C3 Howitzer Replacement

[Colin Parkinson]

Why invest in an obsolete platform?

You are just throwing away good money at that point to say ‘we have some guns’ the fact they are useless for anything should be an issue.

Because I have given up on the Army being capable of organizing an orgy in a whorehouse. Shortly the PresReserve Artillery will have nothing and then you will have your best walking out the door, because there is nothing. At least those M101's will keep them interested and present and it's still a robust system that will cost pennies to maintain compared to buying anything new. If we go with your idea, then by the time they get their ass out of bed, they have no gunners, or OP parties, or CP techs and a bunch of gun plumbers who have never worked on a artillery gun. We have thrashed out every possible idea at this point on this thread and the sad reality is that the Army does not give a F*** about the PresReserve Artillery. They are to busy fighting about bows and buttons and avoiding getting caught in some sex related scandal. Sadly we might as well let my unit Museum take over the armoury. They at least are competent enough to acquire guns and gun tractors and repair them.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Because I have given up on the Army being capable of organizing an orgy in a whorehouse. Shortly the PresReserve Artillery will have nothing and then you will have your best walking out the door, because there is nothing. At least those M101's will keep them interested and present and it's still a robust system that will cost pennies to maintain compared to buying anything new. If we go with your idea, then by the time they get their ass out of bed, they have no gunners, or OP parties, or CP techs and a bunch of gun plumbers who have never worked on a artillery gun. We have thrashed out every possible idea at this point on this thread and the sad reality is that the Army does not give a F*** about the PresReserve Artillery. They are to busy fighting about bows and buttons and avoiding getting caught in some sex related scandal. Sadly we might as well let my unit Museum take over the armoury. They at least are competent enough to acquire guns and gun tractors and repair them.

At one point in the early zeros , 2001 -02 or so the story was OntR's museum had more usable heavy armor then regforce had . Maintenance issues and variety of other issues led to that , but seriously that is both utterly ridiculous and shameful.
It's more aprocraphal then anything but let's face it , given the state of the Forces it actually could happen.

 

[Kirkhill]

Because of discussions on the Ukraine thread about the Carl Gustav I am going to take the opportunity to continue my annoying ways...

I repeat this...

I'm pretty sure I saw some SAAB bumf talking up the enhanced safety features of the M4 version permitting soldiers to carry a loaded CG84 with them exactly the same way they can carry an AT4 or an NLAW. It becomes a one man weapon if necessary but can be served quicker (for 6 rounds) with the 2 man team. As well as a weapon that can be used from confined spaces.

And with the Fire Control Device (FCD 558) and programmable ammunition (HE 448) that makes the single shot on board effective against a range of targets.

Accuracy meets simplicity

A new high-explosive round and a sophisticated fire control device have made our Carl-Gustaf® system more effective than ever, while maintaining the ease of use that gunners love.

www.saab.com

Saab Receives Order from Sweden for Carl-Gustaf Ammunition

Saab has received an order from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for deliveries of ammunition for the recoilless Carl-Gustaf® rifle. The order value is approximately SEK 800 million and deliveries will take place 2023-2025.

www.saab.com

Norwegian Armed Forces Place Order for Programmable Carl-Gustaf Round

Saab has received an order from the Norwegian Armed Forces for deliveries of ammunition for the recoilless Carl-Gustaf® rifle.

www.saab.com

Which leaves only one question. Can it reliably take out a Corvette?

The Day Marines Shot a Warship with Anti-Tank Rockets - Military History - Military Matters

A summary of the Argentine invasion of South Georgia and the Royal Marines defence - including engaging a frigate with anti-tank weapons!

militarymatters.online

I add this:

Saab and Raytheon detail their Guided Multipurpose Munition - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini When in October 2014 Saab unveiled its Carl-Gustaf M4, the latest and lightest iteration of its well-known

www.edrmagazine.eu

For me this is the most interesting bit....

For guiding the missile different solutions can be adopted. It is possible to install on the Carl-Gustaf or the AT4 a lightweight designator, i.e. the MLD Mini by L3 Harris with maximum energy output of 80 mJ weighs only 800 grams, or the GMM can be fired from its launcher on a target designated by a third party. “The GMM can be used in two modes, LOBL (Lock-On-Before-Launch) and LOAL (Lock-On-After-Launch),” Ty Blanchard explains. This provides considerable flexibility, allowing the soldier to launch the round from a protected site, without the need to expose himself to the enemy to illuminate the target after having unveiled his position when shooting, as the guidance can be carried out by somebody else who remained undetected.

