Post New Topic  
Edit Profile | Register | Search | FAQ | Forum Home
    next newest topic
»  The War Diary   » The Combat and Supporting Arms   » Artillery   » M-109 replacement...

Email this page to someone    
Author Topic: M-109 replacement...
Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 25 March 2021 05:24     Profile for Nate   Email Nate     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What primary artillery system will replace the M-109 for the CAF? This option should be reviewed soon, and money should be diverted to a new program, rather than upgrading the M-109.

Persoanally, I think that the new system should be lightweight to complement the LAV equipped brigades. The US is working on a LAV version equipped with the 155mm lightweight howitzer being developed for the USMC. Another good system is the South African G-6. The US is also developing a variant of the MLRS. It carries a single 6 cell MLRS pod, mounted on a wheeled chassis. It is significantly cheaper than the current tracked MLRS, and has greater strategic mobility. Canada should not waste any more money on upgrading the M-109, we should go all wheeled, rapid response.

The LAV III with the Vickers/Royal Ordnance 120mm mortar system should also be evaluated, instead of continuing with the 81mm mortar on the Bison for the mech inf battalions. If you are going to mount a mortar on an armoured mobile chassis, then why use a system that is designed to be man portable? Leave the 81mm for the light inf units of the regs and reserves. Towed howitzers-the LGM andthe c-3 should be exclusively for the reg and resverve light inf.

Just some thoughts. Yours?

Regards,

Nate


Posts: 12 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
RCA
Veteran Member
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 25 March 2021 15:21     Profile for RCA   Author's Homepage   Email RCA     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The strength of the Artillery is its ability to put mass fires on the gound. The averge ground pounder doesn' care if its 105 or 155, tracked, towed or wheeled jus as long as its keeping the bad guys head down.

The only reason to improve artillery are: better fire control systems, increase in rate of fire (weight of fire) or increse in range. all other changes are superficial.

The main reason to get rid of the M109 would be maintaince costs. Even though it is tracked it doesn't have to keep up with the infantry, just stay in range. The only advatage gained with moving to a G6 (for instance) is if it has a greater rate of fire. If not what is the advantage?

The thing we must be looking for now is increased first rd hit capability, faster response times and increases in weights of fire.

--------------------

Ubique


Posts: 130 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 25 March 2021 17:40     Profile for Nate   Email Nate     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The main reason for going with a wheeled platform would be strategic mobility, and also commonality. If Canada's land combat systems are going to be all wheeled, then artillery should also be so. M-109s require transport to move any real distance, and in peace enforcement type operations, this can hinder the mobility of the rest of the battle group. In terms of firepower, the new lightweight howitzer has the same or better ROF as the M-109, and similar/better range. The G-6 has better range than the M-109, it is based on the G-5, which was designed by Gerald Bull. It has a max range of 40km. MLRS on a wheeled chassis offers an excellent counter battery capability, is startegically mobile and significantly cheaper than the tracked MLRS. Even the US wants to replace the M-109 with the Crusader, and the M-109 Paladin is more advanced than the CAF M-109A4.

Regards,

Nate


Posts: 12 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 26 March 2021 11:31     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote

Read all about it here.

I still have doubts as to a 155 fitting on a LAV III. We were given a link to a site discusing this in another topic. Turns out the link only whent to a discussion about the theoretical MAV for the US army. The LAV is the front runner for this, but the site did not say that the vehicle could support the weapon. It is possible that it meats all the other objectives so well, that this fault is overlooked.

