• 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

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
142
Points
510
Honestly IF you had an OEM willing partner, I think you could do it for significantly less.
But, frankly I don’t see the likelihood of that occurring, as Canada’s ‘needs’ (or willing acquisition may be a better word) are infinitesimally small compared to most G7 or G20 Nations.
Would it be atypical to hire out excess production capacity to an OEM partner?

Also, what else can a plant set up to make barrels produce? I'm assuming those capabilities aren't replicated in any other Canadian industry, since nobody's suggested "just contract with (e.g.) CP's refit plant" as an option.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,315
Points
1,160
Would it be atypical to hire out excess production capacity to an OEM partner?

Also, what else can a plant set up to make barrels produce? I'm assuming those capabilities aren't replicated in any other Canadian industry, since nobody's suggested "just contract with (e.g.) CP's refit plant" as an option.
Not every shop uses every tool every day. They need enough trade to stay current and enough cash flow to make it worth their while.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,160

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,160
Not every shop uses every tool every day. They need enough trade to stay current and enough cash flow to make it worth their while.
Quite a few people trace the Ajax debacle to the privatization of the British military research arm. A Crown Corp that can produce specialized items and conduct research would be useful. We are more than happy to spend millions on short term feel good stuff. Properly presented as a long term way to create Canadian manufacturing capability and increase job skills is the way to sell it.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,585
Points
1,260
Quite a few people trace the Ajax debacle to the privatization of the British military research arm. A Crown Corp that can produce specialized items and conduct research would be useful. We are more than happy to spend millions on short term feel good stuff. Properly presented as a long term way to create Canadian manufacturing capability and increase job skills is the way to sell it.
I think there needs to be a balance of both Private Industry and Government in both RDT&E efforts and production.

Ideally the government focuses on new technology and concepts (but generally not equipment systems) and sustainment production of some items, while Industry designs systems and produces them.

Some of the brightest engineers I know works for the government, but also most of the dumbest do to…
A lot of government ‘testing’ is rife with issues to validate their self licking ice cream cones.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,746
Points
1,040
BAE went and made an Archer variant on the HEMTT for the US Army. Debuting at AUSA on October.
Part of the feedback from the Wheeled Artillery program (the US Army wasn’t going to entertain yet another shelled vehicle in inventory at this point).

IF Canada had HEMTT’s (and that’s another issue by itself) I’d say the HEMTT-Archer would probably be a great vehicle for LAV Bde’s, and allow the 777 to be focused towards a Light Bde.
I find the Poles concept of marrying an AS90 turret to a K9 chassis as quite interesting.

There are two key components to any SP howitzer, the turret with its gun, its gun laying system and its autoloader (if any) and the automotive chassis. Within limits, the two are both interdependent and independent of each other.

There is no magic in a tracked chassis for artillery as off road manoeuverability, while important, is not as critical as for a tank or IFV. Mass is the issue and the ability of the chassis to carry the turret off road and to take the shock of firing while providing stability for the departing round.

The US is coming from behind when it comes to autoloaders which is not the same as saying they will stay there, but if one wants to have an SP turret which will be mass produced, regularly product improved and maintainable, one should either tie themselves to an M109/M1299 or K9 turret. All others are too low a volume to be dependable for the long term (and we do go long term).

Weight is an issue if one wants to slap one of these turrets on a wheeled chassis. Our current LAV6.0 comes in at up to 28 tonnes. The Boxer comes in at up to 38 tonnes. The current M109A7 at 38 tonnes (without autoloader - the M1299 should be more due to its longer/heavier barrel and mount), and the K9 at 47 tonnes. The Kraus-Maffei AGM module which goes on the experimental Boxer SP is 12.5 tonnes. So one roughly needs to expect the chassis to carry and power lets say 12 to 17 tones of gun turret and absorb firing shock.

The HEMTT comes in at 20 tonnes unladen and is rated at 10 tonnes cargo. Our current HLVW is rated at 10 - 16 tonnes. Both are a bit light but are coming in at the very lower end of what is needed. Guns like Archer and Zuzana 2 are pointing the way. We should really examine the Ukrainian experience very closely as to how well they bear up under combat stress.

There are a lot of wheeled chassis SPs out there right now and more and more being built every day. Wheels appear to be a viable solution but, for me the issue is turret first, chassis second. Let's make sure we can find a gun, a gun control system (especially one that can tie into a standardized division wide fire control networ) and an autoloader we are happy with and then either buy an existing chassis or graft it onto something that we can easily support. One thing is for sure, the M777 barrel at L39 is too short for an SP these days. We're basically talking L52 as a minimum and probably more like in the L58-L60 range. That takes a chassis with some mass.