In addition

The new munition can be employed in the two aforementioned weapon systems (CG84 & AT4), which beside their infantry use can be fitted to different types of platforms, ranging from remote weapon stations, to manned and unmanned ground, aerial and naval systems, and indirect fire systems.

To which I say, if AT4 and CG-84 launched Beam Rider missile directed by MLD, and RWS, LUV, UGV, Aerial, Marine and Mortar systems launched remotely then guided by a third party MLD then why not, from the same UGV or LUV launch 70mm APKWS II beam riders, AND ballistic Hydra 70s AND Stingers?

Make the Section CG84 gunner, with his MLD designator your precision fires expert, along with your designated markssman. Make your CG84 gunner your designated designator.

MLD Miniature Laser Designator

The MLD is L3Harris’ next-generation of Diode-Pumped, low-profile laser designators for users demanding high performance in a very compact package.

www.l3harris.com

 

[KevinB]

Because of discussions on the Ukraine thread about the Carl Gustav I am going to take the opportunity to continue my annoying ways...

I repeat this...



I add this:

Saab and Raytheon detail their Guided Multipurpose Munition - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini When in October 2014 Saab unveiled its Carl-Gustaf M4, the latest and lightest iteration of its well-known

www.edrmagazine.eu

For me this is the most interesting bit....



In addition



To which I say, if AT4 and CG-84 launched Beam Rider missile directed by MLD, and RWS, LUV, UGV, Aerial, Marine and Mortar systems launched remotely then guided by a third party MLD then why not, from the same UGV or LUV launch 70mm APKWS II beam riders, AND ballistic Hydra 70s AND Stingers?

Make the Section CG84 gunner, with his MLD designator your precision fires expert, along with your designated markssman. Make your CG84 gunner your designated designator.

MLD Miniature Laser Designator

The MLD is L3Harris’ next-generation of Diode-Pumped, low-profile laser designators for users demanding high performance in a very compact package.

www.l3harris.com

Let’s remember almost everything else has dropped beam riders…

Designators don’t necessarily mean Beam Riders - and that munition isn’t a beam rider, it’s more a dot finder in that all that is required is the target to be designated and the warhead seeker sees the designated point - akin to how other PGM targets are designated.

Less issues than beam riders with that but smoke, debris and other obscurants can make it difficult or impossible to designate the target. Nothing sucks more than sitting in a hide for quite sometime and finally designating a target package for inbound AC and something blocks the target…

Having designated targets using a rifle mounted system - I’d opt to carry the extra weight of a tripod and real designator as the power/range is limited on smaller systems.

Secondly, in actual combat the ability of fire and forget weapons are really worth their weight in gold as your not stuck on a designator task until impact - and anything that jostles you during that time designating is going to result in misses.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Secondly, in actual combat the ability of fire and forget weapons are really worth their weight in gold as your not stuck on a designator task until impact - and anything that jostles you during that time designating is going to result in misses.

This is the game changer IMHO, which makes other systems obsolete.

In battle, avoiding needless casualties by making it easy for troops to get K-kills with their 'heads down' will pay big dividends in a variety of ways.

 

[Kirkhill]

My response is I can carry 1x Javelin to the engagement area.

How many missiles can be delivered to my engagement area by supporting platforms? As to the difficulty of designating in and obscured environment I would point out that there is a backup plan with the fire control device and the ammunition that can be programmed in flight.

The two things are not equal but it does increase the number of ways the section can put HE on target.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another video on ATGMs in Ukraine highlighting the difference between the Javelin and the Stugna.

The suggestion is that the Javelin is favoured for tank hunting while the Stugna is favoured as a Brigade Support Weapon organized in batteries.

Stugna has a range of 5000 m from a tripod. It also has a remote offset of 50 meters. That gives the operator some sense of security while flying the missile to the target.

The fire and forget nature of the Javelin means that once one target has cooked off the other vehicles in the area will cluster around the burning tank which will then attract any additional Javelins. This clustering tendency makes them great targets for the Stugna operator who can discriminate between the targets and select the ones he wants to kill.

The video talks about two Territorial Defence Force soldiers who, in the first days of Kyiv, were married up - a Home Depot sales assistant and a Surveyor - handed a Stugna system, given two hours training and put into the line. The team moved in a van or a pickup truck.

They were successful.

Maybe mixing and matching control systems isn't such a bad idea - NLAW, predictive - Stugna, flown - Javelin, Fire and Forget. - Swap the Stugna for the NLOS systems and Loiterers as artillery systems.

