• 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

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,832
Points
1,160

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,774
Points
1,160
Why? It’s a marginally better gun than the M198, but offers really nothing for the CAF other than another orphan system.

Canada needs a SPA system for the CMBG’s.
The 777 is a great gun for Light Bde’s, but towed system aren’t nearly as mobile or protected as SPA’s. Which as @FJAG and other have pointed out, it’s best to buy in with the US Army on their wheeled SPA program for the Strykers, OR the M109A7 and M1299 ERCA

BAE is reported to be reopening the 777 line in FY23 to replace units sent to Ukraine from various Armies, as well as to replace combat losses in Ukraine. Time will tell if that occurs or if it’s just a partial reopening for needed spare parts and not whole systems.
I get the impression that the M777 gives up weight at the cost of using far more expensive materials and likely a shorter mechanical lifespan than the other towed 155mm systems?
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
Isn’t it funny that you are significantly selective in your reading/comprehension.
Not at all, but your selective in your opinion and interpretation.
Australia isn’t building an artillery piece from scratch, they are doing it under license.
So could Canada. The issues as stated by some of the SMEs was we did not have the capability to make barrels, the metal required for armor, or the sophisticated electronics. How is Australia working through all this?
Something Canada could do, but given the # of systems Canada would acquire probably wouldn’t be financially practical to set up a production line for such a small run.
I would think Canada would be ordering close to that 30 number as Australia is.
Australia is in the middle of nowhere with no significant Allies close by to provided more equipment in crisis times - and has made decisions based on that aspect.
The US although has lots of equipment may not be able to supply and equip us with anything of significance during actual time of need. Just sound like excuses that various governments have been making behind the scenes to justify not equipping our Military properly.
Canada lives above the Arsenal of Democracy, and isn’t in the same situation as Oz. Which results in a lot of Canadian apathy towards Defense issues.
Not trolling,
I guess you don't understand that GM Defence Land Builds manufactures Armored Personal Carriers in Canada using similar if not the same amour as what would be used in the manufacturing of a Self Propelled Artillery.
We also have Overhaul faculties and the skilled labor who can weld all types of Armor and overhaul it.
We would be realistically ordering around that 30 number that Australia is ordering. Would make it viable would it not? We also could have continued manufacturing as Australia is going to in order for the other Customers to get their guns quicker. The K9 at this time is one of the most popular SP guns right now.
I stand behind my words
Once again Canada is behind 90 days on thoughts and 180 days on wishes.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,665
Points
1,260
Not at all, but your selective in your opinion and interpretation.

So could Canada. The issues as stated by some of the SMEs was we did not have the capability to make barrels, the metal required for armor, or the sophisticated electronics. How is Australia working through all this?

I would think Canada would be ordering close to that 30 number as Australia is.

The US although has lots of equipment may not be able to supply and equip us with anything of significance during actual time of need. Just sound like excuses that various governments have been making behind the scenes to justify not equipping our Military properly.

Not trolling,
I guess you don't understand that GM Defence Land Builds manufactures Armored Personal Carriers in Canada using similar if not the same amour as what would be used in the manufacturing of a Self Propelled Artillery.
We also have Overhaul faculties and the skilled labor who can weld all types of Armor and overhaul it.
We would be realistically ordering around that 30 number that Australia is ordering. Would make it viable would it not? We also could have continued manufacturing as Australia is going to in order for the other Customers to get their guns quicker. The K9 at this time is one of the most popular SP guns right now.
I stand behind my words
Once again Canada is behind 90 days on thoughts and 180 days on wishes.
Armor steel isn’t close to barrel steel though.

Part of the licensing aspects is working with the OEM for barrel production. Australia has made tank cannon barrels in the last few years, so unlike Canada has most of what is needed in that respect.

Canada doesn’t have the ability itself currently - it could (and I agree that it should*) work with an international parter to create that ability in short order.


*Long winded explanation to follow:
Financially in the short term, it’s cheaper to buy American/British etc.
But I do agree with you for National Security implications it does make sense to have the ability to be able to built items like Artillery and AFV’s domestically. For example I n Singapore they opted to buy new small arms externally - and focus their domestic capabilities on AFV/IFV’s with the understanding that if push comes to shove it’s easier to spin up domestic production of small arms if needed than it is of heavier weapons.

