Canada seeks M777 155 mm lightweight howitzers

[Sidka]

The Canadian Army is examining the acquisition of up to 12 new BAE Systems M777 155 mm lightweight howitzers for its troops in Afghanistan.

Canadian Army spokesperson Major Daryl Morrell would only confirm that the army was "looking at the M777 for a possible purchase", but both diplomatic and industrial sources confirm that the Department of National Defence (DND) is in discussions with BAE Systems and the US regarding an urgent operational requirement.

Since August 2003, Canada has maintained a deployment of up to 2,000 troops in Kabul as part of its contribution to the International Security Assistance Force, but that operation will wind down after the Afghan National Assembly and Provincial Council elections in September. The assets at Canada's Camp Julien in Kabul will then be moved to the much more volatile region of Kandahar in preparation for the February 2006 deployment of a 250-strong brigade headquarters and an army task force of about 1,000 soldiers.

http://bbs.defence.co.kr/html/bbs/data/landarms4/ufh-P.JPG

[pAt]

ive herd there tryin to get these before they head out to A-stan next year...

[Kamakazi]

Oh man those look awesome.

[Sidka]

ive herd there tryin to get these before they head out to A-stan next year...
Dunno buddy I read that on this website
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw050831_1_n.shtml


31 August 2005 <----

[attackong]

Simply Beautiful!

[Sidka]

A little question about CF i have see somewhere canada Leopard will be replaced by three vehicles armed with a powerful mix of guns and missiles.

anyone know about that?

[pAt]

ive herd there tryin to get these before they head out to A-stan next year...
Dunno buddy I read that on this website
http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw050831_1_n.shtml


31 August 2005 <----

well thats what i've herd from people in 1RCHA!!

[Sidka]

hehe im quiet then :P

[John Rambo 1]

A little question about CF i have see somewhere canada Leopard will be replaced by three vehicles armed with a powerful mix of guns and missiles.

anyone know about that?



you mean the MGS?


http://www.********************/Amerique_du_nord/Etats_Unis/vehicules_a_roues/Stryker/Stryker_MGS/Stryker_MGS_Mbile_Gun_System_USA_08.jpg

[Sidka]

yea and this one to i think

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mmev-4.jpg

it is better then a leopard?

[sucker4gurls]

A little question about CF i have see somewhere canada Leopard will be replaced by three vehicles armed with a powerful mix of guns and missiles.

anyone know about that?



you mean the MGS?


http://www.********************/Amerique_du_nord/Etats_Unis/vehicules_a_roues/Stryker/Stryker_MGS/Stryker_MGS_Mbile_Gun_System_USA_08.jpg
Thats a good system, light, fast, maneuverable. I think they should put some sort of reactive armor on it though. I want one, $2 Million though....

[sucker4gurls]

yea and this one to i think

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mmev-4.jpg

it is better then a leopard?
I dont think they would replace the Leopard with a LAV. Those are two differnt types of vehicles, each with its own drawbacks.

Sure the MMEV might be fast and powerful, but it could be overtaken by tanks much easier IMO. Unless the Canadian Armeé is having financial problems, I don't think they would replace it....

[Bombtrack]

yea and this one to i think

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mmev-4.jpg

it is better then a leopard?

theres been lots of talk on this website (and army.ca) about the MGS and the "MMEV", use the search function and you can read til your eyes bleed

[Denat]

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/ad907842dc6465f78525707b0030a73b/$FILE/050906-M-8422K-007.jpg

M777 155 mm lightweight howitzer - is that one used by the USMC?

[seruriermarshal]

http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/image1.nsf/ae82f18a8e1b160b852568ba007e7e5e/ad907842dc6465f78525707b0030a73b/$FILE/050906-M-8422K-007.jpg

M777 155 mm lightweight howitzer - is that one used by the USMC?

Yes , USMC and Army have used M777 .

[memphiz]

yea and this one to i think

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mmev-4.jpg

it is better then a leopard?
I dont think they would replace the Leopard with a LAV. Those are two differnt types of vehicles, each with its own drawbacks.

Sure the MMEV might be fast and powerful, but it could be overtaken by tanks much easier IMO. Unless the Canadian Armeé is having financial problems, I don't think they would replace it....
We have no way of moving the leopards overseas at the moment, so they're really just used around Canada


Resevoir Hogs knows more about the system them me though

[meni0n]

The only regiment that got the Leos right now are the LdSH. Everyone else is armoured recce using the Coyote. They do have a new unit up in Edmonton where they have Infantry, Armoured and AD Arty integrated into 1 unit. I think there was talking about mounting TOWs and ADATS on LAV/Stryker chasis.

[hammerlock]

"We have no way of moving the leopards overseas at the moment, so they're really just used around Canada "

And they can really move the MSG in one old herc's they. Canada has no heavy lift so any system platform is going to be moved by someone else's airforce. The Money they are spending these over priced 105's ( they sure don't cost 2 million each their spending 600 million for 66 so you do the math) could be spent to buy new planes that could in fact move the leo's. The have updated armour and FSC and more than a match any 3rd world tank. Unlike the MSG, but tank are evil in the Liberal party.. and so they most go.