🍻
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
204
Points
560
Well maybe we can contract out mobile fire support to the Ontario Regiment Museum, they now have more SPG's than the CAF
Oshawa tank museum acquires rare tank; new display opens in December
Been to the Museum, was amazed at the collection my kids and I got to see as we walked around. Even my 10 year old daughter found it interesting. She liked the German BMM Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer (Modified G-13) and the Stuart Tank. They have some deep pockets to maintain that collection and to continue to purchase and fuel them up.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,695
Points
1,160
I find the Poles concept of marrying an AS90 turret to a K9 chassis as quite interesting.

There are two key components to any SP howitzer, the turret with its gun, its gun laying system and its autoloader (if any) and the automotive chassis. Within limits, the two are both interdependent and independent of each other.

There is no magic in a tracked chassis for artillery as off road manoeuverability, while important, is not as critical as for a tank or IFV. Mass is the issue and the ability of the chassis to carry the turret off road and to take the shock of firing while providing stability for the departing round.

The US is coming from behind when it comes to autoloaders which is not the same as saying they will stay there, but if one wants to have an SP turret which will be mass produced, regularly product improved and maintainable, one should either tie themselves to an M109/M1299 or K9 turret. All others are too low a volume to be dependable for the long term (and we do go long term).

Weight is an issue if one wants to slap one of these turrets on a wheeled chassis. Our current LAV6.0 comes in at up to 28 tonnes. The Boxer comes in at up to 38 tonnes. The current M109A7 at 38 tonnes (without autoloader - the M1299 should be more due to its longer/heavier barrel and mount), and the K9 at 47 tonnes. The Kraus-Maffei AGM module which goes on the experimental Boxer SP is 12.5 tonnes. So one roughly needs to expect the chassis to carry and power lets say 12 to 17 tones of gun turret and absorb firing shock.

The HEMTT comes in at 20 tonnes unladen and is rated at 10 tonnes cargo. Our current HLVW is rated at 10 - 16 tonnes. Both are a bit light but are coming in at the very lower end of what is needed. Guns like Archer and Zuzana 2 are pointing the way. We should really examine the Ukrainian experience very closely as to how well they bear up under combat stress.

There are a lot of wheeled chassis SPs out there right now and more and more being built every day. Wheels appear to be a viable solution but, for me the issue is turret first, chassis second. Let's make sure we can find a gun, a gun control system (especially one that can tie into a standardized division wide fire control networ) and an autoloader we are happy with and then either buy an existing chassis or graft it onto something that we can easily support. One thing is for sure, the M777 barrel at L39 is too short for an SP these days. We're basically talking L52 as a minimum and probably more like in the L58-L60 range. That takes a chassis with some mass.

🍻
The LAV 6 is really a Heavy Wheeled AFV. I think we have reached the ceiling in weight for a wheeled vehicle and still have it somewhat useful. Frankly I think a lighter LAV and a well protected tracked APC/IFV is the way to go. Having one fleet may look attractive but you give up a lot to do it. I have to wonder about the sustainment rates of a LAV 6 forced to fight cross country vs a tracked AFV?

I agree that either the K9 or M109 variant is the way to go for the regiment tasked with supporting the tanks.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,295
Points
1,110
The LAV 6 is really a Heavy Wheeled AFV. I think we have reached the ceiling in weight for a wheeled vehicle and still have it somewhat useful. Frankly I think a lighter LAV and a well protected tracked APC/IFV is the way to go. Having one fleet may look attractive but you give up a lot to do it. I have to wonder about the sustainment rates of a LAV 6 forced to fight cross country vs a tracked AFV?

I agree that either the K9 or M109 variant is the way to go for the regiment tasked with supporting the tanks.
To tie that into what @KevinB @Kirkhill and @FJAG have been saying, maybe the K9 is the logical choice (hear me out).

Kevin already mentioned we'd need to get an OEM on-side to be able to stand-up a manufacturing capability. If we could convince the ROK that we are a reliable partner, we might be able to convince them to license the K9 and other ROK kit for production within fortress North America. That way if NK, or China flip and go full stupid, they can have their kit made safely on the far side of the Pacific, rather than relying on American kit. At the same time, if Poland and other European countries start using more ROK kit, we could be their back-up plan when SHTF in Europe.

It's a pipe dream, but one that might be politically doable.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,746
Points
1,040
To tie that into what @KevinB @Kirkhill and @FJAG have been saying, maybe the K9 is the logical choice (hear me out).

Kevin already mentioned we'd need to get an OEM on-side to be able to stand-up a manufacturing capability. If we could convince the ROK that we are a reliable partner, we might be able to convince them to license the K9 and other ROK kit for production within fortress North America. That way if NK, or China flip and go full stupid, they can have their kit made safely on the far side of the Pacific, rather than relying on American kit. At the same time, if Poland and other European countries start using more ROK kit, we could be their back-up plan when SHTF in Europe.