However, unless Canada is willing to accept the financial hit of actually investing in its Defense production, I don’t see any viability to domestic production— the writing was on the wall when DA, and CAL was shuttered, and a commercial entity was chosen for ammunition and small arms in the future.
I’d argue that reopening a Crown Corp of Canadian Arsenals to produce cannon barrels (both Arty and Tank) would be a reasonable and intelligent choice— but I don’t see your government making that choice.

Given the rather relatively austere CA budget, I think the best bang for the buck with a support chain is buying US Army systems.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,774
Points
1,160
Judging by the West inability to ramp up sufficient capacity to sustain even one long running peer to peer conflict, it would be in all of our interests to increasing specialised defense industries. Canada actually needs about 400 tubes to bring it back to where it should be.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
Armor steel isn’t close to barrel steel though.
We have presses and have facilities that could handle barrel sized blocks.

Part of the licensing aspects is working with the OEM for barrel production. Australia has made tank cannon barrels in the last few years, so unlike Canada has most of what is needed in that respect.
We missed the boat by 5 years so to speak. There might still be a future in this. Again to many cants, not enough cans. order equipment, install equipment, provide material, produce materials.
Canada doesn’t have the ability itself currently - it could (and I agree that it should*) work with an international parter to create that ability in short order.


*Long winded explanation to follow:
Financially in the short term, it’s cheaper to buy American/British etc.
In todays political kickback program yes, actual costs no.
But I do agree with you for National Security implications it does make sense to have the ability to be able to built items like Artillery and AFV’s domestically. For example I n Singapore they opted to buy new small arms externally - and focus their domestic capabilities on AFV/IFV’s with the understanding that if push comes to shove it’s easier to spin up domestic production of small arms if needed than it is of heavier weapons.
We already manufacture most of our small arms, we build our Armored wheel fleet and we overhaul our heavy track fleet. So we are set up pretty well to ramp up manufacturing if need be. If we base things off a similar chassis we get aspect of commonality of parts. if we piggy back off the K9 program we would have customers to share our goods with. We will be to late to the program but we could offer a good overhaul facility and do pretty good there possibly. I do not see many future customers for the US SPG or even German if the reports are correct that the K9/ Krab etc are more reliable, cheaper and easier to maintain. Time will tell and as usual Canada will miss the boat and try to build a ferry to follow. Again more a cant instead of a can attitude by industry and politicians.
However, unless Canada is willing to accept the financial hit of actually investing in its Defense production, I don’t see any viability to domestic production— the writing was on the wall when DA, and CAL was shuttered, and a commercial entity was chosen for ammunition and small arms in the future.
Does the Us military not use commercial companies for ammo production including ordinance etc. We use GD as well as the US. Seems pretty decent supplier for us. Our problem is they are not ramped up here in Canada for large scale production.
I’d argue that reopening a Crown Corp of Canadian Arsenals to produce cannon barrels (both Arty and Tank) would be a reasonable and intelligent choice— but I don’t see your government making that choice.

Given the rather relatively austere CA budget, I think the best bang for the buck with a support chain is buying US Army systems.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,665
Points
1,260
Does the Us military not use commercial companies for ammo production including ordinance etc. We use GD as well as the US. Seems pretty decent supplier for us. Our problem is they are not ramped up here in Canada for large scale production.
Economy of Scale.
Canada building something doesn’t result in follow on orders, not much of a viable commercial market and no significant options for export.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
Economy of Scale.
Canada building something doesn’t result in follow on orders, not much of a viable commercial market and no significant options for export.
Its called sales, something Canada has lacked on the conventional Defence side of things for a long time. our Defence Tech industry seems to be doing pretty good, even though we don't buy much of it ourselves.
The US has asked Canada to see if they are able to ramp up ordnance production to fulfill the requirement for Ukraine and restock war shelfs. Canada's Politicians like normal are 30 days behind on thought and 180 short on doing it. Even the CDS told the government we should be ramping up war production facilities approx. two months ago that has fallen of deaf ears as JT tries to figure out how to make him and his buddies direct recipients of money spent that actually has to have a final product.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,813
Points
1,040
Economy of Scale.
Canada building something doesn’t result in follow on orders, not much of a viable commercial market and no significant options for export.
I think that's very much the thing. 50 SPs, even 100 isn't great. I sometimes wonder about Archer - basically it's 48 systems with two countries having pulled out in preference for used PzH200 and New K9s. Luckily Bofors/BAE has other interests to keep them busy.

