New Indirect Fire Support Systems Needed

[Brock]

The adoption of the medium-lighweight force concept--wanted or not--is happening. The army‘s services needs to stop fighting--I realize some are supporting it-and embrace so the troops can benefit from it with equipment that allows the concept to be as successful as possible. The retirement of the Leopard I C2 tank is an indication for the artillery that the M109 self-propelled howitzer systems retirement is not far behind; there is no need for a system designed to support heavy mechanized force. Some may disagree, but it is a poorly supported arguement to make that a medium-lighweight force without tanks, not designed for heavy warfare, needs the kind of indirect fire support provided by the M109. However, this does not mean the army does not require indirect fire support, but simply highlights the need for more complementary system (s). I believe the medium-lightweight is the best system concept for Canada--a non-aggressive country relative to the UK or US--that can afford heavy forces, but will not provide the financial and/or political support acquire and/or use them. As such, I believe a mixture of towed 155mm howitzers, LAV III 8X8 self-propelled 120mm turretted mortar systems, 120mm towed mortars, and 60mm mortars can effectively meet the indirect fire support needs of the Canadian Army. As a plus, these group of systems will be more flexible, easier to support and maintain, and far less costly to use and operate. Furthermore, the entire army, regular and reserves, could be fully equipped with new systms by 2010, even if a decision was not made until 2010 for rougly the same cost as 24 new 155mm tracked SPH. However, the system only works if it is fully supported by both the army and government.

The way I envision such a system will not ruffle artillery cap badge feathers...much. The only ruffling is the adoption of mortars primarily over howitzers, but the artillery for a very long time used 4.2" inch (106mm) mortars and now have the 81mm mortar tasking. The 120mm mortar which has a greater firepower than a 105mm howitzer, but just not the same range...that‘s where the towed 155mm howitzer comes in.

Each battlegroup--not battalion or regiment--must have a mortar battery of 6 or preferably 8 120mm mortar (towed or self-propelled turreted) permanently attached to ensure indirect fire support is always available and not being used when needed. The 120mm mortar battery (not platoon) provides some of the support that the 81mm had in the past. A new 60mm mortar grouped as a section at the rifle company level in the tripod role provides the very immediate indirect fire support needs of the infantry; this shoe be manned by the infantry and not artillery personnel. The adoption of a 120 and 60mm mortar effectively replaces the firepower provided by the in-service towed 105mm howitzers and 81mm mortars in a more cost-effective manner while simultaneously providing more firepower. The only limitation is the range of 120mm mortar. Accuracy is not an issue due to vastly improved fire control and targeting systems and provision for relatively cheap GPS and/or laser guided mortar projectiles. Range is also less of an issue with rocket-assisted projectiles as current RAPs can reach 13km.

A battery of 6 or preferably eight 155mm towed howitzers attached to each of the 3 Canadian Army brigades will provide the long range and heavy firepower when it is needed. A towed 155mm system is more flexible and better meets the overall indirect fire support needs than a turreted or truck mounted self-propelled 155mm howitzer. Turreted systems have faster response times, but it must be kept in mind that funds are limited and quality troops limit this weakness, particularly with Canada‘s high quality troops. A towed 155mm system is more flexible, becuase it can be used for both light and mechanized combat forces. It can be deployed by helicopter, towed by truck or light armoured vehicle, and when heavy support helicopters are available, by air. Furthermore current modern towed 155mm howitzers actually have better range than the Canadian Army‘s M109.

With the basics explained, I will propose potential systems to meet Army‘s needs. First, the US Army/USMC M224 60mm tripod-handheld lighweight mortar was purpose designed for the role I have described. It is cheap to procure and support, and will be easily integrated into the army as it can use all currently stocked M19 mortar rounds in addtion to newer rounds. American interoperability is also a plus.

The US Army‘s M120/121 mortar would be a good option, but has a shorter max range (7.2km) than other available international 120mm smoothbore mortars. I believe the Finnish Patria 120mm long range towed mortar system better meets the Canadian Army‘s needs for its light battlegroups if a plan, as tabled above, is pursued. It has 9km standard round max range for the same weight as the US Army‘s shorter ranged M120 system. Furthermore, Patria‘s AMOS 120mm turreted mortar system would perfectly fit the needs of the mechanized battlegroups. The AMOS offers high rates of fire, shoot and scoot capability, is precision munition, LAV III 8X8 mountable, and is fully developed and ready for service. Indeed, the US Army has pre-selected the AMOS as a prime candidate for its Future Combat System program. The only real competitor is the Delco Defense Amoured Mortar System (AMS) turret. The AMS is a proven system, but is somewhat dated compared to the Patria AMOS and a combined buy from Patria of their towed and AMOS 120mm mortar system would offer lower procurement and support costs and best value for the Canadian Army and taxpayer.

The towed 155mm shold be a directed buy of the joint USMC/US Army/British Army M777 ultra-lighweight 155mm towed howitzer. It is the best option on the market and no other 155mm towed howitzer can match it. The M777 is less than 4000kg, but offers longer range than current in-service M109 SPH. It will be interoperable with the US, UK, and Italian armies and likely others. It is not cheap, but not overly expensive either given its capabilities.

Finally, I would like to explain a preference for groups of 8 rather than 6 mortars or howitzers. A battery of eight allows for the batter to be more flexible in that two mortar or guns can be detached for special missions while still allowing a battery to have sufficient tube/gun numbers to meet fire support needs of the battlegroup.

 

[muskrat89]

Sounds pretty well thought out to me. I would keep the 105 in the mix however, because of it‘s direct fire capabilities. Seems to me, especially with the tanks gone, they might be nice to have around.

 

[muskrat89]

Agreed. On the other hand, what they are doing in Afghanistan, I wouldn‘t classify as "peace-keeping". At least we have the political will to be there, if nothing else. People forget that.

The Canadian Government, in my opinion, hasn‘t had a clear vision for the military (or much else, for that matter) for as long as I‘ve been alive. I don‘t really expect that to change anytime soon.

 

[Brock]

"maybe the CDN government should decide what type of missions it is willing to support? Maybe the CF don‘t need direct fire support weapons, other than mortars?"

Canadian soldiers just participated in a combat mission in the spring of 2002 in Afghanistan. They needed indirect fire support then, 81mm mortars were used, but I can guarantee the troops would have wanted the far more powerful 120mm mortar in support if we had them in service. The 105mm howitzer could not have been used, becuase of the terrain to support the troops; the 101st Airborne had the M119 105mm, but did not use them, because the terrain prevented their use, but they did use M120 120mm mortars.

"Canada is going to have a military used only in peace keeping type operations, what are the requirements for weapons other than small arms and light armored vehicles?"

Peacekeeping is not a very good term, becuase "peacekeeping" has been used to describe Bosnia/Croatia in the early 1990s, Somalia, Bosnia post 1995 (Dayton Peace Accord), Afghanistan, Hati, etc...all vastly different with threats being very high to very low or nil.

I accept the point the Canadian Government does not really want to fight the big wars, but it has proven that time and again it will send Canadian soldiers into combat in more limited scenarios. The plan I have suggested fullfills the needs of the army more than adequately and doesn‘t break the bank; it would cost about CDN$750 million to implement, pretty good for equipping an entire army.

The towed 105 although capable of direct fire support is pretty limited and direct fire support with howitzers is limited to emergencies only, because if the gunners miss there SOL in a bad way. The Carl Gustav or a short range missile system is all that the artillery really needs for direct fire support. Furthermore, there are new 120mm mortar rounds with seeker heads to destroy armoured vehicles.

 

[muskrat89]

Brock - I wasn‘t specifically referring to anti-armour engagements. More like the direct fire engagements found against bunkers, etc. - don‘t they do #1‘s or GPO‘s Open Actions these days? Sniping Guns. Believe me - I‘m aware of the direct fire capabilities and weaknesses - my whole 13 years - I managed to stay on the gunlines No OP for me. No COs driver. No BQMS. Just Guns. Gnr, 2 I/C, No. 1, TSM. I‘m just saying good or bad, remove the C1s, replace with mortars - and you‘ve lost that capability, effective or otherwise. JMO

 

[Brock]

S_Baker

Thanks. However, you have to understand the political situation and character of Canadians. I believe the majority of Canadians like to talk a lot, but never put there money where there mouth is, but I digress. My proposal is to get the best bang for the buck in a way where the army will not be SOL for 99.9% of the situations they face. If they have to ask for US/UK help in the .1% of situations where we need a capability they have, no problem. I just think we are far better off being properly equipped for what were asked to do, then being poorly equipped for what "some people" want us to do.


