• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

dapaterson said:
Teasing you. An eight gun battery gives two four gun half batteries.
Click to expand...
Troop: is what one calls half batteries ;)


I prefer 2 4 gun Troops / Bty

But simply because I like the number 8 better than 6 when it comes to Artillery or Mortars.

Mainly as one of the 4 gun/tube Troops can move separately as needed, and the other can still provide fire to the supported BN.
 
@FJAG Yes this will replace m777 as well, army wants one platform for everything.

This comes from me guessing but I would be surprised if the Regiments shape out to 2 howitzer batteries, 1 120mm mortar battery plus a AD det. That's before even touching which ever regiment gets LRPF which would the shift more of these assets to other units.
 
The chats suggesting the CAF should grow to 86k or so Reg F may be informed by some of this growth.

But I also suspect the CAF may be discovering that you can't magically replace destroyed equipment during a period or war, and is taking replacements seriously. Buying enough to outfit the force in being with no consideration of expansion or attrition is not a recipe for success.
 
FJAG said:
1) while it is reasonable to see the bean counters point of view that we should divest the M777, IMHO it would be aBIG mistake comparable to the divestment of the M109 two decades ago. The M777 is a highly useful gun and I can see a dozen scenarios where we would put it to use. It's an option well worth keeping as long as the parts supply stay's viable which should be for a long time considering how many are still in service.
Click to expand...

FJAG said:
My fear is that - like with all shiny things - the 155mm SPs will go to the three RegF arty regiments, the RCAS and the odd arty regional training centre (Shilo, Meaford, Valcartier) - while the ResF arty regts gets mortars to play with and the M777s are divested (probably to Ukraine). IMHO, this does not move the yard sticks anywhere near as far as they could and should be.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to divest those to Ukraine. The CA is doing the rationalization that those of us in the RCAF have been doing for years (one type per role). Indeed, I have had numerous of my green suit buddies agree that they need to do this to reduce their logistics burden. Right up to a CA General admitting to this on his guesst lecture to my ASPOC course. And in a growing budget environment, it also becomes easy to simply just extend an order to kit out the reserves.
 
we are what like 5 yrs from getting these new howitzers? Will divestment to Ukraine be a big deal then?
 
ytz said:
I'm not sure why it's unreasonable to divest those to Ukraine. The CA is doing the rationalization that those of us in the RCAF have been doing for years (one type per role). Indeed, I have had numerous of my green suit buddies agree that they need to do this to reduce their logistics burden. Right up to a CA General admitting to this on his guesst lecture to my ASPOC course. And in a growing budget environment, it also becomes easy to simply just extend an order to kit out the reserves.
Click to expand...
Given they are opening up the 777 to ARes gunners and techs, they are setting the condition for them to go to the reserves as a training gun as well as things like gun salutes on parliament hill that I couldn't see a SPG doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
MilEME09 said:
Given they are opening up the 777 to ARes gunners and techs, they are setting the condition for them to go to the reserves as a training gun as well as things like gun salutes on parliament hill that I couldn't see a SPG doing.
Click to expand...

How many 777s do y'all really need though for ceremonial duties and training?

Also, I would think a lot of this stuff is better suited to some smaller 105 mm platform that can be purchased in larger quantities and more widely used? Correct me if I'm wrong. I imagine a 105 mm system to be more easily manned, maintained and supported.
 
ytz said:
How many 777s do y'all really need though for ceremonial duties and training?

Also, I would think a lot of this stuff is better suited to some smaller 105 mm platform that can be purchased in larger quantities and more widely used? Correct me if I'm wrong. I imagine a 105 mm system to be more easily manned, maintained and supported.
Click to expand...
Given how spread out we are? A lot, there is no point in having a system just for training and ceremonial duty. That's why the ancient C3 needs to go. We will save lots of time and money by having 1 common platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ytz
MilEME09 said:
Given how spread out we are? A lot, there is no point in having a system just for training and ceremonial duty. That's why the ancient C3 needs to go. We will save lots of time and money by having 1 common platform.
Click to expand...

Isn't that 1 platform the SPG in this RFI? Unless I am misunderstanding the intent here.

KevinB said:
Ukraine has suggested that 14-18k rounds per day would be required for significant offensive action so let’s say 20k for safety margin and that is ~600k/month just in expenditure, without building up a stockpile.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of this rate can be generalized given how much more artillery centric Ukraine-Russia is?
 
ytz said:
Isn't that 1 platform the SPG in this RFI? Unless I am misunderstanding the intent here.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s not really going to work for saluting guns.


ytz said:
I wonder how much of this rate can be generalized given how much more artillery centric Ukraine-Russia is?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure. I’ve seen a lot of conflicting reports, generally as the assumption was Western Forces would use a lot more air power - but while Russian AD generally sucks ass and only gets highlighted to spur next generation stuff on the USAF side, I am sure that GWOT style air wouldn’t be available in a great power conflict. So ‘extra’ artillery capability would not be superfluous.


IMHO divesting the M777 would be criminal. While I don’t disagree that Ukraine could use them, the CA needs a ‘Light’ gun option, as the CA isn’t solely a mechanized force. I don’t see then 777 as a great ceremonial gun (it’s really big and its gun tractor is even bigger). Frankly very very few of the saluting gun tasks are publicly visible - really anything could be used to make a loud noise for that purpose.
 
I would hope, given experience in Ukraine, that we have between .5 and .75:1 spares to account for casualties. Having 1 spare battery (ops stock) is pretty much none. Have at least a regiment spare.
 
MilEME09 said:
Given how spread out we are? A lot, there is no point in having a system just for training and ceremonial duty. That's why the ancient C3 needs to go. We will save lots of time and money by having 1 common platform.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should take a hard look at why a 1st world country can't manage to maintain 30ish new guns, and around 100 older guns. One lesson out of Ukarine is your going to need deep stockpiles of vehicles, weapons and ammunition.
 
For the saluting guns, if there's an interest in having something that doesn't chew up lawns for the function, why not rouse out the really ancient stuff that's providing spider quarters on armoury floors? The RCN uses various older pieces for the purpose.

That said, by the book, just about anything that can manage blank firing can be used: IIRC there's even a note that e.g. AD guns can fire quick bursts in place of the more usual single round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top