Similar for the Air Defence missiles - Stinger is a heat seeker. Starstreak is a SACLOS missile like the Stugna. Martlet, the Light MultiPurpose Missile is all of the above - Beam riding SACLOS, SAL laser guidance, IR homing. Choose your poison and confound your enemy.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukrainian use of Javelin.

 

[GR66]

Another video on ATGMs in Ukraine highlighting the difference between the Javelin and the Stugna.

The suggestion is that the Javelin is favoured for tank hunting while the Stugna is favoured as a Brigade Support Weapon organized in batteries.

Stugna has a range of 5000 m from a tripod. It also has a remote offset of 50 meters. That gives the operator some sense of security while flying the missile to the target.

The fire and forget nature of the Javelin means that once one target has cooked off the other vehicles in the area will cluster around the burning tank which will then attract any additional Javelins. This clustering tendency makes them great targets for the Stugna operator who can discriminate between the targets and select the ones he wants to kill.

The video talks about two Territorial Defence Force soldiers who, in the first days of Kyiv, were married up - a Home Depot sales assistant and a Surveyor - handed a Stugna system, given two hours training and put into the line. The team moved in a van or a pickup truck.

They were successful.

Maybe mixing and matching control systems isn't such a bad idea - NLAW, predictive - Stugna, flown - Javelin, Fire and Forget. - Swap the Stugna for the NLOS systems and Loiterers as artillery systems.

Similar for the Air Defence missiles - Stinger is a heat seeker. Starstreak is a SACLOS missile like the Stugna. Martlet, the Light MultiPurpose Missile is all of the above - Beam riding SACLOS, SAL laser guidance, IR homing. Choose your poison and confound your enemy.

I'm certainly no missile expert but I believe this comment about Javelin (and modern Stinger) missiles is simply false. They do not have simple IR seekers which lock on to a strong IR heat source. My understanding is that they have an IR Imaging seeker which locks on to an IR image which matches the image originally locked on to by the CLU. This image is constantly updated by the seeker in flight to match the original IR image (including background heat source contrasts) so that any different image showing up to the seeker will be ignored and the missile will continue toward the original target.

This is why flares are not an effective counter measure against Javelin and other vehicles "clustering around the burning tank" would be an equally useless tactic.

I'm certainly not arguing against a suite of weapons of various capabilities (and costs) but this video comes across as a bit of fanboy propaganda to hype up the Ukrainian AT Teams and their (admittedly successful) use of Stuga's against the Russians rather than a realistic assessment of the comparative advantages of Javelin vs Stuga-type weapons.

 

[KevinB]

Another video on ATGMs in Ukraine highlighting the difference between the Javelin and the Stugna.

The suggestion is that the Javelin is favoured for tank hunting while the Stugna is favoured as a Brigade Support Weapon organized in batteries.

Stugna has a range of 5000 m from a tripod. It also has a remote offset of 50 meters. That gives the operator some sense of security while flying the missile to the target.

The fire and forget nature of the Javelin means that once one target has cooked off the other vehicles in the area will cluster around the burning tank which will then attract any additional Javelins. This clustering tendency makes them great targets for the Stugna operator who can discriminate between the targets and select the ones he wants to kill.

The video talks about two Territorial Defence Force soldiers who, in the first days of Kyiv, were married up - a Home Depot sales assistant and a Surveyor - handed a Stugna system, given two hours training and put into the line. The team moved in a van or a pickup truck.

They were successful.

Maybe mixing and matching control systems isn't such a bad idea - NLAW, predictive - Stugna, flown - Javelin, Fire and Forget. - Swap the Stugna for the NLOS systems and Loiterers as artillery systems.

Similar for the Air Defence missiles - Stinger is a heat seeker. Starstreak is a SACLOS missile like the Stugna. Martlet, the Light MultiPurpose Missile is all of the above - Beam riding SACLOS, SAL laser guidance, IR homing. Choose your poison and confound your enemy.

I’d say that you should ignore the NLAW

Retain the Carl G, but in the M4 variant.
It’s good for anti structure usage as well as can be used as an anti armor system in a pinch, especially with a modern FCS

Acquire Javelin with LW CLU
Acquire Spike NLOS

@GR66 is correct in his understanding of the seeker method on modern F&F MMW missiles.
But none of those are really Arty systems (I would put Spike NLOS with the Bde Recce/CAV)

I really don’t see any great options for the C3 replacement until the CAF decides on how it wants its formations.
I think @FJAG has made some good points about restructuring and what equipment makes sense there.

