I don’t think it will need to go that far, I have some confidence that the CA is at least somewhat aware of the needs of Artillery and the fact that the RegF are PY limited for the requirements of the tubes etc that are needed.
Agreed on both but, don't forget, even UORs need funding and approval at the government level. It's just a bit easier to talk in small amounts and immediate needs. UORs greatly complicate the in-service support of the system which is tied to the project and not to the life cycle maintenance and manning of the weapon system involved. It creates major second and third order effects on the system beyond maintenance but including manning and training for them which are generally not programmed in but sliced out of existing resources.
I'm kind of on the M109 side myself - and not just because of nostalgia but because of the continental access to parts and factory level support. The L52 barrel bugs me and I think will be the modification requirement that will forever be dropped down on the army's priority list because - we're not at war right now. There may be an M109-52 available at BAE but my guess is it will cost twice or more as much as a refurbished M109A6 out of US war stocks.
For routine maintenance beyond whatever the battery might be expected to provide, would a locally-contracted heavy equipment shop likely be able to deal with everything that isn't armament or comms?As for ResF units. As you know, I'm a hybrid fan. I think that you can easily get by with concentrating the live-fire guns at Meaford and Shilo. Invest in a turret simulator or two on each armoury's floor to run through all the drills. Invest in a good computerized driving simulator (and if necessary several turretless chassis (maybe six complete guns broken into six turret simulators and six driver chassis.)) Place those chassis in Meaford and Shilo as well. Invest in a low-cost, short range 155 mm practice shell and fuze and a few dozen dummy training shells and charge bags that can be manipulated and loaded like the real thing but won't rammed all the way so that they can be easily "unloaded." That just leaves CPs and other vehicles (except LAV OPVs) like ACSV CPs and maybe TAPVs for BKs, BSMs, Recce and TSMs and Bob's your uncle.
Just as a very rough review (using Wikipedia and photos) there are USAR or ARNG M09 bns in Utah, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, and Georgia. There are HIMARS bns- N Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky. And an MLRS bn - South Dakota.
Probably not, but right now neither is the US. That's down the pipes yet.
It depends on the system. M109 engines are pretty standard North American diesels and most diesel mechanics with access to parts and a manual could handle basic repairs. The basic track system isn't rocket science either and most mechanics who deal with tracked bulldozers and the like should be able to adapt. In fact much track maintenance is done by the gun det itself.
is 50km a big deal?
uvisionuav.com
Yes because I doubt strongly in the idea that sections have any business operating in the 50k range and also the links you sent quoted 40.is 50km a big deal?
HERO-90 - Uvision
Hero-90 is a Common Launch Tube Compatible, light-weight, Multi-Purpose Loitering Munition System, easily carried in a backpack by a single soldier.
I used to have a chart somewhere with lots of info on different capabilities
well 40+ and up to 50. There are lots more to choose from those are just 2 small well known ones
I always had to laugh at the chutzpah of the BC bunch. 5 BC Ind Fd Bty back in the 1970s were always a struggle and they usually needed to team up with 15th Fd to put a proper bty in the field. They did okay but always had delusions of grandeur and lobbied hard to become a regiment. For the life of me I could not figure out what anyone saw in them to say - yup! them guys need to be a regiment.
Thank you for the detailed reply! I was curious about the possibility of civvy maintenance to keep possible Reserve guns driveable without a great deal of expensive and time-consuming trips to a depot.Just as a very rough review (using Wikipedia and photos) there are USAR or ARNG M09 bns in Utah, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Mississippi, Kentucky, Arkansas, California, and Georgia. There are HIMARS bns- N Carolina, Florida, Wisconsin, Kansas, Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Tennessee, New Hampshire, West Virginia, Wyoming, Kentucky. And an MLRS bn - South Dakota.
That's just the reserve side. Many of these have equipment and ranges easily accessible by a short to moderate CC330 flight or CC130 flight.
But the real issue is not the access of borrowed equipment in the US but actually equipping them at home.
Incidentally, 5 BC and 15th field IMHO would jointly become a single light battery supporting a single large (four company) infantry battle group in BC concerned with mountain ops.
Probably not, but right now neither is the US. That's down the pipes yet.
Everything that I read - which to date is glossy brochure stuff - shows that upgrading various versions of the M109 with the Rheinmetall L52 is viable and a less expensive option than buying a new armoured L52 system made in Europe.
