FJAG said:
Chris. The key word there is "will" as in down the road some time. The M109A5/6/7 all do 22km with standard ammo and 30 with RAP. The current barrel is 39 calibres for both the M109 and M777. Yup. They'll both shoot further with the 58 calibres barrel when it comes out. (The C3 incidentally has a range of 18.5 km.)
The point that you are missing here is that the M109 is simply a carriage that has been modified continuously since day one and continues to be modified into the future with longer barrels, more efficient rounds, autoloader systems and automated positioning and directing systems. The current prototype which comes from BAE, the manufacturer of the M109, is called the XM1299 prototype zero. Whether or not that indicates a designation change for the future or not makes little difference as it will be a BAE-built M109 variant. Not bad for a piece of kit that's been around doing yeoman service since Vietnam.
There's not much percentage in comparing missile systems with cannon launched systems. They are complementary systems for very good reasons. Unfortunately we have neither the M109 nor the missile so its all academic anyway :'( At some point we'll buy something which may be state-of-the-art at the time but because we won't upgrade for decades will probably fall by the wayside like the C3.
:cheers:
:cheers:
And cheers to you as well.
Indeed. The key word is
. As in 'lack of'.
I won't argue ranges. You are correct.
My point is that any Defence programme for Canada should start with the Defence of Canada. And, in my mind, the Defence of Canada starts with being able to react to any breach of Canadian sovereignty with Bombs and Boots. Where those Bombs and Boots are deployed and when, well that is a function of Eyeballs, or sensors if you prefer. Bombs, Boots and Eyeballs require Bucks. Curiously, again in my view, it is now relatively inexpensive to drop 'Bombs' (rocket powered) in this case, anywhere in Canada's Areas of Interest. For a country with the Scottish inheritance this one has that is a great thing. We may not need to blow things up regularly but it is nice to have that capability in hand at a low cost.
Recognizing that no system is perfect and that there will be gaps then we can start considering the gaps and how to fill them - again, cheaply.
Eyeballs (sensors), are coming down in costs but the upscale ones are still eye-watering and the shear number that are needed means that providing that uniform picture and the necessary ISTAR assets (like Satellites, UAVs, P8s and F35s) are going to suck up a lot of Bucks, even if they are supplemented by civilian assets like Rangers, Mounties, Citizens, NavCan radars etc.
Reacting with Boots, and maintaining Boots to react with is without doubt the most expensive, both financially and politically, form of defence. And it remains to be determined how often and what capabilities.
One of the Army's, and by extension the Artillery's, great problems is convincing people how a small number of boots can effectively defend Canada. The usual answer is by allying with others and taking the fight overseas. Unfortunately to many people that doesn't seem like a prescription for National Defence but rather National Offence.
The structure needs to be built so that every element has as its primary mission something that contributes directly and materially to the defence of Canada, its people, lands, lakes, seas, EEZs and Continental Shelf (Edit - and Airspace over them). Then those capabilities can be put at the use of our allies for their benefit and for our instruction.
It is obvious to me, after watching the efforts of soldiers and the DND for the best part of 40 years, that Canadians have difficulty coming to terms with an army that only seems to operate in foreign lands. Despite breaking out the snowshovels at home between infrequent deployments.
As you say, the question is one of 'will'.
:cheers: Your health.
