C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Kirkhill]

The point being made is that automation is having an impact in the here and now on force structure and organization. It is especially true, in my opinion in the Artillery trades.

It is a productivity issue. Just like in the civilian world.

I don't want to see fewer workers. I don't want to see fewer gunners.
I do want to see more output. I do want to see more guns, missiles and shells.

 

[FJAG]

Fair enough. So how many of those batteries can you make from a C3 battery? Or an M777 battery?

And does size really matter if two gunners and a truck could swap the twin 14.5s for a HIMARS pod or a 155mm Artillery Gun Module?

And does that mean more batteries per regiment or more regiments?

I tend to think in four-gun/launcher troops (because they can make a square for decent all around defence of a defended locality) with a minimum of three troops per battery. 12 in all.

A detachment needs a minimum of four operators, a det commander, two gunners and a loader/driver and also to give a modicum of 24/7 operability. That makes 36 pers so far. Add three troop CPs (for five to six each minimum) and a battery HQ of probably around 10 to 15 for the CP, the QM, ammo, POL, etc). Then there's the question of whether it comes with its own radar system or is linked into something bigger.

I think with you can probably get away with 70 or so. Your average ResF arty regiment should comfortably man one deployable battery with enough people left over for a training establishment. You can't convert any RegF gun batteries to AD - there simply are not enough of them.

Note that an Avenger battery has a complement of 137 and each of the 12 Avenger dets has a crew of 6 to give 24/7 operations

 

[KevinB]

I'd agree.

Gunners supplying security or Reservists supplying Vital Point guards?

Depends
Honestly the likelihood of the CAF needing to conduct domestic VP Guard functions is slim to nil.

Which is why I prefer the vehicle mounted systems but for everyone but the RCAF.

 

[KevinB]

Fair enough. So how many of those batteries can you make from a C3 battery? Or an M777 battery?

The CA doesn’t have enough Artillery as it is.
Some of the infinite Reserve Infantry units should get rebadged to AD.
It has been done before.

 

[FJAG]

The point being made is that automation is having an impact in the here and now on force structure and organization. It is especially true, in my opinion in the Artillery trades.

It is a productivity issue. Just like in the civilian world.

I don't want to see fewer workers. I don't want to see fewer gunners.
I do want to see more output. I do want to see more guns, missiles and shells.

I, like you, think there's a lot of leveraging available with automation.

But I think you are greatly underestimating the need for human linkage even in an automated system. The need to break bulk and hump two rounds WP from #1 gun to #6 gun will always be with us regardless of the machinery.

The CA doesn’t have enough Artillery as it is.
Some of the infinite Reserve Infantry units should get rebadged to AD.
It has been done before.

We have roughly 2,000 RegF and 2,000 ResF gunners. The vast bulk of the RegF are in four RegF regiments and the RCAS. There aren't many EREs anymore. The ResF ones are in 16 Fd regts and 3 independent batteries. With a bit of luck that can give you enough fit people to probably create a dozen deployable batteries. The RegF regiments will need probably five of those two fill out the existing six understrength gun batteries and add a third one. That leaves seven batteries so lets call those two extra regiments of whatever type you want to create.

The limiting factor is equipment and not people in the first instance. I think there are enough Reg and ResF gunners to fill a division with guns, AD and STA IF someone is prepared to pony up for the the gear. All of that brings us back to the fundamental question of how big a force we want to deploy (from which we can figure out how much more we need to sustain it)? In short we have enough gunners to field a division but not to sustain it.

 

[Kirkhill]

I tend to think in four-gun/launcher troops (because they can make a square for decent all around defence of a defended locality) with a minimum of three troops per battery. 12 in all.

A detachment needs a minimum of four operators, a det commander, two gunners and a loader/driver and also to give a modicum of 24/7 operability. That makes 36 pers so far. Add three troop CPs (for five to six each minimum) and a battery HQ of probably around 10 to 15 for the CP, the QM, ammo, POL, etc). Then there's the question of whether it comes with its own radar system or is linked into something bigger.

I think with you can probably get away with 70 or so. Your average ResF arty regiment should comfortably man one deployable battery with enough people left over for a training establishment. You can't convert any RegF gun batteries to AD - there simply are not enough of them.

Note that an Avenger battery has a complement of 137 and each of the 12 Avenger dets has a crew of 6 to give 24/7 operations

I, like you, think there's a lot of leveraging available with automation.

But I think you are greatly underestimating the need for human linkage even in an automated system. The need to break bulk and hump two rounds WP from #1 gun to #6 gun will always be with us regardless of the machinery.