Yard Ape


Posts: 127 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 26 March 2021 19:36     Profile for Nate   Email Nate     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yup, that is definitely the MLRS system I was referring to, thanks Yard Ape. That fas.org is a goldmine. I agree about the LAV/M-777 combo-there is little info on if this system can or will be integrated. It would be nice for commonality purposes, and for the better capability that the M-777 would offer in terms of ROF, accuracy, growth, etc. The G-6 would be a very attractive alternative though. This system is truly flexible, and would provide a better (theorectically at least) heavy artillery system for the CAF than even an upgraded M-109. Check it out at:
http://sun00781.dn.net/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/g6.htm

Regards,

Nate


Posts: 12 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 09 April 2021 10:02     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by RCA:
The strength of the Artillery is its ability to put mass fires on the gound. The averge ground pounder doesn' care if its 105 or 155, tracked, towed or wheeled jus as long as its keeping the bad guys head down.

The only reason to improve artillery are: better fire control systems, increase in rate of fire (weight of fire) or increse in range. all other changes are superficial.

The main reason to get rid of the M109 would be maintaince costs. Even though it is tracked it doesn't have to keep up with the infantry, just stay in range. The only advatage gained with moving to a G6 (for instance) is if it has a greater rate of fire. If not what is the advantage?


Time spent moving, is time not firing. The more time an artillery system must spend moving so that it keeps the infantry in range, the less time it can be doing its job. Therefore, better speed and mobility does increase rate of fire, and there is value to going wheeled over tracked or SP over towed. The G6, however, lacks commonality with the LAV III which is one objective the CF seems to be striving for at the moment. Niether, does it have the ability to carry as many rounds as the M-109.

What if the Arty Regts employed light Btys with LAV III SP 105's? This would bring increased rate of fire, commonality. There could be a combination of light (105) and heavy (155) Btys within each Rgt.

As for mortars, we sould take a look at the LAV III mortar carrier being purcahsed by the US. It also employs a 120 mm, but has a lower silouhet.

But this has been discussed before:
TOWED OR SELF PROPELLED - What does Canada still require?

Yard Ape


Posts: 127 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
jonezr
FNG
Member # 195

Rate Member

posted 10 April 2021 00:26     Profile for jonezr   Email jonezr     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I am not really an expert on these matter's but how about some consideration for the Brit AS 90. I am not sure of all the details but I hear it has quite the fire control system and rate of fire. Comments???
Posts: 4 | From: | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 10 April 2021 10:21     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
jonezr, you'd be better of recomenting the Crusader.

Yard Ape


Posts: 127 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
USMCMatt
FNG
Member # 191

Rate Member

posted 11 April 2021 23:56     Profile for USMCMatt   Email USMCMatt     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I've noticed the posts here about an M-109 replacement. While the M-109 has given solid (yet combat unproven) service to the CF's, it is rapidly becoming obsolete in terms of the current generation of NATO SPH's being developed and implemented such as the Brit AS-90, German PzH 2000, and the US Crusader.

The key question though, is what kind of SPH does Canada need for its use over the next 30 years. While there are advantages to an all tracked system, the current emphasis on wheeled platforms (LAVmobile) army means that the next SPH will probably be wheeled.

The French company GIAT has produced an excellent wheeled SPH, the Caesar system. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/caesar/index.html

While some posts in this forum have advocated the South African G6, one must remember that while the system is excellent, it is not C-130 transportable.

The Caesar, I believe, is the best bang for the buck, given the cash-strapped nature of the CF's.


Posts: 4 | From: Virginia, USA | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
McG
Veteran Member
Member # 150

Member Rated:

posted 12 April 2021 00:49     Profile for McG   Author's Homepage   Email McG     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Caesar
Posts: 101 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gunner
Moderator
Member # 39

Member Rated:

posted 12 April 2021 12:37     Profile for Gunner   Author's Homepage   Email Gunner     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Just to move this conversation in a different direction, I'll ask the question of should Canada's Army even contemplate purchasing tube artillery for the future?

I agree totally with some of the comments given above (by RCA et al) that on a high intensity battlefield the artillery brings flexibility, all weather guarantee and the ability to direct massive amounts of firepower in accordance with its traditional role.