IMHO in order to build up Canada's defence industry we should firstly concentrate on annual consumables in the nature of ammunition and the like and cheap breakable UAVs. We should really produce our own ATGMs and AD systems where the manufacturer has a guaranteed annual production requirement to keep the line open. If its under licence that's fine as long as the plant and people to make it are here.

Soft skinned vehicles are fine too and should also be on an annual rate basis and not a fleet burst-fest. Again keeping low rate production lines open indefinitely is preferable to burst outputs. We should start this with light infantry mobility vehicles for starters. I don't like green pickups. We need something better and there's no reason why they can't be built here.

We could do more with the LAV fleet too. Why we went for a whole fleet of support vehicles without building in chassis requirements for a variety of weapon carrier variants is beyond me. Even if we buy the weapons modules from elsewhere (and we probably should) they can easily be incorporated here. Other than weapon carrier variants, I think we've taken LAV as far as we can or should (other than rebuilds and product improvements and foreign sales - I'm still wondering what the US is planning on doing with the bulk of their 8 SBCTs i.e. the ones not going into the several Heavy divisions)

Dreaming a bit for down the road, if we can get our crap together on the above stuff, then we need to think heavy. The Ukrainian mud makes me think we need to do tracks again (We need to be able to travel in thick European loam much more than Wainwright well-drained Prairie). IMHO nothing better than the current BAE Bradley//AMPV/Paladin chassis line to tie into. Yup there's stuff overseas but its ... overseas. I'm a continental kind of guy. I'm not sure if GD's tracked Stryker will do the job. I'm intrigued by the fact that the 2013 version came in at 38 tons which is roughly what the current M109A7 Paladin weighs (The K9 is 47 because its steel rather than aluminum.) Then there's GDs ASCOT/AJAX/ARES line - shudder.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,665
Points
1,260
Its called sales,
To who?
No one is going to buy a Canadian SPA
1) A GIANT zero for Past Performance
2) GoC controls.

International Companies are not going to allow Canada to sell a licensed product that competes with their models for export.

That leaves DND and it’s meager budget that won’t sustain an actual production line.
something Canada has lacked on the conventional Defence side of things for a long time. our Defence Tech industry seems to be doing pretty good, even though we don't buy much of it ourselves.
The US has asked Canada to see if they are able to ramp up ordnance production to fulfill the requirement for Ukraine and restock war shelfs. Canada's Politicians like normal are 30 days behind on thought and 180 short on doing it. Even the CDS told the government we should be ramping up war production facilities approx. two months ago that has fallen of deaf ears as JT tries to figure out how to make him and his buddies direct recipients of money spent that actually has to have a final product.
Munitions are different- consumables are always being consumed. Many US Defense contractors ramped up production on their own in anticipation of larger orders.
 

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
To who?
No one is going to buy a Canadian SPA
1) A GIANT zero for Past Performance
If we manufacture under contract I am pretty sure performance wont be much different then GD Canada's works or Kelowna Flightcraft or any of the other numerous Defence Contractors we have in Canada.
2) GoC controls.
Who's is going to buy the Australian made K9s after they finish their order? They will have a plant there. They are building 30 SPH and 15 Ammo Carriers. ( maybe Canada could do the same thing).
Who is going to buy the Australian manufactured Abrams Tanks/ Barrels when they are done? Wait once again they are going to have a facility there.
Who's buying K9s right now? almost a dozen countries.
Who's buying other Armor right now? everyone under the sun except Canada
There is and was a market, again Canada is more then likely behind on the go part. But there are lots of sales right now for heavy equipment. There is also a back log of long wait times for manufacturing capacity. Some of that Capacity is in areas that could be compromised if either NK or RUS decide to expand their stupidness.
If Canada jumped on the wagon right now, ordered our own Howitzers with manufacturing to be done domestically. We might be able to scratch something decent for the long term Arms industry here. Or we can rely on the Americans to provide us with Heavy equipment that wont be manufacture here only in the US. Meaning we more then likely wont buy it.
International Companies are not going to allow Canada to sell a licensed product that competes with their models for export.

