- Reaction score
- 5,591
- Points
- 1,160
With them being trucks, the qualifications for reservists is much easier too. They can also drive non-gun mounted vehicles to qualify, saving wear and tear on the gun mechanisms.
Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement
- Thread starter MattGotts
- Start date
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,389
- Points
- 1,160
Shoot and scoot tactics existed long before wheeled SPs.
The K9 does 67kmph as per the Wiki page. Archer on the Volvo does 70kph - that's not a difference and K9 will eat Archers lunch cross country.
Archer on the Rheinmetall chassis is touted to do 90kph. Okay, that's a difference but I highly doubt that it makes a difference during shoot and scoot tactics. It's not like you are displacing 50 kms down a highway. You generally move to a new AMA or a hide maybe 1 to 3 kms. Your lucky if there is an undamaged road to connect the two.
I work on what I call the backtrack principle. For artillery the first, the primary requirement is that there are projectiles in our inventory that create the effect that we want. Second is that the delivery system has the highest possible "in action" time to get as many of the selected projectiles downrange as are needed. Third is that there are sufficient stocks for mass, sustainment and training to meet our operational objectives.
Caesar is right out of it for me because crews have to work in the open and standing up. It's the equivalent, when its in action, of having folks driving through minefields in an Iltis. It does have an armoured cab, which is fine while moving, and you can always dig it in but that takes away from its time in action (time in action = guaranteed fire support for the supported arms) if folks have to leave their posts to take cover. Armoured cabs can carry on under hostile fire if needed. Caesar fails the second requirement for me.
As to cost; I don't take much stock in internet pricing - you never know how it was arrived at, but I just did a quick search and found K9 at $11 million; Archer at $10.4 million and Caesar at $6 million. Caesar was designed for the export market at the end of the 90s to keep GIAT (now KNDS) in business as its other artillery lines shut down. It's design was basically directed at being cheap to produce.
I'm looking at this acquisition as a once in a generation thing (more like four generations if you take into consideration the C3s) The army will have one chance to get it right because it will be living with this choice, peace or war, for at least the next thirty years. This is not the time to buy "what Canada can afford," - it can afford anything it wants - but "what the army needs."
I know I sound somewhat pedantic and resistant to what appear to be logical arguments, but I ask myself a simple question: what equipment would I want my gunners to go to war with? What is the gun that provides the highest "up time" and the least risk for my gunners? IMHO, every gun we own ought to be capable of going to war - reg or res. Caesar is far down the list of options for me.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 17,853
- Points
- 1,260
FJAG - The Artillery is truly the King of Battle therefore it needs the proper equipment.
Shit or get off the pot is what people need to be telling procurement wizards.
Shit or get off the pot is what people need to be telling procurement wizards.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 36,427
- Points
- 1,160
I know I sound somewhat pedantic and resistant to what appear to be logical arguments, but I ask myself a simple question: what equipment would I want my gunners to go to war with? What is the gun that provides the highest "up time" and the least risk for my gunners? IMHO, every gun we own ought to be capable of going to war - reg or res. Caesar is far down the list of options for me.
The best 'gun' might be a rocket
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,389
- Points
- 1,160
No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.
The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.
I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 36,427
- Points
- 1,160
No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.
The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.
I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.
- Reaction score
- 7,649
- Points
- 1,140
Absolutely fair points, and I can't really disagree, having spent time in action on guns while rounds were incoming. There is a degree of pucker factor when standing up at a gun when you know rounds are incoming.
My only concern is that we tie ourselves exclusively to a complex system that is a maintenance pig, just because it has better armour. The Germans did that in WWII with Tiger1, Tiger II, and Panther... The "Tommy Cooker" was by all stats inferior, apart from the fact the Allies could make a lot and keep them running.
We might fight the Chinese or Russians in a total war soon, or we might revert back to small scale ops that lend themselves well to a lighter an, cheaper, and easier to maintain SPG. As I said, I'm not for going all Caesar, but I am thinking a "hi/lo" mix might be smart... Just like the RCN is planning with RCD and CMMC.
Again, I'm not suggesting I'm right, I'm just presenting a hi/lo option that might meet our needs, and get us more "bang" for our buck. Money is always a consideration, even in total war, hence the Sherman over the Comet, and escort carriers rather than all fleet carriers.
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,047
- Points
- 1,260
Sticking with the 'hi/lo' idea - what are the thoughts of this mix being tracked/wheeled - meaning say the 'hi' is tracked but the 'low' is wheeled. Do we need to look at both being tracked or both being wheeled if we go with the 'hi/lo' mix.
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,389
- Points
- 1,160
Fair points and they should be of concern. SPs, whether tracked or wheeled need to be properly resourced with maintainers and a helthy stock of spare parts. Most equipment has known fail points and these ought to be properly covered. My guess, from everything that I hear and read, is that the army is not currently structured for success in this area. That needs to change for both RegF and ARes if there is any intent to ever give them equipment.