We have roughly 2,000 RegF and 2,000 ResF gunners. The vast bulk of the RegF are in four RegF regiments and the RCAS. There aren't many EREs anymore. The ResF ones are in 16 Fd regts and 3 independent batteries. With a bit of luck that can give you enough fit people to probably create a dozen deployable batteries. The RegF regiments will need probably five of those two fill out the existing six understrength gun batteries and add a third one. That leaves seven batteries so lets call those two extra regiments of whatever type you want to create.

The limiting factor is equipment and not people in the first instance. I think there are enough Reg and ResF gunners to fill a division with guns, AD and STA IF someone is prepared to pony up for the the gear. All of that brings us back to the fundamental question of how big a force we want to deploy (from which we can figure out how much more we need to sustain it)? In short we have enough gunners to field a division but not to sustain it.

We agree on a lot but I think you are still tending to gild the lily in terms of numbers.

You are telling me that with a full establishment of 4000 the best that Canada can do is field 36 towed 155mm howitzers? Using your own numbers (4000 / 70?) suggests the manpower is available for at least 57 batteries. 57 times 6 is 342 tubes/launchers. And that assumes that the tubes/launchers are mobile. A point in dispute.

@KevinB

WRT security - Domestically the requirement might be for a Vital Point Guard, and I will concede that the security risk of deploying the guns in Canada outweighs the need for deploying them at all. On the other hand, deploying a reserve rifle company with a reserve AD troop

16 AD Regiment Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery....

The 16th Regiment, Royal Australian Artillery, will be the first operational unit to receive SRGBAD system which is anticipated for May. Its members got their first look at NASAMS during a trial and certification in April 2023 near Jervis Bay. The regiment is expected to field two batteries each with three troops. Troops will consist of an FDC, a CEATAC radar, an MTS-A Optronic Sensor vehicle, and 3-4 launchers. The 110th Battery will be the first unit to be fitted out with NASAMS. A full operational capability is planned to be reached by 2026.

Australia’s Short Range Air Defense System Completes Field Trials - Armada International

With the recent successful completion of flight-testing by contractor Raytheon Australia the Australian Army appears to be one step closer to meeting the scheduled initial operational capability fielding of its Short-Range Ground Based Air Defense (SRGBAD) system.

www.armadainternational.com

NASAMS employs modified combat proven AIM-9X and AMRAMM (air-to-air) missiles with the latest version also compatible with the IRIS-T SLR. These offer effective engagement ranges of 34 km and 161 km respectively providing a short to medium range capability against fixed and rotary wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles. Australia’s system will utilize the Canberra-based CEA Technologies’ Active Scanning Electronic Array (AESA) radars.


The radar and missile launchers are carried on either the Thales Hawkei PMV vehicle in a high-mobility version or using the MK II canister launcher deployed from a HX77 heavy truck. The MAN/Rheinmetall HX77 6 X 6 is also used for the Fire Distribution Center shelter. The Australian system also utilizes the Raytheon AN/AAS-52 Multi-spectral Targeting System with high resolution day/night imagers and integrated laser rangefinder.

Australia’s Short Range Air Defense System Completes Field Trials - Armada International

With the recent successful completion of flight-testing by contractor Raytheon Australia the Australian Army appears to be one step closer to meeting the scheduled initial operational capability fielding of its Short-Range Ground Based Air Defense (SRGBAD) system.

www.armadainternational.com

The Regiment Today - AADAA - Australian Air Defence Artillery Association

aadaa.com.au

Currently, by my count, the regiment has about 200 bodies on parade with a 2 battery establishment. Currently armed with the Swedish RBS-70 ManPAD. Intention is to have one battery in the field and one in training.

I think it is a waste of manpower to have highly trained gunners conducting security that could be handled by reserve rifles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I’d call that a range practice, and wouldn’t take any judgment in overall order of battle from that.

“A high point for a young reservist gunner” is not a worth while reason to procure an AD platform. I suspect offset by the realization at the crippling lot outdated platform they operate.

Making people operate ancient system never bothered them before. In fact I would not be surprised if there are Gunners out there who are third generation on the same 105mm.
Unless you make things interesting, then your going to struggle with retention. Having a bunch of AD gunners sit in a sim every month may make them very good at hitting the target, but for reservist who can vote with their feet, you are just offering them a low spec video game. Most Reservist will be lucky to fire a real Manpad once every 5 years, I am guessing going by how often the regs got to actual shoot Blowpipes.
I am not married to that particular system in the picture, but I am married to a mix of Manpads and gun systems for Reserve. They train on both firing the Manpad in simulator mode mostly and do live firing of the guns a few times a year. Then you end up keeping people.