It's a pipe dream, but one that might be politically doable.
We do have some advantages here:

1) we're far removed from most conflict zones so would be able to manufacture when others plants in Korea or Poland are probably quickly bombed out;

2) Our dollar is good vis a vis both US$ and Euro.

3) We have plant capacity by way of mothballed automotive plants

4) We have a relatively educated workforce but offset by union stuff

It's not an extreme pipe dream.

🍻
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,295
Points
1,110
We do have some advantages here:

1) we're far removed from most conflict zones so would be able to manufacture when others plants in Korea or Poland are probably quickly bombed out;

2) Our dollar is good vis a vis both US$ and Euro.

3) We have plant capacity by way of mothballed automotive plants

4) We have a relatively educated workforce but offset by union stuff

It's not an extreme pipe dream.

🍻
To expand on my thinking just a bit more; The Korean kit might be second-rate when compared to the kit Europe and the USA are producing, but the CAF has none, or far too few first-rate systems. The CAF would likely benefit from having more second-rate kit, than from having not enough first-rate kit.

I'm thinking K2, K9, etc., rather than Leo2, M109/M1299, etc.. It would also help avoid the political backlash of buying American systems, because as much as we dislike it, the ill-informed Canadian public gets a say in all of this, and they have been raised on a steady diet of government funded anti-American propaganda.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
947
Points
1,060
To expand on my thinking just a bit more; The Korean kit might be second-rate when compared to the kit Europe and the USA are producing, but the CAF has none, or far too few first-rate systems. The CAF would likely benefit from having more second-rate kit, than from having not enough first-rate kit.

I'm thinking K2, K9, etc., rather than Leo2, M109/M1299, etc.. It would also help avoid the political backlash of buying American systems, because as much as we dislike it, the ill-informed Canadian public gets a say in all of this, and they have been raised on a steady diet of government funded anti-American propaganda.
what reason is there to think that the Korean options are second rate?
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,295
Points
1,110
what reason is there to think that the Korean options are second rate?
I simply expect that someone would argue they are... I'm not an expert on the details of any of this, simply someone that tries to keep up to date on a broad range of defence topics.

I expect the latest Leo2, or M1 is better than the K2. I expect that the M109 or M1229 is better than the K9. Poland has both Leo2 and K2, so I expect there is a reason the Poles have kept the Leo2.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
947
Points
1,060
I simply expect that someone would argue they are... I'm not an expert on the details of any of this, simply someone that tries to keep up to date on a broad range of defence topics.

I expect the latest Leo2, or M1 is better than the K2. I expect that the M109 or M1229 is better than the K9. Poland has both Leo2 and K2, so I expect there is a reason the Poles have kept the Leo2.
Well Im probably less of an expert than anyone but I think its more likely that the equipment represents Korean solutions to the problem, those solutions will have their pros and cons depending on the utilization. I think the K2 is going to replace the Leo2 eventually once up and running or maybe the Abrams replaces the Leos and the K2's replace the t72's? Originally the K2 was lighter but the Polish version might get more protection?

I wouldnt be upset if we purchased K2.K9,K21 and KSS3 but I still think its more logical to have commonality with the US first and NATO second
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,295
Points
1,110
Well Im probably less of an expert than anyone but I think its more likely that the equipment represents Korean solutions to the problem, those solutions will have their pros and cons depending on the utilization. I think the K2 is going to replace the Leo2 eventually once up and running or maybe the Abrams replaces the Leos and the K2's replace the t72's? Originally the K2 was lighter but the Polish version might get more protection?

I wouldnt be upset if we purchased K2.K9,K21 and KSS3 but I still think its more logical to have commonality with the US first and NATO second
Buying American ensure we will never have the capability to manufacture our own kit. If we want to be beholden to the USA for everything, going all American kit makes sense. Good luck convincing voters it's the best choice though...

If we want to develop our own manufacturing capabilities, we need to look at licensing offshore kit, and either having private industry, or more likely a Crown arsenal build for us. I'm not suggesting we ditch everything American, or European, just that if we were serious about building our own manufacturing capabilities, Korean is likely our best bet.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
947
Points
1,060
Buying American ensure we will never have the capability to manufacture our own kit. If we want to be beholden to the USA for everything, going all American kit makes sense. Good luck convincing voters it's the best choice though...