 

[GR66]

I’d say that you should ignore the NLAW

Retain the Carl G, but in the M4 variant.
It’s good for anti structure usage as well as can be used as an anti armor system in a pinch, especially with a modern FCS

Acquire Javelin with LW CLU
Acquire Spike NLOS

@GR66 is correct in his understanding of the seeker method on modern F&F MMW missiles.
But none of those are really Arty systems (I would put Spike NLOS with the Bde Recce/CAV)

I really don’t see any great options for the C3 replacement until the CAF decides on how it wants its formations.
I think @FJAG has made some good points about restructuring and what equipment makes sense there.

Curious on your reasoning for putting a 32km range, non-recoverable weapon with the Bde Recce/CAV Squadron which presumably will be one of your most forward elements? Wouldn't a recoverable, dual use (ISR/Strike) Loitering Munition like the Hero Series or the Switchblade be better for a Recce role?

I'm thinking that Spike NLOS might be better suited in the Battalion CS company as a precision complement to a 120mm Mortar platform.

 

[KevinB]

Curious on your reasoning for putting a 32km range, non-recoverable weapon with the Bde Recce/CAV Squadron which presumably will be one of your most forward elements? Wouldn't a recoverable, dual use (ISR/Strike) Loitering Munition like the Hero Series or the Switchblade be better for a Recce role?

I'm thinking that Spike NLOS might be better suited in the Battalion CS company as a precision complement to a 120mm Mortar platform.

My logic is Recce will locate targets and be able to execute attacks with no delays.
The same sort of way we use 120mm Mortars in the Cav/Recce units down here (and playing with Spike NLOS Enhanced in same).
The Squadron isn’t all forward and has elements behind it for fire support.

Bn level I think the Javelin 6km range is sufficient (and some are already concerned it’s too much)

 

[GR66]

My logic is Recce will locate targets and be able to execute attacks with no delays.
The same sort of way we use 120mm Mortars in the Cav/Recce units down here (and playing with Spike NLOS Enhanced in same).
The Squadron isn’t all forward and has elements behind it for fire support.

Bn level I think the Javelin 6km range is sufficient (and some are already concerned it’s too much)

Understood. I just wonder if a recoverable loitering munition might not fill that role better than a non-recoverable Spike NLOS.

 

[KevinB]

Understood. I just wonder if a recoverable loitering munition might not fill that role better than a non-recoverable Spike NLOS.

Based on what I have seen from UAS, none of the loitering munitions have the same ability to detect/track and relay data.
I prefer to have better eyes with UAS and better teeth with the NLOS.

I’m fine with adding Loitering Munitions to formations, but as a bonus not as replacement for ISR or Strike functions.
One reason I think Canada should avoid looking deeply into loitering munitions as I think it would result in a lack of dedicated strike munitions and ISR platforms - and for a Military as small as Canada has, opting for the 3 of Clubs thinking it’s a Jack of all Trades is what got the CA into the bind it’s in now.

Better to get all four aces at this junction in time.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ukrainian manufactured round - similar to Copperhead?

Available in 120mm mortar, 122mm howitzer, 152mm howitzer and 155mm howitzer.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/100u8vo

Krasnopol (weapon system) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Battle of Brovary - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Watch: Ukraine: Dramatic video shows ‘Russian tanks being destroyed and retreating’ outside Kyiv

Dramatic footage released on Thursday show tanks being destroyed on the outskirts of Kyiv as Russian troops suffer “continued losses” at the hands of Ukraine’s Armed Forces.The video shows a column of tanks being ambushed with artillery in the town of Brovary, on the eastern outskirts of Kyiv...

www.standard.co.uk

Brovary makes sense as a infantry/artillery ambush with Javelins/NLAWs, Kvitniks and drone mounted laser designators?

 

[Prairie canuck]

Sweden's Archer 155 SPG is able to be mounted on different platforms. Would it be feasible to send them a couple GDLS LAV platforms to prototype a LAV SPA? It's a limited expenditure so if it's not then no major financial harm but if it's a good fit then.. You know, the usual, manufactured in Canada, possibly expedited sole source, etc.
(KMW are doing something similar on a Boxer platform so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch)

 

[markppcli]

Because of discussions on the Ukraine thread about the Carl Gustav I am going to take the opportunity to continue my annoying ways...

I repeat this...



I add this:

Saab and Raytheon detail their Guided Multipurpose Munition - EDR Magazine

By Paolo Valpolini When in October 2014 Saab unveiled its Carl-Gustaf M4, the latest and lightest iteration of its well-known

www.edrmagazine.eu

For me this is the most interesting bit....