Muskrat89

With the turreted mortar system the army still has a direct fire capability for the mechanized forces and a reasonable amount from the proposed adoption of a towed 155mm that can be used to support the light and/or mechanized forces.

Furthermore, Jane‘s Defense Weekly has noted that the Canadian Government has requested to buy something like 200+/- Javelin command and launch units plus several hundred missiles and associated support from Lockheed Martin. It is not a rumour, because it came from an American Foreign Military Sales access to information request. If, and as it now appears when, the Canadian Army gets the Javelin missile system, the missile will be far more suitable for bunker busting than a 105mm howitzer round, becuase of the inherent accuracy of that missile system.

I realize howitzers can destroy bunkers in the direct fire role, but it is certainly not the best weapon to be bunker busting with, because of the difficulties of getting a towed howitzer into position. However, I suspect that you are talking about very low angle fire attempting to dislodge an enemy from bunker/trench systems. Although artillery has some use in this capacity, the 105mm round is not nearly powerful enough to be really effective against a well built bunker--which is what low angle/direct howitzer artillery fire would be attempting to hit. Only a 155mm round would really be effective in this role, because of the incredible weight and power of the round. Even in this case 155mm artillery has proven time and again not to be very effective in this role. Just look at Afghanistan where precision guided 500 pound high explosive bombs dropped bunkers could often not destroy well built bunkers from their weakest point.

It is not that I am against towed howitzers. I believe the minimal negatives of adopting my proposed set of indirect fire systems are far outweighed by the positives.

Thanks for you comments.

 

[elscotto937]

Please remember, Canada has deployed guns on Op Athena, however, in small quantity. Lessons were learned from UNPROFOR, and that aircraft are not always dependable as a self-defence weapon on Peace Support Operations. And up until the last few Rotos we had guns in Bosnia.
That being said, I‘m not exactly a mortar fan, but I belive that the BGs need a dedicated indirect fire support system(mortars). As for the Artillery regiments, we should pick something and do it well. Do I have the definative answer on what that one thing should be, no. I believe that it should combine TA of some form or another and weapons system that will be responsive within 2 min of a Call for Fire, and can be layered with the dedicated BG Fire Support. The deep battle is not for Canadians at this point, specialization in close support is an area where we can excel.

 

[Brock]

Exactly. Towed 105mm artillery is less effective than 120mm mortar, with the exception of range, but that is where the brigade‘s towed 155mm howitzer battery come in. It should also be kept in mind, that howitzers have been barred from peace support operations in the past. Before NATO took over command of the peace support operations in the former Yugoslavia the heaviest permitted indirect fire support weapons by UN forces was the 120mm mortar.

As you are a gunner, I question your dislike for mortars, why? The job of a mortar is the same as that of that of a howitzer--indirect fire support. It is only different, because the weapon system is different. My proposal provides a layered approach that effectively meets the combat and cost needs of army battlegroups. The first layer is the M203A1 at the section level, the 60mm at the infantry rifle company level, the 120mm mortar battery at the battle group level, and the towed 155mm howitzer at the brigade level. The last can be attached as a complete battery of half-battery to a battle group if required. This is a well layered approach that provides a cost and combat effective indirect fire support system.

 

[muskrat89]

Brock - you seem very well-read on all of this. I am curious to your job at your Unit, and how many years you have, in the Regiment.

Ubique

 

[Brock]

G Troop TSM

The military has been a hobby for me for a very long time. I approach my military hobby as a student, by researching as much as possbile.

I am a rifleman (corporal). I have been a CF member for 8 years with the reserves and regular army. I enjoy the work a lot, but I am more interested in policy and leadership. However, I am currently considering an officer career, because I am not really up for a career as an ncm; I will decide on my career path at the end of next semester.

