M77 155 howitzer

[RHClarke]

Originally posted by sapper740
Sounds like another case of the prescient gurus at the D.N.D. gazing into their crystal ball to divine the future battlefield ... incorrectly again, as usual! They tell us that there is no need ... The greatest tragedy perpetrated on we Canadians by the D.N.D.? Leaving all our CMP's where they were parked instead of returning them to Canada!

CHIMO!

Well, since I work with the "gurus" at DND, I'll add my 2 cents worth...

First principle - the government outlines its policy and gives direction to DND - not the other way around, although DND has some input into the process.

Second principle - today's battlefield is everchanging.

Third principle - funding is limited.

Fourth principle - the approval process starts with the military but ends with Treasury Board approval and a ministeral signture.

With that in mind, let's talk about major procurement constraints:

- define the requirement in line with the principles.
- deliver before the battlefield changes or deliver a product that can respond to all changes.

Sounds easy, eh?

Not quite. Look at ADATS for an example - in the 80s there was a desparate need for defence from soviet air attack - Blowpipe and Boffin just were not capable of defending our airfields and formations. ADATS was procured, but never fired a missile in anger (although it remains as one of the best multi-purpose missile platforms in the world). Ronny Regan spent the Soviets into the poorhouse, and the great bear was reduced to riding a tricycle in a circus. The USAF achieved air supremacy and still maintains it. ADATS then spent a lot of time conducting domestic type support operations and more emphasis on anti-armour engagements.

Fast forward to September 11 - which shaped the battlefield of the day. Enter the "snakes". Policy changed and the army started its transformation - for the better in my mind. We now have more flexibility, mobility and precision. All that is missing is the additional 25,000 trained soldiers and equipment to keep sustained pressure on those who wish us harm.


Now - a comparison of the Caesar to the triple 7:


- Detachment size - Caesar - 3 - Triple 7 7-10 depending

- Protection - Caesar - armoured cab - Triple 7 - helmets and vests

- Air portable (CC130) - Triple 7 (gun/tractor/detachment/ammo)yes - Caesar no (we have no heavy air lift beyond the Herc)

- Air transportable by helicopter - Triple 7 yes, Caesar no

- Supply chain supportable - Triple 7 yes, Caesar no

- Precision - single shot with 20 m CEP - Triple 7 yes - Caesar - no

- Limited collateral damage - Triple 7 - reduced - Caesar 300 m CEP and 1000 m safety circle

- Cost - Triple 7 - expensive - Caesar - Outrageous!

- Reliability - Triple 7 - so far so good - some minor issues - Caesar - produced by the same company that sold us the light 105 - which continues to provide technical challenges...

- Applicable to the snakes - Triple 7 yes - precision, range, reduced collateral damage and transportability. Caesar - limited off-road capability, lack of precision and lack of air mobility in theatre.

Caesar is a cold war weapon platform designed to deliver weight of fire. It could be upgraded to fire Excaliber or other precision ammo, but who will pay for the R&D to do this?

The M777 was a military off the shelf item that met most of our requirements at the army level and all requirements at the political level. It was a prime example of what can be done on short notice by our procurement process. I personally think that the gurus got this one right. What does your crystal ball say?

Now, if you want an operator's opinion on the gun, there are plenty of gunners in 1, 2 RCHA and the Fd Arty School with time on the gun.