[thatguy96]

I still say Canada always has the luxury in this day and age of trying to create a force that is better equiped for peace-keeping/low intensity scenarios, which require rapidly deployable weapon systems, of which Piranha/LAV-III/Stryker extended family is a good example. When was the last time Canada engaged in a conflict by itself? When was the last time Canada got into a traditional conventional land battle or even a traditional conflict? Not since Korea to my thinking. Canada has the luxury of being able to experiment with these systems and doctrines, and I think it should, because it provides people like the US Army with a good source of information and we can keep our huge armored formations for when we might need them. I simply do not see Canada getting into a conflict where it is an absolute nessecity that they be able to deploy a heavy armored force.

[Ballistic]

Why would'nt they be going for a mobile arty system ?

[memphiz]

"We have no way of moving the leopards overseas at the moment, so they're really just used around Canada "

And they can really move the MSG in one old herc's they. Canada has no heavy lift so any system platform is going to be moved by someone else's airforce. The Money they are spending these over priced 105's ( they sure don't cost 2 million each their spending 600 million for 66 so you do the math) could be spent to buy new planes that could in fact move the leo's. The have updated armour and FSC and more than a match any 3rd world tank. Unlike the MSG, but tank are evil in the Liberal party.. and so they most go.
Well I know our hercs cant move ****, ,I dont think they can even move the LAVs with them (or can they??).but they still get overseas unlike the Leo's

But last year the US offered to lease Canada a fleet of the new C-130, but....we turned it down

[EvanL]

i still say we should go for the c3PO's and the R2D2s

[hammerlock]

"Well I know our hercs cant move ****, ,I dont think they can even move the LAVs with them (or can they??).but they still get overseas unlike the Leo's "

Is that a question of need or political will? In my opinion its political will, you just won't see the Liberal party supporting the use of Leo's no matter how useful they might be. It doesn't cost any more to a move a leo than a LAV, yes maintance costs are higher, but so is the level of protection and fire power. Of the Liberals want a peacekeeping army not a Peace enforcing army.. and yes there a difference.

Canada;s need for tanks is no greater than that of Austrulia, yet they are buying M-1's. The reason political will, there's not blinded by the 60's peace moment. There are many carolin parish's in the Liberal party if I remeber correctly she was actually in the defence commitee back in jean's day. Their need tanks in ops is no more important that any Canadian op ( apart from iraq).. yet they will most likely use their's move.

Does Canada need something like the MGS, not really. The Leo will can fill that role beter an do more. Wil Canada get anything better than the MSG, no their no will and as long as canada is run by the Liberal party.. it won't happen. After the Leo's the next on their list is are CF-18's.

[memphiz]

****! good point

They've already started to reduce the CF-18s strength, when they started "refurbishing" them they're only planning on doing 3/4 of them I believe

[Field_Gunner]

the MGS is crap, a lav 3 can fit in a herc, and on the M777 if we do take some over to A-stan than we will be the only country using that gun in operation, and for heavy lift russias antinov is cheaper than a C-5 and can carry more kit in it.

[thatguy96]

"Well I know our hercs cant move ****, ,I dont think they can even move the LAVs with them (or can they??).but they still get overseas unlike the Leo's "

Is that a question of need or political will? In my opinion its political will, you just won't see the Liberal party supporting the use of Leo's no matter how useful they might be. It doesn't cost any more to a move a leo than a LAV, yes maintance costs are higher, but so is the level of protection and fire power. Of the Liberals want a peacekeeping army not a Peace enforcing army.. and yes there a difference.
I still say that you'll find few currently engaged military forces who rely on main battle tanks in urban and similar low intensity situations, because while a tank provides an increased level of protection, its increase in firepower is not practical against individual militants (which is why the development of canister rounds comes and goes). Israel is about the only country who consistantly uses MBTs in these scenarios, and has developed a vehicle specifically tailored to their needs, along with a plethora of other vehicles specifically designed for urban situations.

A tank remains a bullet magnet, hard to maneauver through urban areas, and quickly restricted by things like terrain and its own weight. While you may be right about the political will, the a shift in doctrine away from armor heavy forces in a country that has seen no need for them in half a century is not nessecarily a bad thing.

Even in the United States you can see that the logistical issue is far greater than most people want to admit, and coupled with restrictions through operational doctrine, can be quite debilitating. During the first Gulf War, the 82nd Airborne was deployed as a "speed bump" of sorts against an Iraqi counter-attack that never materialized, because the armored forces were still being built up to a point where they could be operated in Saudi Arabia. The United States Army works in such a way that without a huge logistical base, you cannot operate the vehicles, on the theory that if there are massive breakdowns, and you cannot repair them, it is far worse than not being able to deploy the force in a timely manner. What this really means is that we can get M1s and M2/M3s anywhere in the world in 24 hours, but often it can take up to 6 months before you can conduct combat operations on any scale with these vehicles.

To say that Canada has as much need for tanks as Australia is inaccurate in my mind, seeing as Canada's rugged expanses do not face possibly hostile countries, nor, in fact, do they face any countries. Unless Canada expects to be fighting the United States, I think the Australian situation with a far more recent historial concern about being invaded, and with a quasi-neighbor such as Indonesia provide far better reasons mentally for Australians to support various military decisions.