 

[elscotto937]

Thank god, NATO took over the missions in the Balkans, gave gunners a chance to take our guns to theater, that and solving numerous other problems.
Brock, Ref: My dislike of mortars, I guess I am kinda old fashion in the sense that I only trust what I can see. I have never seen the accuracy of the a 120mm, so therefore I base my opinion of the mortar on the 60 and 81‘s. They have thier purpose, suppression. But for shock and strike, low angle howizers can not be beat. With the accurate Kit we have in the LAV 3 OPV, constantly updated muzzle velocities, and very accurate orientation and fixation on the gun line...Accurately engaging the enemy, opening with fire for effect from the minimum of a regiment of artillery, will more effectively engage the tgt. That being said, I do not wish to ignore the capabilities of a 120mm mortar round hitting the tgt, that‘s a point I agree 100% on.
The mortars are a dedicated weapon to the comd on the ground, much the same as his LAVs from a fire base. The Guns are more useful, in my humble opinion, when used in the same manner as you would employ Close Air Support. If you have allocated, use them en-masse and then push them to another supported arm under contact.
Giving the mortars (the entity, not the weapons system) to the artillery has introduced several command and control problems at the lower level, wow I drifted on that topic.

 

[Jason Jarvis]

Great discussion so far. I think I follow the logic behind Brock‘s proposal, but I have a few questions:

1. Interim steps - What would the CF do with it‘s fairly new LG1s while it‘s transitioning?

2. Light infantry - Is an ultralight 155 too big for a light infantry BG? Or is this really a moot point because we‘d never deploy a true light infantry BG anyway?

3. Peace-support missions - If we got rid of the 105s, what would we use in places like BiH and Afghanistan? Are 120 mortars and 155s too "threatening" to the locals and/or Coalition HQ to be deployed (whereas 105s are acceptable)?

4. Reserves - Assuming LFRR continues as planned, what role would the reserves play, if they‘re equipped with kit not included in the regular army‘s order of battle?

Thanks.

 

[elscotto937]

Jason,
Many good questions. The LG 1s are viable indirect platforms, but to be used to thier maximum potential, they must have the components to be able to successfully support a light infantry Bn. (helicopters that can move the guns).

 

[RCA]

Lest anyone forget, the artillery earned its motto Ubique for a reason. We have been invovled in almost all campaingns and battles going back hundreds of years. Woe those who didn‘t have artillery (especially if the other guy did).

Another point to consider is, and this applies to tankers also, once a skill set is lost, it is very had to get it back. The corpoarte knowledge disappears with it.

The reason I say this is non-gunners (and some gunners too) feel all they require is a CS bty of whatever, 81 or 105s, but part of the power of the artillery is speed and concetration of fire power. If a non gunner could see the difference between a 105 bty tgt and a M109 regimental tgt he would crap himself and then he would ask how could he get that. Most have never seen it and therefore dismiss it. You do so at your own peril.

As to a gunner‘s aversion to mortors, its a natural thing, if the concussion from firing doesn‘t hurt, whats the point. If all you need is a donkey and two men to move it, again whats the point.

 

[elscotto937]

The difference between 155 and 105 is significant, but do not have the systems to lay down a significant weight of fire with the current 155mm gun. Personally a 105 Regt Tgt is more impressive than what we can offer up on the 155 side of the house, but that‘s just me I like alot of bullets...

 

[Brock]

I hadn‘t expected this topic to have so many responses, but it is great that it has. In my opinion, the best way to learn for most topics--if people are willing--is through discussion.

The utility of the 105mm towed howitzers and M109 155mm SPHs has been very well argued by proponents. With that said, I concede that if Canada would support a policy of properly equipping and using the Canadian Army (and military as a whole) I would fully support a comprehensive list of capabilities. Yet, as history has shown, it is highly unlikely that this will ever occur.

To those opposed to my proposal and in favour of other systems or structures, I challenge you to present a plan that can fully equip the Canadian Army--regulars and reserves--with a multi-layered indirect fire support system that is both financially feasible and combat effective. Please, keep in mind the missions Canada is most likely to become involved in as opposed to missions some want or believe that we should be involved in.