I'll actually go a step further because I too believe that we'll probably see smaller scale operations rather than "the big one." That's why I think that divesting the M777 is a huge mistake. We should keep it exactly for that. We could equip two 12-gun regiments (and I think one of those needs to be a hi-readiness RegF one) with the stock we have which could easily support a rotational light battlegroup or even a LAV battlegroup on low intensity ops leaving the SPs alone. There's a lesson to remember out of Afghanistan - things that use roads are suspectable to poor-man's IED while things that fly aren't. Yup I like the range of a Caesar's L52 barrel but I like the range of a Hook even more. And those M777s won't cost us another nickel to acquire.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 9,725
- Points
- 1,160
No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.
The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.
I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.
Which would you rather have? A rocket today or a bullet tomorrow?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 17,853
- Points
- 1,260
No. The best gun is still a gun. But that is not the same thing as saying artillery should be restricted to guns.
The artillery used to have rockets - nuclear ones. Then we had none, but the artillery has been trying to get rockets for many decades. It's the infantry that runs the army that had trouble seeing a battle further out than their 81mm mortars. We almost had them a decade and a half ago when last a gunner ran the joint but then --> Horizon 3.
I'll see your rockets and raise you loitering munitions at a depth for and beyond battalions. The artillery should have all three.
Red crayons are tasty but fwiw I see your point.
A rocket system is a hammer.
A nice belt of fire from 155s are more knife like
- Reaction score
- 7,649
- Points
- 1,140
Also, the troop shooting guns can easily adjust fire and keep it coming.
Reloading a 155 is a pretty quick job, reloading a HIMARS requires a crane.
markppcli
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 6,896
- Points
- 1,260
Just had a quick look at Google maps and there seems to be a new maint facility already near 1 RCHA and 2 PPCLI. If it was built to handle LAVs it should probably be able to handle RCHs and quite possibly K9s.
I've never been in the new 1 RCHA facility but since we used to be able to handle 12 M109s in the old, much smaller gun shed, my guess is they can handle 18 K9s or RCHs. @markppcli would have a better handle on that.
We can definitely get 18 trucks in there if someone takes the TAPVs off our hands.
- Reaction score
- 389
- Points
- 780
Wasn't the original "Queen" pf battle? Just sayen'
- Reaction score
- 6,797
- Points
- 1,090
I agree with this.
I understand the concerns about standing outside shooting the gun. And the lower amount of armour. But lets not get addicted to armour here. Scoot and shoot don't survive because of armour, they survive because of mobility and hiding. In Ukraine there are two (three?) bands of visibility. The close to the enemy band which is basically transparent. So many drones and observation methods. Almost everything there is seen and vulnerable. The band further back is a dirty window (translucent?). You can still move and hide back there. This is where the guns work.
Having a vehicle that is relatively fast to produce, has good gun accuracy and meets the RFI requirements and not a logistical hog may be better than a bunch of exquisite solutions that you can't mass produce or have low availability rates. The Panzerhabute 2000 is having this problem. Error msgs after 100 rounds fired, barrels that are only rated for 450 rounds and other things. These vehicles are pulled out of the line due to maintenance problems all the time where the Caesars are still going strong, dodging counter battery fire and hiding from drones. And there is no need for a specialist vehicle to reload them (like the Archer requires). The training requirements for a Caesar are quick, very simple. Normal gun crew training, truck driver training and a few platform specific things.
For a system like Archer or RCH 155 they take about a year to develop as you need special tech training just to repair the myriad of niggling software and hardware problems, or have your crews learn to troubleshoot problems.
Pro's and Con's here. Overall if we get any SPG it will be a massive leap forward.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,926
- Points
- 1,160
I 100% understand the argument for getting simple, plentiful and easy to use systems vs. complicated and expensive alternatives, however it's hard sometimes to truly sort the pros and cons without having hands on the systems.
Caesar is supposedly simple and easy to use but here's a couple of articles that talk about maintenance issues and delicate electronic systems (although I have serious doubts about the claim of an M777 getting out of action quicker that Caesar):
After More Than Six Months of Fighting In Ukraine the CAESAR SPG Got Problems With Repairs And New Barrels | Defense Express
For overhaul, they need sending to Poland, but it is better to open a service center on the territory of Ukraine
en.defence-ua.com
Pros and Cons of CAESAR Performance on Battlefields From Ukrainian Artillerymen and From Defense Ministry | Defense Express
Despite reviews being positive overall, there are issues that cause inconvenience
en.defence-ua.com
I only hope that in our rush to re-arm we don't skip doing extensive field testing and research with other users before buying any system. The other take away is that we have to put major emphasis on the support side of any system we buy which should include things like extra barrels and/or barrel production/repair facilities.
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,807
- Points
- 960
If they run when (if) parts finally start flowing and base will support maintenance, I'm sure 38 CBG would love to get them.
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,807
- Points
- 960
Not a chance. Way too darn heavy for a 4x4. Unless anyone knows any different here, I think we're stuck with the TAPV for another decade at least.