Maybe we should remilitarize a whole bunch of M109 monuments around the country.
I'd only be speculating as to what Canada intends to do albeit that I have an educated guess. The UOR is short term and Latvia specific. I think that pretty much excludes an M109-L52 and probably most European L52 guns whose production cycles are already booked up for several years.
It depends on the system. M109 engines are pretty standard North American diesels and most diesel mechanics with access to parts and a manual could handle basic repairs. The basic track system isn't rocket science either and most mechanics who deal with tracked bulldozers and the like should be able to adapt. In fact much track maintenance is done by the gun det itself.
As you say, Communications and digital gun management systems are highly specialized and need a specially trained and security cleared electronics tech. The cab itself has hydraulics (for older systems - electric for the A7) and weapon systems that are also very specialized and would need a trained army weapons tech.
I generally do not like the idea of contracting to civilians. Not because I don't think that they can do it but because actually doing maintenance - whether by the dets or technicians - is training in its own right. Every military unit should be designed for and should expect that at some point they'll go to war. That means that you need all the proper personnel who will maintain things in combat fully trained during peacetime. Canadians undervalue and under resource logistics. That's why we have such a high VOR rate. IMHO, using civilians, even for commercial pattern vehicles, has become a band-aid solution that will bite the army in the ass. I'm not a fan of the wide use of commercial pattern vehicles for the same reason. You can't go to war with them.
I always had to laugh at the chutzpah of the BC bunch. 5 BC Ind Fd Bty back in the 1970s were always a struggle and they usually needed to team up with 15th Fd to put a proper bty in the field. They did okay but always had delusions of grandeur and lobbied hard to become a regiment. For the life of me I could not figure out what anyone saw in them to say - yup! them guys need to be a regiment.
I felt the same way about Pacific Militia District which had been a part of Prairie Militia Area and Thunder Bay which had been a part of Manitoba Militia District. I guess the Pacific boys didn't think of themselves as part of the Prairies and lobbied hard, and did become, a Militia Area in their own right. Thunder Bay split off and became its own district. Promotions and more Class B staff all around.
Regiments have their weapons and EO shops.
Exactly. In my M109 battery I had between 12 and 14 or so technicians who were assigned to the battery. A weapons tech, a Rad tech, several veh techs and several heavy tracked techs. We had an M578 tracked light recovery vehicle that could tow an M109 or M113 as well as a 2 1/2 parts truck and several 5/4 tons for the wpn and rad tech and mobile repair teams. They would deploy with my battery as part of our A Echelon. When not in the field, all the various battery technicians would work pooled out of one facility back on base under the direction of the regt'l maint officer.
You had 12 techs for your battery? That must be niceExactly. In my M109 battery I had between 12 and 14 or so technicians who were assigned to the battery. A weapons tech, a Rad tech, several veh techs and several heavy tracked techs. We had an M578 tracked light recovery vehicle that could tow an M109 or M113 as well as a 2 1/2 parts truck and several 5/4 tons for the wpn and rad tech and mobile repair teams. They would deploy with my battery as part of our A Echelon. When not in the field, all the various battery technicians would work pooled out of one facility back on base under the direction of the regt'l maint officer.
It's tougher for ResF units. They generally do not have techs on their establishment and need to get their equipment serviced at nearby bases where they are generally low on the priority list for attention. It's especially tough where there isn't an army base close by - like Toronto - and some other base support facility does the work. This is why civilian maintenance systems came into vogue. I don't have any experience as to how well they do their job, but as I said above they don't accompany you on an operation nor an exercise. You lose out on both service and training.
The thing is that when you have low levels of equipment in reserve units and the army is already short of technicians, it doesn't make much sense to have a full-time technician in a place where there isn't much work. If on the other hand Toronto had all the equipment that a brigade should have, then it would be absolutely proper to have a large full-time maintenance staff there. IMHO, much of their training could be done through local community colleges during the winter with military conversion training in the summer.
IMHO, we should stop investing in RMC and put the money into tech training at community colleges and officer training at civilian universities where we pay for tuition but not salaries during the winter months - only during the summer military training.
Class B or a civilian contractor full time. Either or. This is also part of why I don’t like the way we spread out units, reserve service Bns are a terrible way to organize maintenance for Bdes dispersed across a province. I digress though f
