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

How many LG-1s are in service with the reserves? And where?

Ralph

Member
Reaction score
7
Points
180
krimynal said:
The C3 is still used tho , from what I've heard , the weapon techs wouldn't really repair it nowadays.  Basically you use it and hope it doesn't break.  Is this true ? I doubt it , but we never know.

No, it's not true. C3s receive as much maintenance as the M777s; which is to say, as much as is required. We're deploying them next week for fire planning.
 

sharki9876

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Okay, well it was obviously just a rumor. Still, if I end up in my local artillery regiment in the next few months, I wonder if they will still have C3s.
 

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The C3s will be around for years to come. Not going anywhere and us techs at reg force units see them all the time.

They have been "on the way out" since I can remember.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
I sure don't share sidemount's optimism

The latest C3 problems are cracks at the muzzle and the machined clinometer area on the barrel (see pic)

Inspections are ongoing using magnetic particle inspection techniques to determine which guns have these cracks (they can't be detected by eye). Any gun with these type of barrel cracks are permanently prohibited from live fire; no word yet if they'll be allowed to remain with the unit for dry training and salute purposes only.

So far the prognosis isn't good; the cause is not known, and there are no spare barrels to repair them.

I'd say we'll have them within units for another year, but I'd expect a pooling of the few live fire remaining C3 at training centres most likely, and hopefully some dry fire ones still in units for training.
But if they don't determine the cause of this cracking within the next year, I'd say they won't be around much longer.

 

sharki9876

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Petard said:
So far the prognosis isn't good; the cause is not known, and there are no spare barrels to repair them.

Maybe that's why I heard that no ones maintaining them.
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
Sharki9876, I don't think you're following what I'm saying: the response to the latest problems shows just how diligently the maintenance is being done.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
680
I agree, now i'm no expert but considering how old the C3 is, is it possible the cracks are damage due to the age of the barrels them selves? now of course im just speculating but that is a weak point on the barrel near the muzzle so there would be more of a chance of breaking.
 

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
These guns are very well maintained, the weapons and EO guys spend a ton of time prior to, during, and after shoots. I was posted to the artillery a few years ago and even with the M777 there, we still spent a lot of time looking after C3s

Petard: the only reason I say they are going to be around is simply due to lack of a replacement. They should have been retired years ago. Even the mortars are taking a beating. The arty needs some new gear beyond just the M777
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
308
Points
880
MilEME09 said:
I agree, now i'm no expert but considering how old the C3 is, is it possible the cracks are damage due to the age of the barrels them selves? now of course im just speculating but that is a weak point on the barrel near the muzzle so there would be more of a chance of breaking.

I never spent time with the C3. In my day they were the M2A1/C1 version and those barrels had a lot more years and EFCs on them than the C3 probably did. My "guess" is that the extra length and muzzle brake were not up to the extra strains put on them in the first place.

As to avalanche control one should note that of the target data on each avalanche release point is determined by registering the target by live fire and not by calculation. Accordingly a switch to any new weapon system would require re-registering each and every target.

This whole issue has left a bad taste in my mouth about the army/artillery leadership and its ability to develop a reserve force capable of making a contribution to the future of the Canadian Forces. When we decided to replace the M109's (perfectly serviceable guns) out of service we should instead have allocated them to the reserves. Regretfully we have bean counters who are doing our future capabilities planning. Infantry without mortars and artillery running 81mms. I never would have dreamed that we could be so stupid to play such a hollow shell-game.

:cheers:
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
120
Points
680
FJAG said:
I never spent time with the C3. In my day they were the M2A1/C1 version and those barrels had a lot more years and EFCs on them than the C3 probably did. My "guess" is that the extra length and muzzle brake were not up to the extra strains put on them in the first place.

As to avalanche control one should note that of the target data on each avalanche release point is determined by registering the target by live fire and not by calculation. Accordingly a switch to any new weapon system would require re-registering each and every target.

This whole issue has left a bad taste in my mouth about the army/artillery leadership and its ability to develop a reserve force capable of making a contribution to the future of the Canadian Forces. When we decided to replace the M109's (perfectly serviceable guns) out of service we should instead have allocated them to the reserves. Regretfully we have bean counters who are doing our future capabilities planning. Infantry without mortars and artillery running 81mms. I never would have dreamed that we could be so stupid to play such a hollow shell-game.

:cheers:

In my opinion all equipment such as weapon systems, and vehicles should be given to the reserves, and held for X number of years, not just scrapped. would save us from a lot of problems I think
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
514
Points
860
MilEME09 said:
In my opinion all equipment such as weapon systems, and vehicles should be given to the reserves, and held for X number of years, not just scrapped. would save us from a lot of problems I think

Dumping equipment on the Reserves without ensuring support is a recipe for disaster.  In the current NDHQ environment, however, combat capability magically appears and magically sustains itself, since support is a four-letter word. 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
Petard said:
I sure don't share sidemount's optimism

The latest C3 problems are cracks at the muzzle and the machined clinometer area on the barrel (see pic)

Inspections are ongoing using magnetic particle inspection techniques to determine which guns have these cracks (they can't be detected by eye). Any gun with these type of barrel cracks are permanently prohibited from live fire; no word yet if they'll be allowed to remain with the unit for dry training and salute purposes only.

So far the prognosis isn't good; the cause is not known, and there are no spare barrels to repair them.

I'd say we'll have them within units for another year, but I'd expect a pooling of the few live fire remaining C3 at training centres most likely, and hopefully some dry fire ones still in units for training.
But if they don't determine the cause of this cracking within the next year, I'd say they won't be around much longer.