That leaves DND and it’s meager budget that won’t sustain an actual production line.

Munitions are different- consumables are always being consumed. Many US Defense contractors ramped up production on their own in anticipation of larger orders.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,316
Points
1,040
If we manufacture under contract I am pretty sure performance wont be much different then GD Canada's works or Kelowna Flightcraft or any of the other numerous Defence Contractors we have in Canada.

Who's is going to buy the Australian made K9s after they finish their order? They will have a plant there. They are building 30 SPH and 15 Ammo Carriers. ( maybe Canada could do the same thing).
Who is going to buy the Australian manufactured Abrams Tanks/ Barrels when they are done? Wait once again they are going to have a facility there.
Who's buying K9s right now? almost a dozen countries.
Who's buying other Armor right now? everyone under the sun except Canada
There is and was a market, again Canada is more then likely behind on the go part. But there are lots of sales right now for heavy equipment. There is also a back log of long wait times for manufacturing capacity. Some of that Capacity is in areas that could be compromised if either NK or RUS decide to expand their stupidness.
If Canada jumped on the wagon right now, ordered our own Howitzers with manufacturing to be done domestically. We might be able to scratch something decent for the long term Arms industry here. Or we can rely on the Americans to provide us with Heavy equipment that wont be manufacture here only in the US. Meaning we more then likely wont buy it.
One day I would love to show you the world of the major equipment OEM.

The short answer is yes as a country we could do what you would want. But one 90 percent of Canadians don't want it or most importantly pay for it.

Two it would mean the most expensive military equipment unit for unit on the planet. And in the end war is economic as much as military in the field.

OT comment one of the policy ideas of the Tories in the first Harper minority government was to go full bore with a made in Canada military build up as we were in Afghanistan. And get companies and workers on side...but in the end it wouldn't work. Unifor is just too liberal/NDP.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,813
Points
1,040
Did an interview today that told me we have roughly 4 "fireable" C3s in Western Canada and maybe 4 or 5 in Central Canada. That's about a 20% serviceable rate.

:cry:
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
16,712
Points
1,160
Did an interview today that told me we have roughly 4 "fireable" C3s in Western Canada and maybe 4 or 5 in Central Canada. That's about a 20% serviceable rate.

:cry:

It's OK. A local Gunner told me they're probably being re-roled to 120mm MOR anyways ;)
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
6,813
Points
1,040
It's OK. A local Gunner told me they're probably being re-roled to 120mm MOR anyways ;)
Who are we borrowing the 120 mm mortars from - The Washington State ARNG? :unsure:

Honestly, I'm frustrated to the point where anything where the troops can send a round downrange is better than the shit they are in. I'd be very concerned, however, if some RegF genius in Army HQ comes up with the bright idea that each regiment can now be downsized to mortar platoon strength and not use artillery deployment and firing procedures.

If the aim of the game is to keep artillery reservists to fill the hundreds of blank files in RegF arty regiments then they need to at least "pretend" the mortars are guns. While its only marginally acceptable, they can do dry deployments with C3, live fire mortars and do conversion training to M777s. That would at least keep the gun lines and dismounted FOOs viable in the essentials. - edited to add - and maybe keep young gunners interested enough to join and stay.

Incidentally, I understand there's a healthy ResF presence in the next Latvia battery roto.