 

[Furniture]

Making people operate ancient system never bothered them before. In fact I would not be surprised if there are Gunners out there who are third generation on the same 105mm.
Unless you make things interesting, then your going to struggle with retention. Having a bunch of AD gunners sit in a sim every month may make them very good at hitting the target, but for reservist who can vote with their feet, you are just offering them a low spec video game. Most Reservist will be lucky to fire a real Manpad once every 5 years, I am guessing going by how often the regs got to actual shoot Blowpipes.
I am not married to that particular system in the picture, but I am married to a mix of Manpads and gun systems for Reserve. They train on both firing the Manpad in simulator mode mostly and do live firing of the guns a few times a year. Then you end up keeping people.

I don't think @markppcli was suggesting gun based AD systems are bad, simply that those particular systems were not a realistic solution. Visual gun sights were already useless by the end of WWII, so we moved on to radar guided guns.

Fun is good, but fun and useful is gooder.

A modern system that had both guns and missiles is likely the best solution, just like the US is doing with their SHORAD systems. Simulators are easy enough for the armouries, followed by concentrations with live fire gun shoots and occasional missile shoots.

Have a mix of soft(er) skinned vehicles like JTLV/Milverado, and armoured systems like LAV/CV90. Not every AD asset needs to be armoured for a gun fight, but some need to be.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Making people operate ancient system never bothered them before. In fact I would not be surprised if there are Gunners out there who are third generation on the same 105mm.
Unless you make things interesting, then your going to struggle with retention. Having a bunch of AD gunners sit in a sim every month may make them very good at hitting the target, but for reservist who can vote with their feet, you are just offering them a low spec video game. Most Reservist will be lucky to fire a real Manpad once every 5 years, I am guessing going by how often the regs got to actual shoot Blowpipes.
I am not married to that particular system in the picture, but I am married to a mix of Manpads and gun systems for Reserve. They train on both firing the Manpad in simulator mode mostly and do live firing of the guns a few times a year. Then you end up keeping people.

If the CAF was to focus on retention, my guess is they would concentrate on making the gunners dig in their guns

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You can setup a AD Troop in each Reserve Battery right now. You need a Troop Officer, Troop WO, 2x detachment of 3-4 personal each. # Milcots to start out with. One for each detachment and one for the Troop Officer/WO. Eventually a jeep like vehicle for the Troop Officer and driver. So

Troop Officer and Driver

Troop WO and Driver

2x Detachment of 4 personal with each having a Sergeant

That's 12 personal and 4 vehicles each with radio's. Each detachment gets a portable Manpads simulator and .50cal on a high angle mount, until a better gun system is purchased.

Now you can go into the field and start practising basic field craft and learning how to crawl, then waddle, then walk and maybe one day we will be able to run.

 

[FJAG]

Using your own numbers (4000 / 70?) suggests the manpower is available for at least 57 batteries.

You miss out most of the people needed to make a battery and a regiment function. A regiment is about 570-590 people for 18 guns, 1 bde level FSCC, an RCP, 3 BG level FSCCs, 9 FOO dets and an STA bty and a CSS battery. Round that at 600 and you'll see that 4,000 folks turn out roughly 6.6 regiments. Take away the .6 for an RCAS so that leaves 6 regiments - make it 3 close support, 1 general support, 1 GS HIMARS and one air defence.

My count isn't 36 guns for six regiments. Lets say 4 gun regiments, one HIMARS regiment and one air defence; that ends up with 72 guns, 18 HIMARS, 36 AD systems, appx 9 - 12 LCMRs/HALO, 8-10 MRRs, 24-36 MUAV; 10 SUAV. Add in a div level FSCC, 4 ASCCs, and 4 STACCs.

I keep saying that you keep underestimating the number of people required for 24/7 operations and the logistics tail needed to keep it all operating. Yes, you can get away with less for some systems - I suggested above that one could probably make an VLLAD bty with a minimum of 70 or so but at the same time I pointed out the Avenger battery establishment for a dose of reality. They have 6 folks for each of the 12 detachments - basically two crews because - 24/7.

I can't explain why 16 AD RAA only has 200 folks on parade but they only have 31 trucks too. I don't think a photo like that makes a good judge of what one really needs to run a regiment - even just a two battery one.