However, given the chances of Canada participating in a major conflict are realitively negiable why spend to replace it? Secondly, the will of Canada's politicians and people to accept the fact that a one or three regiment fire for effect on an enemy position in a town may cause unacceptable collatorial damage (read women, children, dogs, cats, donkeys, etc, etc), why spend money on a system that wouldn't be used.
Ok so threat wise and politically traditional tube artillery won't be of much use in the future...where does that leave the artillery? With no role? Not quite. LGen Jeffery, CLS, spoke on the changing nature of Canada's Army recently using very similar points as I mentioned above. His vision would see the traditional tube artillery reduced to approximately a regiment of guns with the Reserves responsible for generating additional CS, GS, GSR, etc. tasks.

Regular artillery would be become focussed on "smart weapon and brillant weapon" technology. Use of missle technology combined with the RMA would provide precision capablity with the delivery means 50kms away. This solves alot of problems that traditional use of artillery would cause in the current environment.

I'll throw these comments out for discussion.

[ 14 April 2001: Message edited by: Gunner ]

--------------------


Posts: 94 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Brock
Veteran Member
Member # 18

Member Rated:

posted 14 April 2021 20:12     Profile for Brock   Author's Homepage   Email Brock     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I am actually the person that started the LAV III replacement debate. In it I argued that the LAV III was a suitable vehicle to mount a 105mm cannon. Several people have argued that it is not suitable. In fact, it is. It is only able to due with a vastly different 155mm howitzer than presently used. Jane's Defence Weekly had a reveiw on it about a year and a half ago. It is a very different self-propelled howitzer than our current system. First of all the howizter is not mounted in a turret. It is howitzer without a turret and it has a limited left and right traverse. It is mounted much like the Russian 2S5, but in an under amour fahion (see Jane's Tank Recognition guide). The reason it does not have a turret is because the LAV III can not mount turreted 155mm howitzer. Although the lack of a 360 degree traverse limits it to having to change positions to fire at drastically different arcs when firing, it must be noted that artillery tactics are "shoot and scoot" not "stay and be killed by counter-battery." Self-propelled artillery units are very vulnerable to counter battery fire, attack helicopters, air strikes, etc... . As such, the battery will normally change location before switching targets. The LAV III 155mm self-propelled howitzer is also highly automated with a three person crew and an auto-loader and precision first round hit by utilizing advance GPS. The article in Janes's also mentioned how it worked. The howitzer recoil is absorbed mostly by the ground, like a mortar, as it has base plates that allow the gunt to channel the recoil into the ground and make for a more stable platform. The 155mm howtzer is being integrated by Royal Ordanance, a British Aerospace subsidiary, who also designed and developed the, soon to be in service with the USMC, M177 ultra-lightweight 155mm towed howtizer with a weight of around 3,500kg.

An alternative to purchasing a new 155mm howizer would be to purchase the LAV III with a 120mm heavy mortar turret and the truck mounted rocket system or HIMARS. Both options have advantages and disadvantages. The 155mm option is less effective when the vehicles are in built up areas as they are unable to shoot as safely due to the high rise buildings. They can however deliver fire to 30,000m extremely accurately. The second option is more versatile. in built up areas. The mortars with their armoured turrets can deliver fire in almost any location, but are limited by their range. Counter battery fire with the rockets is much more effective than with 155s, but they are not well armoured and must operate away from the main group. Both options are extremely flexible. Thesecond option is available immediately while the first option might not be available until 2005. Either one is good in my opinion.

--------------------


Posts: 18 | From: | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
RCA
Veteran Member
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 15 April 2021 14:30     Profile for RCA   Author's Homepage   Email RCA     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I understand where Gunner is comming from, rationalization of resourses and tasks but I feel that it would be a slippery slope that we would be heading down.

We could end up much like the Armoured Corp-No use for tanks today or in the forseeable future so why have tanks?

However I would argue that once a skilll is lost (ie Regt fire plans, etc) in becomes difficult to bring them back if ever required. Our role is (given to us by the gov't) is a muti-capable combat force which means an artillery fully capable of CS,GS and counter battery. Remember our skills include Arty planning, command and control which would be lost.

I don't believe that we won't deploy in the future. Witness 1 RCHA deloyment to Bosnia. We need to keep the tubed arty to furfill our treaty commitments. As well the Gulf War-where Artillery played a key role- wasn't that long ago and plans where made to commit 4 CMBG but the poltical will wasn't there. This could change in the future. With NATO as opposed to the UN starting to make the peace, we could see Battle Groups deploying with intergal arty support.

I have another proposal to throw out. As every gunner knows, the weapon of the Artillery is the projectile. The platform is just the delivery system. Therefore maybe we go all towed 105s-cheaper and therefore more guns and therefore more rds downrange. As mentioned above. a gun moving is a gun not firing. But our doctrine calls for leapfrogging so when one battery is redeloying. you will have numerous other batteries in support. Put the M109s into staorage. If the **** ever hits the fan, then The Reg F would convert to them (an easy task) to thicken up the fires, with numerous Reserve 105 Regts being in CS.

--------------------

Ubique


Posts: 130 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 16 April 2021 09:55     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, after looking at that picture of the Ceasar, I do belive a 155 can be mounted on a LAV III. I always pictured a turret when the conversation came up before.

Here is another option: Mount the HIMARS and Ceasar systems on a common vehicle platform for use by the CF (maybe on an HLVW?). Employ two batteries of each in a Regiment, as each has its own strengths and weaknesses. Purchase the LAV III 120 mm mortar carrier (with or without turret) to increase the fire power of the infantry over their current capability. And if we choose to go towed artilery, lets look at towed 155's.

Yard Ape


Posts: 127 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
Brock
Veteran Member
Member # 18

Member Rated:

posted 16 April 2021 19:51     Profile for Brock   Author's Homepage   Email Brock     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Vetern member #74 I was curious as to what skills we would be losing if we adopted a highly automated self-propelled 155mm howitzer on a LAV. Were you replying to my suggestion as well? Do you me the ability to manually load a cannon? Or do you mean tactics? These would be essentially the same as any modern self-propelled artillery tactics "shoot and scoot" and repeat the the process. Although I agree, that the sole adoption of rockets would not be the way to go, because rockets without smar munition are not as effective on point targets as artillery, they tend to be more effective at area targets when massed.

--------------------


Posts: 18 | From: | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
RCA
Veteran Member
Member # 74

Member Rated:

posted 17 April 2021 01:06     Profile for RCA   Author's Homepage   Email RCA     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I was actually answering Gunner, but I again clarify the skills is in Fire command, control and coordination. Gun Drill is gun drill. And to clarify a seconfd pooint, tubed artillery is aslo an area weapon. The biggest bulk of our fire missions has been and will probaly continue to be area neutrilization (AN) while rockets can take out a grid square it is a one time shot, while tubed barty can pound an area (size depended on resourses) for as long as the ammo keeps coming. An rokets can't fire illumination. I wouldn't be against the highly automated self-propelled 155mm howitzer on a LAV, I'm a firm believer in the KISS principle. lanyard breaks, replace laynard.

And I don't care what anyone says, I've commanded detachments (using 105mm C1) that could put more rounds in the air in 3 min than any highly automated self-propelled 155mm howitzer on a LAV. Shoot and scoot only works if the infantry doesn't need you. When in DS we are tied to the infantry's needs (as it should be).

--------------------

Ubique


Posts: 130 | From: Army of the West | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged
Brock
Veteran Member
Member # 18

Member Rated:

posted 17 April 2021 19:24     Profile for Brock   Author's Homepage   Email Brock     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
No offence but the C1 howitzer fires 105mm shells verses the 155mm which the LAV will fire, and also at considerably greater distance. The I highly doubt that the 105 shell can produce as effective saturation or point shelling as the 155 round. The C1 is also highly immobile, takes longer to get into action and requires more crew than the C1. The C1 also offers no protection to the crew from machine gun fire other than "duck."
This highly automated LAV 155 could deliver at least 6 rounds a minute and as many as 10. More than sufficient, and far better than the manual M109. At least we agree on one thing, the retention fo one form of tube artillery be 155mm howitzer or 120mm mortar is essential. Oh by the way the LAV 155 would be capable of all the things you have talked about. It is just hard to grasp that it can, because it is so much more advanced than our current artillery. Although, Canada made a good buy with the LG1 MkIIs, we just should have replaced all our light artillery with them.

--------------------


Posts: 18 | From: | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
Nate
FNG
Member # 209

Member Rated:

posted 18 April 2021 19:08     Profile for Nate   Email Nate     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
As Yard Ape suggested, a combination of HIMARS and LAV 155/Ceasar would complement the rest of the brigade or battle groups equipment well. The M777 LWT howitzer has much greater capabilities than the M-109 series. I don't see how this would be a bad move. M-109 was designed to support heavy mobile formations. The M777 and HIMARS allows a more strategically mobile force to retain heavy firpower and tactical mobility. It won't degrade mass supporting fire capability, it will improve it.

The 120mm mortar system would be a good replacment for the Bison/M113 81mm mortar system. Again, the lighter formation is balanced with heavier firepower. These three systems in combination would give the mech brigades much improved DS capabilities and optimal coverage, as well as intratheatre mobility (all can be transported by C-130).

Regards,

Nate


Posts: 12 | From: winnipeg | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Yard Ape
Veteran Member
Member # 158

Member Rated:

posted 19 April 2021 10:54     Profile for Yard Ape   Email Yard Ape     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
What's the flight time of a missle fired from 50 km vs a 155 fired from 4 km? If I need fire support, I need it now.

155's can fire smart rounds. What is the cost difference between these and a smart missle? It would not make sense if targets became less expensive that the shots which destroy them.


Posts: 127 | From: Northern Ontario | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged
USMCMatt
FNG
Member # 191

Rate Member

posted 19 April 2021 23:55     Profile for USMCMatt   Email USMCMatt     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
While the images of the LAV III 155mm SPH do look tantalizing, I think that the Caesar would be superior.

First off, the cost of the Caesar would probably be far less than a LAV III mounted SPH.

Next, the actual gun on the Caesar has a superior range compared to that on the LAV.

The proposed gun on the LAV is a modified XM77 Light Weight Howitzer. This weapon is 39 calibre and has a max. range of 24, 700 metres with conventional rounds and 30, 000 with rocket assisted rounds.

The Caesar has a max. range of 42, 000 metres with conventional ammo.

The XM77 would have been a far superior choice of weapon for the 105mm howitzer equipped RCA units to have been equipped with rather than upgrading an overly obsolete system.

I personally think that a mix of XM77's, Caesars and HIMARS would be an ideal force for the CF's.

Here in the Marine Corps, the 14th Marine Regiment (4th Marine Divisions artillery regiment) is to have 2 battalions (Canadian regt. equiv) equipped with all the Marine Corps HIMARS. Incidentally the 14th Marines and 4th Marine Division are all reserve forces.

Given the nature of HIMARS employment as counter-battery fire for use against an opponent with significant artillery assets, such as Iraq during the Gulf War, or any future major conflict (in which reserve call-ups would be likely) it makes sense to have the HIMARS tasked to reserve units.

Training for a HIMARS role could be very easily done by reserve units. Gun Drills are Gun Drills...doesn't take very long to become too proficient or keep in practice...especially with technology making things easier.


Posts: 4 | From: Virginia, USA | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are ET  

Post New Topic   Close Topic    Move Topic      next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | CdnArmy.ca

2001 CdnArmy.ca. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b




See the Chapters.ca History section for books on the Canadian Military.