In addition



To which I say, if AT4 and CG-84 launched Beam Rider missile directed by MLD, and RWS, LUV, UGV, Aerial, Marine and Mortar systems launched remotely then guided by a third party MLD then why not, from the same UGV or LUV launch 70mm APKWS II beam riders, AND ballistic Hydra 70s AND Stingers?

Make the Section CG84 gunner, with his MLD designator your precision fires expert, along with your designated markssman. Make your CG84 gunner your designated designator.

MLD Miniature Laser Designator

The MLD is L3Harris’ next-generation of Diode-Pumped, low-profile laser designators for users demanding high performance in a very compact package.

www.l3harris.com

Read the data sheet in your link yes? You want an 84 gunner to also hump a full size laser designator ?

I know it’s cool and new; but I’ve tried explaining this exhaustively. Laser designation requires a bunch of things in order to make sure everything is going to work when employing a PGM. Not the least of which is the laser and weapon being on the read pulse repition frequency. It’s not like in Transformers when the guy point a paq 4 at the bad robot and the bomb flies to his IR point. You need to be set up, stable, coded, and high enough to not create under spill. All of which makes it unusable at a section level. If you want information I suggest the JPUB 3-09.3 V-33.

 

[FJAG]

Sweden's Archer 155 SPG is able to be mounted on different platforms. Would it be feasible to send them a couple GDLS LAV platforms to prototype a LAV SPA? It's a limited expenditure so if it's not then no major financial harm but if it's a good fit then.. You know, the usual, manufactured in Canada, possibly expedited sole source, etc.
(KMW are doing something similar on a Boxer platform so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch)

Just doing a meatball look at it, I can't see why it couldn't. The Volvo underlying the Archer puts out about 340HP while the LAV 6 does 450HP. If you strip off the LAV's turret and much of its rear armour (leaving enough to cover the engine and a very small 2 to 3 man crew compartment) you might still come within the weight carrying capacity to handle the 155mm gun turret and hydraulic firing jacks. It would certainly need some engineering and take some experimentation. I think it might be a better solution than the Boxer one.

While we're considering the issue I should note that I'm not a fan of the low number of rounds in the turret nor of the ammo resupply limber they use. One might want to consider a modified Cargo ACSV variant to stay close to the gun. It's not ideal but would keep a standardized fleet within the brigade - especially if one acquires ACSV command posts and troop carriers for the other battery vehicles and the M-SHORAD for air defence.

I'm actually surprised that GDLS didn't try that out for the US Army's wheeled SP project - maybe because BAE wasn't in the mood for dealing with a competitor.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Just doing a meatball look at it, I can't see why it couldn't. The Volvo underlying the Archer puts out about 340HP while the LAV 6 does 450HP. If you strip off the LAV's turret and much of its rear armour (leaving enough to cover the engine and a very small 2 to 3 man crew compartment) you might still come within the weight carrying capacity to handle the 155mm gun turret and hydraulic firing jacks. It would certainly need some engineering and take some experimentation. I think it might be a better solution than the Boxer one.

While we're considering the issue I should note that I'm not a fan of the low number of rounds in the turret nor of the ammo resupply limber they use. One might want to consider a modified Cargo ACSV variant to stay close to the gun. It's not ideal but would keep a standardized fleet within the brigade - especially if one acquires ACSV command posts and troop carriers for the other battery vehicles and the M-SHORAD for air defence.

I'm actually surprised that GDLS didn't try that out for the US Army's wheeled SP project - maybe because BAE wasn't in the mood for dealing with a competitor.

From what I've read the US has asked France's Caesar 155 SPA and the Archer system along with 3 others to participate in some trials US SPtA.
Surprised that GDLS hasn't proposed one. If Canada were to foot the bill to prototype one or two wouldn't it then be of some interest to the US? However, as you mentioned, BAE builds both the Archer and Boxer so they likely wouldn't be in a rush to give GDLS too much of a hand up. The Boxer turret looks very different and likely heavier than the Archer (truck mounted) system. To my untrained eye I see the Archer's stabilizers as a better option to lessen the obvious stress of whatever chassis it's put on.

 

[FJAG]

The turret on the Boxer is actually the Krauss-Maffei Wegmann AGM turret. It's been around for a while but hasn't had much market penetration although it can be mounted on different chassis.

The European market is a bit funny. The Germans are stuck on their Pzh 2000, the French on their AMX 30 AuF1 and Caesar and all the new customers are refurbishing M109s, buying K9s or making their own small-lot productions.

There is no dominant gun really.