If we want to develop our own manufacturing capabilities, we need to look at licensing offshore kit, and either having private industry, or more likely a Crown arsenal build for us. I'm not suggesting we ditch everything American, or European, just that if we were serious about building our own manufacturing capabilities, Korean is likely our best bet.
Ok I understand now from an industrial setup standpoint there would probably be much more in it to set up lines for SK technology transfers
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,746
Points
1,040
There are a fair number of K9 foreign sales (including Finland, Norway, Estonia,) not to mention India, Australia and Turkey that are building them under licence (Australia just 30) .

I'm generally a buy North American guy but logically I think @Furniture is right. It would be an easier sell politically to do our own. My guess is that London could do it within existing facilities.

Under my 30/70 concept we'd need 54 plus tech spares (18 prepositioned in Europe and 3 x 6-gun RegF batteries and 6 x 3-gun ResF batteries - note With one regiment of guns prepositioned in Europe and used in annual training, only a total of 2 regiments' worth of guns spread over the three brigades are required back in Canada for training and to fully equip three brigades)

🍻
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,786
Points
1,160
Buying American ensure we will never have the capability to manufacture our own kit. If we want to be beholden to the USA for everything, going all American kit makes sense. Good luck convincing voters it's the best choice though...

If we want to develop our own manufacturing capabilities, we need to look at licensing offshore kit, and either having private industry, or more likely a Crown arsenal build for us. I'm not suggesting we ditch everything American, or European, just that if we were serious about building our own manufacturing capabilities, Korean is likely our best bet.
Well we do have a domestic armoured vehicle manufacturer in GDLS. Much more likely that the government would continue to pump money there rather than bring in a new "foreign" company.

I'm not sure if the issues with the AJAX platform are specific to the final design decision of the UK but the Griffin III platform (based on the ASCOD design used by the Spanish and Austrians...haven't heard of them having the same issues) is/was one of the offerings for the on-again/off-again Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program and the Griffin II is the vehicle selected for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) platform.

MPF would give us a common structure to the US Stryker Brigades, we have lots of LAV variants available already for our missing capabilities (SHORAD, ATGM, even Microwave C-UAS in the Stryker Leonidis under development).

Once our LAVs start needing replacement we could replace them with the Griffin III (50mm cannon, APS, Switchblade Loitering Munitions) which by then might also be the US Army's Bradley replacement if GDLS wins that competition.

Of course GDLS is also makes the Abrams so perhaps GDLS in London could even be set up to do maintenance on our tank fleet if we go with the Abrams.

Nothing at all against the South Korean products....just see GDLS as being more politically sellable.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,295
Points
1,110
Well we do have a domestic armoured vehicle manufacturer in GDLS. Much more likely that the government would continue to pump money there rather than bring in a new "foreign" company.

I'm not sure if the issues with the AJAX platform are specific to the final design decision of the UK but the Griffin III platform (based on the ASCOD design used by the Spanish and Austrians...haven't heard of them having the same issues) is/was one of the offerings for the on-again/off-again Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV) program and the Griffin II is the vehicle selected for the US Army's Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) platform.

MPF would give us a common structure to the US Stryker Brigades, we have lots of LAV variants available already for our missing capabilities (SHORAD, ATGM, even Microwave C-UAS in the Stryker Leonidis under development).

Once our LAVs start needing replacement we could replace them with the Griffin III (50mm cannon, APS, Switchblade Loitering Munitions) which by then might also be the US Army's Bradley replacement if GDLS wins that competition.

Of course GDLS is also makes the Abrams so perhaps GDLS in London could even be set up to do maintenance on our tank fleet if we go with the Abrams.

Nothing at all against the South Korean products....just see GDLS as being more politically sellable.
Except we have GLDS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada. Why make an Abrams in Canada when you can buy off the American production line?

The point of going Korean is to provide us with kit, while also providing Korea with a reliable source of kit if their own factoreis are impacted by war.

If Canadian factories aren't being bombed, American ones aren't. If American factories are being bombed, Canadian ones are as well...
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,786
Points
1,160
Except we have GLDS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada. Why make an Abrams in Canada when you can buy off the American production line?

The point of going Korean is to provide us with kit, while also providing Korea with a reliable source of kit if their own factoreis are impacted by war.

If Canadian factories aren't being bombed, American ones aren't. If American factories are being bombed, Canadian ones are as well...
Hey, I'd love to have a factory come in and start pumping out K2's, K9's and K21's for us but sadly your above statement kind of proved my point. "we have GDLS and we make none of those things, because it's not practical to make them in Canada". If we have GDLS here already and they have products they could build if we ordered them but we don't order them (or even absolutely militarily necessary variants of the vehicle lines they
ARE already producing here both for us and for export) then what makes you think the GOC will suddenly see the light and bring in ANOTHER armoured vehicle builder and start ordering these types of vehicles from THEM instead?
 
Top