And that security thing you talk about is BS. Local defence is a secondary function for gunners - it's what they do in between providing fire support and sleeping. Btys in Afghanistan had zero security forces attached to them. Gun troops of some 35 odd people with 2 M777s would have their CP, Met veh and 2 x gun tractors/ammo carriers in the middle of the position with the 2 x M777s and 4 x 81mm mortars. There would be four Bisons (recce, TSM and 2 x det vehicles - later 4 x TLAVs with one on each corner of the square pointing outwards.

 

[markppcli]

You can setup a AD Troop in each Reserve Battery right now. You need a Troop Officer, Troop WO, 2x detachment of 3-4 personal each. # Milcots to start out with. One for each detachment and one for the Troop Officer/WO. Eventually a jeep like vehicle for the Troop Officer and driver. So

Troop Officer and Driver

Troop WO and Driver

2x Detachment of 4 personal with each having a Sergeant

That's 12 personal and 4 vehicles each with radio's. Each detachment gets a portable Manpads simulator and .50cal on a high angle mount, until a better gun system is purchased.

Now you can go into the field and start practising basic field craft and learning how to crawl, then waddle, then walk and maybe one day we will be able to run.

Why .50? What is that going to actually replicate? It’s like equipping people with a broom stick waiting for rifles.

While I’m actually a great fan of simulators, I frankly think the boredom of using them comes from poor leadership and training plans. We had a BTAS in Latvia and used it all the time, having guys compete against each other with the scoring system. All that aside, the JMANPAD exists (Cold Lake has some for enemy force tasks) and I am 100 percent on board with them being issued to reserve artillery units and equipping them with those to train against contracted air. We never use all the hours we have anyways. Hell integrate with our training and that’s even better. But given them a high angle .50 mount to simulate a 30mm radar sighted gun is farcical. I also doubt you could pull 12 a troop from each of those reserve batteries and actually have them still be functional.
Operating ancient, outdated systems, with no hope for replacement on the horizon is probably the 2nd or 3rd place complaint I hear at work. And that was true in an infantry Bn as well.

@Kirkhill i think you’re missing the pint that that regiment is expected to be fully manned for another 3 years. The Australian army is also dealing with the very same manning issues we are. I doubt what you’re seeing is either a) the final picture of their establishment or b) their full current establishment.

 

[Kirkhill]

My summation of the video...

A NASAMs Battery consists of up to 5 Fire Direction Centres each manned by a Fire Control Officer and a Fire Control Assistant.
The Battery Commander has one FDC while each of the Firing Platoons or Troops also has an FDC.
Each of the 4 Firing Platoons, in addition to the FDC has two sensors, one radar and one EO, and three launchers, each with 6 cells.
The Launchers can launch any AIM-9, AIM-7, AIM-120, ESSM or IRIS-T.
The components of the Platoon can be netted in by Links-16 or by Fibre-Optics.
The Components and the FDC can be separated by up to 25 km.

The same FDC can be employed for

Air Space Surveillance only
Air Space management only
Ground Based Air Defence
Coastal Defence (meaning that the SAMs are replaced with SSMs like the NSM/JSM)
Army Counter-Fires Operations (suggesting that the SAMs are replaced with SSMs like the US MLRS range and the GLSDBs)

The NASAMs MRAD systems also nets in with the SkyNex VSHORAD / C-RAM system.

That strongly suggests to me that the primary weapons system of the Firing Platoon is the Fire Direction Centre and that that FDC could be employed on land or on a ship, and that it could be used to manage any missile based system with any target set, as well as any C-RAM system.

The Air Force needs its airfields defended.
The Navy needs its ports and cargo ships defended.
The Army needs its Mech Brigades defended.
Canada needs it people defended.

Seems to me like there should be a lot more defence in our national defence.

 

[KevinB]

The Air Force needs its airfields defended.
The Navy needs its ports and cargo ships defended.
The Army needs its Mech Brigades defended.
Canada needs it people defended.

Seems to me like there should be a lot more defence in our national defence.

I’m not sure why you think Canada needs so much domestic defense assets?

NAMSAM while a capable system is a Medium range system at best.

The threats you seem to be envisioning need a system for Long Range / High Altitude interception.
Thinks like MEADS (LocMart and MDBa) and TTHAD.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’m not sure why you think Canada needs so much domestic defense assets?

NAMSAM while a capable system is a Medium range system at best.

The threats you seem to be envisioning need a system for Long Range / High Altitude interception.
Thinks like MEADS (LocMart and MDBa) and TTHAD.

Which reminds me, when are you Yanks going to get your fingers out and re-boot SDI?

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KevinB]

Which reminds me, when are you Yanks going to get your fingers out and re-boot SDI?

Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We prefer to call it BMD now.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Why .50? What is that going to actually replicate? It’s like equipping people with a broom stick waiting for rifles.

While I’m actually a great fan of simulators, I frankly think the boredom of using them comes from poor leadership and training plans. We had a BTAS in Latvia and used it all the time, having guys compete against each other with the scoring system. All that aside, the JMANPAD exists (Cold Lake has some for enemy force tasks) and I am 100 percent on board with them being issued to reserve artillery units and equipping them with those to train against contracted air. We never use all the hours we have anyways. Hell integrate with our training and that’s even better. But given them a high angle .50 mount to simulate a 30mm radar sighted gun is farcical. I also doubt you could pull 12 a troop from each of those reserve batteries and actually have them still be functional.
Operating ancient, outdated systems, with no hope for replacement on the horizon is probably the 2nd or 3rd place complaint I hear at work. And that was true in an infantry Bn as well.

@Kirkhill i think you’re missing the pint that that regiment is expected to be fully manned for another 3 years. The Australian army is also dealing with the very same manning issues we are. I doubt what you’re seeing is either a) the final picture of their establishment or b) their full current establishment.

I am working with what we have now and is in the system. yes it's not optimal, but it gets troops into the field and learning the basics of setup, camouflage, networking, etc. The only thing we need is the manpad simulators and some more pickups. The US is using .50cal on more modern mounts right now, so it's not completely off the board. Even if we bought a new gun system tomorrow, how long is it going to be before it's issued, PAM's produced, ammunition approved, ranges approved and training begins?
This also gives a chance for the AD Troop Officers and other CO's to learn the concepts of networking AD and planning how to cover their forces both in static positions and on the move. Having real people moving around in the field introduces friction and reality to the planning. I would like to see some Canadian officers volunteer to accompany some of the Ukrainian AD units. To start learning the realities of modern AD and bring those back to us.

 

[markppcli]

I am working with what we have now and is in the system. yes it's not optimal, but it gets troops into the field and learning the basics of setup, camouflage, networking, etc. The only thing we need is the manpad simulators and some more pickups. The US is using .50cal on more modern mounts right now, so it's not completely off the board.

You mean the .50 on the Avenger ? Isn’t that for self defence ? Your implication is that they aren’t going out the field now, or do you mean specifically to do AD, which is what 4 GS does really.

Even if we bought a new gun system tomorrow, how long is it going to be before it's issued, PAM's produced, ammunition approved, ranges approved and training begins?

Good question, UOR MANPADs should be arriving shortly I imagine with the PAMs.

This also gives a chance for the AD Troop Officers and other CO's to learn the concepts of networking AD and planning how to cover their forces both in static positions and on the move.

That’s not an argument in favour of the .50. Just use the J-MANPAD until actual systems are procured.

Having real people moving around in the field introduces friction and reality to the planning. I would like to see some Canadian officers volunteer to accompany some of the Ukrainian AD units. To start learning the realities of modern AD and bring those back to us.

I’m pretty sure sending Canadians soldiers to an active war zone as part of Ukrainian army AD engaging enemy air is an escalation we aren’t willing to go towards.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m not sure why you think Canada needs so much domestic defense assets?

NAMSAM while a capable system is a Medium range system at best.

The threats you seem to be envisioning need a system for Long Range / High Altitude interception.
Thinks like MEADS (LocMart and MDBa) and TTHAD.

The basis of my suggestion is that NASAMs 4 Fire Direction Centers, call it one for the Battery Commander and one for each of three Troop Commanders, sounds like a common structure that could be applied to any array of sensors and effectors employed by the Artillery regardless of target set or role.

From there ....

4 (General Support) Regiment becomes the SMEs in the FDCs and they generate GBAD/LRPF/Coastal Defence capabilities.
I would also suggest that the FDC become the central organizing principle for each Reserve Battery and the Naval Reserve Divisions.

Sensors and effectors tailored to suit.

That leaves the Horse Artillery to focus on manoeuver support with the CMBGs.

 

[GR66]

Will the M-SHORAD RWS fit on a TAPV or would it be too top heavy?

Using the existing US system (plus MANPADS) seems like the logical choice to me. LAV-mounted for the Reg Force and TAPV-mounted (if possible) for Reserve AD. Common Reg-Reserve weapon system, ammo and training and commonality with our most likely Allied force (plus access to their massive supply system).

The US also uses NASAMs. No issues with an MRAD Regiment using that as well.

THAAD can be part of our NORAD fixed-site contribution as well if you want to go full fantasy world!