 

[scotty884]

Brock, u have some very good comments. I think its not necessary for Canada to have a meduim bty anymore due to the fact of the lack of upgrades and manning problems. I‘m from 1 RCHA and A and B bty‘s have trouble mannning the 109‘s and also keeping them operational. We in C bty are multi tasked we havee the LG1‘s and 81 mortors. I think the Regements should have two 105 btys and one mortor bty mounted in the wolf‘s. Now as for LG1‘s I think they should be replaced due to the fact spare parts are no more.

 

[Brock]

cbtygunner:

Your comment is a little unclear. Are you suggesting an alternative to my proposal or agreeing that the M109‘s are not needed and proposing an interim solution. I proposed a 3 regular towed 155mm batteries, 6 LAV III with , preferably, turreted 120mm mortars, and 3 towed 120mm mortar batteries. In addition, new tripod 60mm mortars for the infantry rifle companies. I also suggested the reserves artillery batteries be equipped with towed 120mm mortars as well.

 

[scotty884]

I was agreeing that the m-109‘s are done, they‘re simply historical artifacts now. But I was giving another way of thinkin about how the artillery should go about its business with the 105‘s. But I agree with the lav 3 mortor idea because I read up on the vehicle and the mortor variant,in which it would give use more mobility and we could carry more ammo. Right now we use grizzly‘s for a vehicle which is too cramped for the amount of kit we carry. The lav would give us more room and fire capabilites. More rounds = more firepower, which in return would give our good friends in the INF., more options to lay down fire.

 

[Old Army guy]

I‘d like to say nice site...one of the better ones i‘ve seen.
I‘m an Infantry guy and don‘t know a whole lot about the arty. so bare with me.
You are right about the forces going lighter and more mobile, this is a fact that none of us on this board can change. However we must still be able to close with and destroy an enemy that is equiped heavier than us.(IE Tanks,Tracked IFV). For a lighter force to do so,they require modern ,high tech,very mobile fire power.
starting at the inf section level as Brock has suggested....with the M203.
Plus taking it one step further an adding a Auto 40mm grenade launcher at plt level.Veh and or ground mounted(cutting out the 60mm all together Inf got enough to carry already....besides there was only 2 tubes per company anyway.)
next replace the 81mm with a AMOS lav mounted twin 120 mm system as brock has suggested only place 8 to 12 of these in each Infantry BN. This would allow the grunts to have integral arty support at all times. and boast the brigades overall fire power.

As for the arty needs I‘m no expert,so im guessing.
Brock suggested the M777 but i could not find any ref on it, what i could find was much heavier but quit capable of being picked up by a CH-47 ,the G-5 or new G-2000 155mm with ranges with 39 cal boat tail 23 km,Base bleed 30km,VLRAP(rocket assit)39km.
with 52 cal barral Boat tail 32.5 km,BB 41 km, and VLRAP 52.5 km.
it is some what self propelled. but is designed to be towed. Cost is expensive at 50 mil for 22 units Price includes ammo,parts, support, training....
I also have a question in regards to Counter battery operations, is there a Battery set aside for this, or is it an entire regt of guns ...
regardless i know the above towed system has some great ranges...but i was reading about the new Himars system its truck mounted holds qty 6 MLRS mis,that come in a varity of shapes sizes and abilitys but a bat or two of these could compliment the above 155mm towed system quit well.
To out
fit the armies 3 current brigades the cost would be well under 300 mil. As brook had already mentioned 750 mil, with the remaining monies i had several ideas. Complete the project off by purchasing not leasing counter bat radars, new FCS vehs,and other arty goodies. or use the remaining 450mil and purchase qty 9 CH-47D for med lift capabilites and fill another need and want for the CF.

It is my personal opinion that lighter forces need more firepower, The infantry is already set -up for mortars,it still has the corporate knowlegde to operate them...as for the 40mm auto launchers there like the .50 veh mounted but still can be ground mounted if needed....
as for the exact compostion of a arty regt i‘ll leave that to the experts. Having seen what 155mm can do to an objective, i would rather a 155mm/ Himars Regt within the brigade than a 120mm mortar/155mm Regts anyday. it still maintains it‘s lift capabilities with more punch.