Having looked at how the threads are cut, I not that surprised. The pressure wave coming down the barrel would hit that cut. It would have been better if the threaded area was proud of the barrel and threads not cutting into the barrel area. The early 105mm had a smooth barrel which was prone to cracking, hence the muzzle swell on the C1.

It would not be difficult to build new parts for this gun and I think South Korea does still make parts. This is very old tech. It just requires will and a plan. It is an excellent gun for the Reserves and we have gotten more than our monies worth out of them. the question is would the cost of rebuilding them be value for money over another newer gun system in 105mm or large mortar in 120mm? 
 

Petard

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
360
It's not as easy as you might think to get someone else to make new barrels for this gun, or anything else for that matter for the C3; although Chile did work out a deal with Royal Ordnance to do so when they bought their version of the C3.

Either way, rebuild or buy new, there wasn't anything planned for the level of expenditures needed to deal with these C3 problems right now.
Something will have to be done soon, and just having the Reserves train using only mortars isn't going to work in the near term either; the majority of the 81s are nearing the end of their service life too.
 

sharki9876

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Why are there no plans for new artillery for the reserves? Is it just because we don't have the budget for it?

Also, I'm assuming this is not a problem for the regular forces since they're using newer hardware like the LG-1?

 

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Reg force is using M777, sometime supplemented by C3 or LG1 (if available). But M777 is the main howitzer.

The LG1 is not "better hardware". The hydraulic system is sketchy at best and the sighting systems are garbage. There is a reason why the OFC system on the M777 is similar to the OFC on the C3 and nothing like the LG1.

(my personal opinion from a tech perspective)
 

sharki9876

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
sidemount said:
Reg force is using M777, sometime supplemented by C3 or LG1 (if available). But M777 is the main howitzer.

The LG1 is not "better hardware". The hydraulic system is sketchy at best and the sighting systems are garbage. There is a reason why the OFC system on the M777 is similar to the OFC on the C3 and nothing like the LG1.

(my personal opinion from a tech perspective)

Well I respect your experience and perspective. This is why I ask these questions.

So sounds like despite its age the C3 is still a good system for training, just aging like any other would.
 

sidemount

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Like I said just my opinion :)

I believe the C3 is still a good system fundamentally. (Old and worn out not withstanding)

The optical fire control system is very basic and quite robust. The quadrants and sight mounts are just a better design to the lg1. It holds up to sustained firing. The dial sight carrier on the lg1 just needs constant maint and is not user friendly.

Again all just one guys opinion so take that with a grain of salt haha
 

FJAG

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
308
Points
880
dapaterson said:
Dumping equipment on the Reserves without ensuring support is a recipe for disaster.  In the current NDHQ environment, however, combat capability magically appears and magically sustains itself, since support is a four-letter word.

Absolutely true but that's exactly the type of thinking that leads to bean counting defence planning.

The fact is that if there is any expectation to fight anything in the nature of a near-peer force we need not only equipment in place but trained forces (including maintainers) to use it.

I can think of a hundred ways of keeping the capability within the forces using a sliding scale of costs. Purely as an example, most of the guns and associated tracked vehicles could be put into long term preservation while a few are positioned in a few limited locations for training purposes. Those locations would be where both reg and res force maintainers are available.

The key leadership decision has to be to keep the capability alive and not to throw it out with budget cuts. Reserves are a cost effective way of keeping expensive systems available (take for example the ARNG in the US which maintains M1s, Bradleys, and M109s). I sometimes think that the real problem is not so much the finance side of things but that our reg force leaders no longer see our involvement in a serious conflict as a possibility and have long ago convinced themselves that the reserves are an institution which needs be endured rather than one that can be built on. They'd much rather spend untold billions on maintaining a robust headquarters structure.

When I started serving in the sixties we had 138 serviceable guns with the regular regiments and at least another hundred and twenty with the reserves and more in stocks. We've come down a long way, baby, and so have the infantry and the tankers.

IMHO the DND structure needs a radical rethink from the middle to the top. :2c:

For those who watch NCIS you'll be familiar with Gibb's rule # 5 "You don't waste good." Again, IMHO, we've been wasting good soldiers (both reg and res) for years by applying short sighted defence priorities based on false economy budgeting.

:cheers:
 

Ralph

Member
Reaction score
7
Points
180
sharki9876 said:
maybe that's why I heard that no ones maintaining them.
That's like saying that because I have a car with only one set of tires, there's no point in fixing a crack in the windshield or changing the oil.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
353
Points
880
Petard said:
It's not as easy as you might think to get someone else to make new barrels for this gun, or anything else for that matter for the C3; although Chile did work out a deal with Royal Ordnance to do so when they bought their version of the C3.

Either way, rebuild or buy new, there wasn't anything planned for the level of expenditures needed to deal with these C3 problems right now.
Something will have to be done soon, and just having the Reserves train using only mortars isn't going to work in the near term either; the majority of the 81s are nearing the end of their service life too.

Korea makes tanks and Hyundia-WIA makes tank and artillery barrels. Likely the real problem is the quantity and price we want to pay. Instead of buying 100 barrels at time, we will want to buy 10 and then another 10 next fiscal and so on. No one is going to bother setting up their machines for an order like that. Talking to people who have dealt with Chile armament companies say it's like banging your head against a brick wall on a good day. Shame as they have a nice facility for making rifle barrels that is heavily underutilized.

I would buy new cradles, recoil systems and barrels together, show them where the failures are in our current setup and let them tweak the desgin to accommodate the higher stresses better. I don't recall to many carriage failures?

The 81 and 60mm mortars are cheap and can be bought off the shelf, with a small buy every couple of years. We could use some of the billions we return every year, but then the politician could not balance the budget as easily.
 
Top