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

C3 Howitzer Replacement

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
478
Points
880
We used to use Army Cadets on the guns, but the powers to be didn't like that I guess. The Cadets sure the hell did and many became excellent soldiers later on. Plus what a cool story to tell when you get back to school after Spring Break.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
176
Points
680
Colin P said:
We used to use Army Cadets on the guns, but the powers to be didn't like that I guess. The Cadets sure the hell did and many became excellent soldiers later on. Plus what a cool story to tell when you get back to school after Spring Break.

Unfortunately the cadet program in my opinion is a shell of its former self, and not as much if a gateway to the CF as it once was.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
486
Points
880
Colin P said:
We used to use Army Cadets on the guns, but the powers to be didn't like that I guess. The Cadets sure the hell did and many became excellent soldiers later on. Plus what a cool story to tell when you get back to school after Spring Break.

Cadets don't have any of the protection reservists would have if injured. Beyond that would be some serious libility issues for the crown and whoever authorized it.

:cheers:

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
478
Points
880
FJAG said:
Cadets don't have any of the protection reservists would have if injured. Beyond that would be some serious libility issues for the crown and whoever authorized it.

:cheers:

That could be dealt with if there was a will to do so. The hard part is to make people accept that a path into the military is a good thing.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
176
Points
680
Back on topic, attached is a two competing ideas in Latvia in the eFP arty battery. In a maneuver warfare context of the modern battle space, i think we have it wrong.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20201104-171809_Facebook.jpg
    Screenshot_20201104-171809_Facebook.jpg
    938.3 KB · Views: 82

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
486
Points
880
MilEME09 said:
Back on topic, attached is a two competing ideas in Latvia in the eFP arty battery. In a maneuver warfare context of the modern battle space, i think we have it wrong.

The Latvian guns have an interesting history being originally purchased by the Brits in the A2 version. They were sold to Austria and upgraded to the A5 standard when the AS90 came into the Brit's inventory. The Austrians have had them in storage as surplus to requirement for quite a while before selling 47 of them to Latvia. Of the 47, 35 remain as guns, 10 have had the guns removed and converted into command post vehicles and 2 are set aside for driver training.

Sigh. I still can't forgive the folks that cut ours up or turned them into memorials.  :brickwall:

:facepalm:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
176
Points
680
Colin P said:
The solution exists https://www.army-technology.com/projects/paladin/

Interesting you suggest the A6 not the newer A7 based of the Bradley chassis.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
478
Points
880
MilEME09 said:
Interesting you suggest the A6 not the newer A7 based of the Bradley chassis.

We are likely able to lease the older version, if we can lease the newer one, that would be fine. A Lease avoids the cluster that would be the procurement process. 
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
CloudCover said:
FJAG: ours were A5?

The main difference between the A4's and A5's is that the ordnance was changed from the M185 to the M284 (and the mount), the powerplant was improved as well. This gave the M109 the potential to fire a bit further. The A6 variant, or Paladin, on the other hand is quite a change in fire control

Had Canada kept at least some of their M109 fleet they still would've been able to fire the majority of ammunition that the M777 does. The cost to upgrade some of them would not of been as overwhelming as it might appear. A few of them could have been upgraded for deployment with the M284 ordnance, with the bulk retaining the M185 for training. I don't know if there really would be any need to go as far overboard as the Paladin, but some kind of APS for gun laying would improve even the older M109's considerably, especially for quick deployments at night. It's all moot now of course; they're long gone from Canadian inventory. The Indirect Fire Modernization project, AFAIK, isn't funded so the CA isn't going to see a solution to the C3 anytime soon, or to any other fire support capability deficiency for that matter.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
173
Points
630
Forgive me for suggesting this, as I realize this may be a completely moot point.

Would our fleet of M109s not be rusted out and completed outdated by now, anyway though?



I realize they can be upgraded with new guns, fire control systems, powerplants, and various upgrades to the engine, hull, etc etc.  But sometimes it's just time to replace the car.

Even if we had retained the M109s we had...wouldn't they be the rust bucket in the driveway by now, regardless of whether we threw in a new battery or whatnot??
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
486
Points
880
CBH99 said:
Forgive me for suggesting this, as I realize this may be a completely moot point.

Would our fleet of M109s not be rusted out and completed outdated by now, anyway though?



I realize they can be upgraded with new guns, fire control systems, powerplants, and various upgrades to the engine, hull, etc etc.  But sometimes it's just time to replace the car.

Even if we had retained the M109s we had...wouldn't they be the rust bucket in the driveway by now, regardless of whether we threw in a new battery or whatnot??

Not so much and much depends on how they are stored. For example the M109s that the Latvians have now are originally from the UK who bought them in 1965 and sold them to Austria in 1994. Along the way they were upgraded, refurbished etc. Basically the hull/turret stays quite useable as do many of the components. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a solid sandblasting when armoured hulls are involved. In their day the power packs were a fairly common diesel system and replacement components have been available as the guns went through their upgrades to the A6. There are large numbers of M109s in storage in the open desert at the Sierra Army Depot as well as at Loring Maine's refurbishment facilities.

I would expect that had we kept ours in storage we would probably have gone through an upgrade/refurbishment program to get them back on line.

:cheers:
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
CBH99 said:
Forgive me for suggesting this, as I realize this may be a completely moot point.

Would our fleet of M109s not be rusted out and completed outdated by now, anyway though?



I realize they can be upgraded with new guns, fire control systems, powerplants, and various upgrades to the engine, hull, etc etc.  But sometimes it's just time to replace the car.

Even if we had retained the M109s we had...wouldn't they be the rust bucket in the driveway by now, regardless of whether we threw in a new battery or whatnot??

The short answer is no, even in 2010 when the trigger was pulled on the M109s, there were 26 that would’ve had no problem in being brought back online, and sustained for a decade or two. Same for about 4 of the M578 ARVs. As mentioned above, the M109s didn’t necessarily need to be upgraded immediately either, possibly only a few would need a better gun eventually. The issue of the gun laying system still needs to be addressed for the 105 trg fleet used by the Arty School, and would be an opportunity to add on the M109s had some of them been kept

Trouble is not only were the M109s disposed, so were all the light tracked vehicles in those mech Bty’s. No project addressed that, and with only 37 M777 replacing a fleet of 76 M109s there are going to be gaps in capability, more so if you start taking loses. Which kind of circles back ‘round to this issue of what the capability deficiencies really are, and what kind of depth can be created to cover off any gaps emerging during a conflict. Very doubtful the C3 could cut it filling in those gaps, even in a desperate situation (talk about an old car needing replacement!), or the Reserves in any significant way given the way they and their training system is structured right now. Once indirect fire modernization actually gets considered for funding, my guess is all these issues being kicked around on this thread will be factors that'll drive some PD and PM to drink. Who knows when that’ll be, my guess is not until some crisis starts looming say overseas
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
176
Points
680
Petard said:
The short answer is no, even in 2010 when the trigger was pulled on the M109s, there were 26 that would’ve had no problem in being brought back online, and sustained for a decade or two. Same for about 4 of the M578 ARVs. As mentioned above, the M109s didn’t necessarily need to be upgraded immediately either, possibly only a few would need a better gun eventually. The issue of the gun laying system still needs to be addressed for the 105 trg fleet used by the Arty School, and would be an opportunity to add on the M109s had some of them been kept

Trouble is not only were the M109s disposed, so were all the light tracked vehicles in those mech Bty’s. No project addressed that, and with only 37 M777 replacing a fleet of 76 M109s there are going to be gaps in capability, more so if you start taking loses. Which kind of circles back ‘round to this issue of what the capability deficiencies really are, and what kind of depth can be created to cover off any gaps emerging during a conflict. Very doubtful the C3 could cut it filling in those gaps, even in a desperate situation (talk about an old car needing replacement!), or the Reserves in any significant way given the way they and their training system is structured right now. Once indirect fire modernization actually gets considered for funding, my guess is all these issues being kicked around on this thread will be factors that'll drive some PD and PM to drink. Who knows when that’ll be, my guess is not until some crisis starts looming say overseas

I hope that the Arty Branch starts making a lot of noise as the C3 starts falling apart. Inspection standards recently got more stringent for the C3, we are paying very close attention for stress fractures in the cradle, and carriage. The fleet is going to break it self apart by the end of the decade just from age. Only way to solve that would be to manufacture new components but we have no ability to do that.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
478
Points
880
The C3 is 1940's tech, we should easily have the capabilities to make new ones if we wished. Would it be a good use of our money, likley not. There are newer and better 105's out there being the G6 or M119 which we could also build in Canada. I think the Arty branch has shown a staggering lack of leadership to let the arm whither to the extent it has.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
176
Points
680
Colin P said:
The C3 is 1940's tech, we should easily have the capabilities to make new ones if we wished. Would it be a good use of our money, likley not. There are newer and better 105's out there being the G6 or M119 which we could also build in Canada. I think the Arty branch has shown a staggering lack of leadership to let the arm whither to the extent it has.

Unfortunately due to in service support contracts, RCEME branch has let its manufacture capabilities die. 3rd and 4th line used to be able to make small and medium sized components, complete rebuilds on their own, etc.. that is almost completely gone now, last I heard mat techs do not learn CNC machine any more.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
478
Points
880
We have the industrial capacity in Canada to make them or any 105mm. The long 155mm may require specialised machinery to produce the barrels.
 
Top