🍻
 
Last edited:

childs56

Sr. Member
Reaction score
211
Points
530
One day I would love to show you the world of the major equipment OEM.
Dont Worry I understand the process in place.
The short answer is yes as a country we could do what you would want.
100%
But one 90 percent of Canadians don't want it or most importantly pay for it.
They will pay for it if it means reasonable paid jobs and actual defence of the country. Even the most hippie person realizes we need a military well armed and trained. We need to not screw it up and be the only customer. Happened with the CPF program
Two it would mean the most expensive military equipment unit for unit on the planet. And in the end war is economic as much as military in the field.
Get rid of the middleman bribes, get rid of lining politicians pockets and those of their friends. Put things out to proper tender and see what happens. The economics of war need to know how to produce products in a relatively safe area in order to maintain lines and for scales of up sizing capacity. Canada did pretty well with the LAV line of vehicles. No reason why we cant move forward with track equipment.

We would have kept the foreign ship maintenance but everyone has to make a buck or two on all the deals. Maybe we can get something going. Maybe not, who knows.
OT comment one of the policy ideas of the Tories in the first Harper minority government was to go full bore with a made in Canada military build up as we were in Afghanistan. And get companies and workers on side...but in the end it wouldn't work. Unifor is just too liberal/NDP.
Then get rid of UNIFOR for Defence contracts unless they act in a professional fair manner.
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
555
Points
960
Why? It’s a marginally better gun than the M198, but offers really nothing for the CAF other than another orphan system.

It's currently produced, and it gives us a new gun to at the very least replace the C3 in the reserves.

It's heavier than the M777, but it's more durable and has negative elevation. Gunners who have operated the M777 have told me that while it's an advanced gun, it's very temperamental as it compromises a lot for lower weight and our fleet is wearing out.

Yes, there are rumours BAE is putting it back in production, but right now nothing is official, and buying M-71s does not mean we can't also buy more M777 later on.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
11,665
Points
1,260
If we manufacture under contract I am pretty sure performance wont be much different then GD Canada's works or Kelowna Flightcraft or any of the other numerous Defence Contractors we have in Canada.
If I understand you correctly that means under license from an OEM.
Who's is going to buy the Australian made K9s after they finish their order? They will have a plant there. They are building 30 SPH and 15 Ammo Carriers. ( maybe Canada could do the same thing).
Australia and Canada are worlds different in their outlooks, Australia is geographically isolated (NZ doesn’t count) and needs to be much more self sufficient— more importantly their governments realize that.
Who is going to buy the Australian manufactured Abrams Tanks/ Barrels when they are done? Wait once again they are going to have a facility there.
Who's buying K9s right now? almost a dozen countries.
Who's buying other Armor right now? everyone under the sun except Canada
There is and was a market, again Canada is more then likely behind on the go part. But there are lots of sales right now for heavy equipment. There is also a back log of long wait times for manufacturing capacity. Some of that Capacity is in areas that could be compromised if either NK or RUS decide to expand their stupidness.
No disagree there.
If Canada jumped on the wagon right now, ordered our own Howitzers with manufacturing to be done domestically. We might be able to scratch something decent for the long term Arms industry here.
Yes but the cost is far greater than Canada as a whole would be willing to pay.
Or we can rely on the Americans to provide us with Heavy equipment that wont be manufacture here only in the US. Meaning we more then likely wont buy it.
Or perhaps a better option is to buy into US programs at the ground floor and get a portion of that program made in Canada — it’s not solely a Canadian item, but you get domestic offsets - and get value from a larger production line, for both initial capital acquisition- and spares.

I’m trying to be a realist. Canada isn’t going to become an Arms Producing giant - social/politically that just isn’t in the cards.
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
400
Points
730
To who?
No one is going to buy a Canadian SPA
1) A GIANT zero for Past Performance
2) GoC controls.

International Companies are not going to allow Canada to sell a licensed product that competes with their models for export.

That leaves DND and it’s meager budget that won’t sustain an actual production line.

Munitions are different- consumables are always being consumed. Many US Defense contractors ramped up production on their own in anticipation of larger orders.

Canadair sold licensed copies of the F-86 Sabre, some even to the U.S. They also sold the CF-104 and I think there are others I'm forgetting right now.

It seems they made them better than the original and that's why they were desirable. How they got permission from the OEM I don't know.
 
Top