I agree with everything FJAG stated. However, given our current budget and organization, I don't think it's doable to do multiple artillery fleets amongst multiple organizations. I was thinking of one platform that could be deployed to any threatre in which we deploy to, which would be helpful.
Ideally, I think FJAG is on point.
However, given that any deployment we do will certainly be in support of the US and allies, what could we acquire that would be a) beneficial to the reserves and reg force both, b) affordable, c) sustainable and easy to deploy ??
The M777 is a great system, and last I checked we had 34 of them in service. In an all out war, we could deploy about 20 of those as the remainders would be at the schools - enough to provide 3 or 4 groups of guns to a threatre.
HIMARS would be a great purchase, as it would allow us to engage from impressive stand off ranges, especially with the new munitions being developed for it.
In the case of the C3 replacement however, a system similar to Hawkeye I think would be ideal. Yes, FJAG makes a great point that if the vehicle goes down, so does the gun.
However, if everything being equal, a gun that can arrive, engage, and move out faster than an M777 could even start putting rounds downrange, if purchased in decent numbers (it's cheap, and is replacing the C3 so should be purchased in enough numbers that they can be deployed without breaking the stocks) could be really beneficial for us.
In terms of probably theatre of operations...
I don't see us going to war with Russia anytime soon. We don't want to fight them, and they don't want to fight us. We aren't going to war with Russia -- famous last words
Putin didn't become president of Russia amid the rubble of the USSR, and one of the richest men in the world, because he's stupid. He isn't going to invade Europe, which currently provides Russia with about 80% of it's GDP via oil and natural gas sales, and he isn't going to undertake trying to assert Russian control over 350 million EU citizens that don't want him there. It's not winnable in the long run from a tactical or strategic perspective, and he knows that.
China, I actually do see us probably going to war with, as I feel it's almost inevitable to some degree. But any conflict with China in the SCS area is primarily going to be a naval & air campaign. Even if the west needs to liberate Taiwan, I imagine that will be done via naval power and air power primarily.
Where I do see allied ground forces operating from is Africa and the Middle East, re: proxy battles. China is rapidly buying up influence and loyalty amongst African governments, and I could easily see Chinese backed proxy forces engaging with us the same way Russian or Iranian proxy forces engage with us now.
In terms of where we are going to deploy, the types of forces we are going to engage, and what the Canadian Forces could contribute in a truly meaningful way? Something fairly cheap to acquire and train on, easy to sustain, easy to deploy, purchased in sufficient numbers for Reg F and Res F, and able to engage/move quickly I think would be something that could really be beneficial to a coalition effort. Especially if other countries aren't able to bring something similar to the table...and are going with the M119/M777/towed artillery concept also.
Ofcourse, I could be totally wrong. I just see our next few years of engagements being against state-backed proxy forces rather than total war against a near peer (from an Army perspective). Even if Chinese forces deployed directly to Africa and engaged us directly, I still think it would be their battlegroups vs our battlegroups in fairly fluid environments, rather than massive forces engaging each other like in the SCS. :2c:
