]

We do. Its the FOO Party LAV.

Have they been updated to LAV 6? Do we have enough or should we order more?

 

[Fabius]

The OPV and Engr LAVs were all upgraded to LAV 6 at the same time as the Infantry ISC LAVs were.

 

[FJAG]

As @Fabius points out the full name for the vehicle is the 'Light Armoured Vehicle 6.0 - Observation Post Vehicle' variant or 'LAV-OPV' or simply 'OPV'.

There is some literature (such as Wikipedia and Vanguard) that confuses the artillery OPV with the original two-version Coyote vehicles and those destined to replace Coyotes under the LAV Recce and Surveillance System (LRSS) project. The 66 vehicles under the LRSS, are, I believe of a single type currently designated as the 'LAV 6.0 RECCE.' The arty's 'OPV' and the armoured's 'Recce' are two very distinct, purpose-specific variants of the LAV 6.0.

 

[KevinB]

The OPV and Engr LAVs were all upgraded to LAV 6 at the same time as the Infantry ISC LAVs were.

I thought the Engineers got boned into ASCV versions.

 

[Underway]

The above structure is for the close support regiment that is a part of the 1st division's artillery brigade and designed to support an armoured brigade.

That's good you are looking at artillery brigade org. That's where we are officially headed from the scuttlebut I've heard. If we are going to a fighting division construct it makes complete sense.

I don't know what half the symbols on there actually (sneeking looks wiki for assistance) are but I'm going to say that you're going to need heavy integral UAV assets. Also there needs to be the 120mm mortar LAV's in that org chart. (81mm will be with the infantry Battalions).

Ukrainian experience shows that artillery and drones working on concert are devestating. Not only do drones do the spotting but they get the mobility kill on the vehicle while the artillery takes out the dismounts. Or artillery suppress air defence troops while drones attack a high value target. Putting these two together into the same Brigade only makes sense to me.

I'm not sure where loitering munitions would go.

 

[PrairieFella]

That's good you are looking at artillery brigade org. That's where we are officially headed from the scuttlebut I've heard. If we are going to a fighting division construct it makes complete sense.

I don't know what half the symbols on there actually (sneeking looks wiki for assistance) are but I'm going to say that you're going to need heavy integral UAV assets. Also there needs to be the 120mm mortar LAV's in that org chart. (81mm will be with the infantry Battalions).

Ukrainian experience shows that artillery and drones working on concert are devestating. Not only do drones do the spotting but they get the mobility kill on the vehicle while the artillery takes out the dismounts. Or artillery suppress air defence troops while drones attack a high value target. Putting these two together into the same Brigade only makes sense to me.

I'm not sure where loitering munitions would go.

120mm mortars are infantry, not arty held. 81 would also be infantry but hopefully other arms receive them too, Cav units should have and honestly need internal indirect fire.

 

[KevinB]

120mm mortars are infantry, not arty held. 81 would also be infantry but hopefully other arms receive them too, Cav units should have and honestly need internal indirect fire.

Cav units realistically need a blended form of Armored, Infantry, Air Defense, Comms, EW and more.

 

[Underway]

120mm mortars are infantry, not arty held. 81 would also be infantry but hopefully other arms receive them too, Cav units should have and honestly need internal indirect fire.

You could organize the 120mm like that if you wanted but I'm going to step outside the "mortars are automatically infantry weapons" paradigm for a second here. I think that they should be Mech Brigade assets (attached from the Artillery Regiment) and directed as necessary down to units that need them or held at that level. 81mm will be the infantry mortars integrated into the Battalions. This means that the Mech Brigades fight the enemy out to 8km directly (120mm range). The artillery Brigades do the fighting out to 30km. The Divisional fight includes HIMARS.

 

[PrairieFella]

Cav units realistically need a blended form of Armored, Infantry, Air Defense, Comms, EW and more.

You're not wrong. A cav squadron (non-tank) in my mind looks like the Canadian Reconnaissance Regiment from the Second World War. I'd replace the Anti-tank troop with some of ATGM Under-Armour system and everything else, plug and play some modern system. I'd also attach a UAS troop to SHQ. This would be a far more flexible unit and sub-unit than the light tank squadrons some higher ups seem to want for Cav squadrons.