The Future of Fires
How the Canadian Army plans to modernize it's Fires capabilities.
Indirect and Precision Fires...
It's two words that almost anyone in the defense community has heard thrown around the last several years, pushed even further to the front by the Russo-Ukrainian war, and the extensive use of not just conventional systems, such as Howitzers and Multi-launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) but also to the extensive use of autonomous systems, both in terms of Loitering Munitions and armed UAS.
Indeed, Canada is going through probably it’s biggest shift in Fires perhaps in its history, with several major projects currently in the works to help revive an RCA that has been struggling to remain relevant in a world that didnt see their worth.
So, let's take a look at what exactly we're dealing with here, because things get fairly extensive pretty quickly.
First, What are Indirect and Precision Fires?
Systems that deliver ordinance to a target outside of the shooter's direct line of sight are referred to as indirect fires. With this kind of fire, the trajectory of the projectile, such as artillery shells or mortars, are adjusted using calculations and corrections from forward observers, target acquisition systems, or advanced radar and satellites.
Historically, indirect fires have been a cornerstone of military operations, providing a means to attack deep targets, engage enemy positions behind cover, and shape the battlefield over a large area.
In contemporary military doctrine, indirect fires have been greatly enhanced by advanced technologies, such as satellite guidance and modern fire control systems. For instance, the U.S. Army’s M777 howitzer, used in conjunction with precision-guided munitions like the Excalibur round, allows for accurate, long-range artillery fire.
This is where we get Precision fires, which are designed to deliver highly accurate and focused attacks on specific targets, often using guided munitions to minimize collateral damage and increase the likelihood of a successful strike. These fires are characterized by their reliance on advanced targeting systems such as laser designators, GPS, and satellite guidance to ensure that munitions hit their intended mark. Precision fires play a critical role in modern military operations, particularly in environments where avoiding civilian casualties or striking high value targets is a priority.
The Royal Canadian Artillery
For the Royal Canadian Artillery, the future of fires in one characterized by the light at the end of the tunnel. Projects such as the Indirect Fires Modernization (IFM), Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) and Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD) are constantly ranked high in terms of priority and importance for the continued Modernization of the army.
To take a quote from the RCAs Modernization strategy,
"While we have so very much to be proud of, substantially daunting tasks lie ahead to ensure that the artillery possesses the mobility, lethality, and survivability to deliver guaranteed battle-winning effects against a peer adversary. We are facing in a strategic environment whereby defence is challenged by national healthcare, housing and debt demands, our department is being looked at as a significant contributor to required budget cuts, the CAF is severely under-staffed for its institutional and operational tasks, and the Canadian procurement process slows modernization efforts.
We simply need to acknowledge these realities, focus on priorities, and keep our eye on the prize – with the prize being the most recapitalized Corps in the Canadian Army over the next decade or so. Re-focusing on the positive, the RCA’s future is very promising – we are in high demand, our credibility as a Corps is very high, and it truly is a hugely exciting time to be a Gunner."
The message is clear. While things might be challenging now, the future is poised to be transformative. Indeed, the RCA has several major projects in the pipeline that we will be going over here, along with some other goodies that are lurking just out of view
There is a lot that can be said about the last twenty years for the RCA. The war in Afghanistan and the larger Global War on Terror had profoundly shaped the doctrine, equipment, and strategic outlook of the Canadian Army.
This new conflict, which saw the most significant deployment of Canadian troops since the Korean War, saw the Army adapting to a new kind of warfare that emphasized counterinsurgency, joint operations, and rapid, mobile engagements over traditional state-on-state conflict.
There was no one spared from this shift, least of all the RCA…
The M109, which had been a cornerstone of Canadian artillery since its acquisition in the 1960s, was fully phased out in 2005, a combination of budget cuts, cost and the shifting winds brought on by Afghanistan, who's terrain and nature of the conflict demanded greater mobility and precision, something the M109 could not adequately provide.
While a few M109 would hold out in an attempt to move them to long-term storage, the A4 variant was long past its time and upgradability, along with the introduction of the M777 put any attempts to store the remaining M109 to a full stop.
Similarly, the Javelin MANPAD was deemed less critical in an environment where coalition forces had air superiority and the primary threats were from ground-based insurgents and was retired without a proper replacement until this year, when the Government of Canada announced the purchase of the RBS-70NG MANPAD to support EFP Latvia.
Lastly we have ADATS, the last of Canada's Air Defence systems lasted until 2012, when it was retired without replacement after the failure of the Multi-Mission Effect Vehicle.
This is a common theme across the service, legacy equipment retired without replacement, or inadequate replaced by something designed for a different role all together.
As it stands Canada has three seperate artillery systems we will take note of here, starting with
The C3
The C3 105mm howitzer, a modernized version of the American M101, hasbeen a cornerstone of the Canadian Army’s artillery capabilities for decades, particularly within the Army Reserve (ARes).
The origins of the C3 date back to the early 1950s, with the acquisition of the M2A1 howitzers. The M2A1, for those who don't know, is the original name for the M101 series of howitzers, which underwent a reclassification during the 1960s.
The original M2A1 can be split into two groupings, the C1 and C2 respectively. The original C2 howitzers were introduced to the RCA in 1952 to replace the QF 25-pounder.
The C1 howitzer, in turn, is almost identical to the C2, though was itself produced at Sorel Industries in Quebec. Sorel would produce 180 C1 under license starting in 1953.
C2s denote the original 36 M2A1 acquired from the United States. These 36 howitzers would later be modernized by Sorel in the 1960s to C1 standard.
The C3 came about in the 1990s as part of a broader modernization of the M101 platform. A total of 96 C1 were converted by RDM Manufacturing of Rotterdam.This included a number of modifications such as a longer 33-calibre barrel barrel and an upgraded sighting system, which increased its range (up to 18km) and accuracy compared to its predecessor.
The C3 fleet has faced significant challenges in recent years. The aging system, while modernized, is still a 50s era design and has been obsolete for a number of decades. These issues are exacerbated by the difficulty in sourcing replacement parts due to intellectual property complications.
The C3 remains active within the Canadian Army Reserve, though its future is uncertain. The ongoing challenges with maintenance and parts supply means that aquiring a new system that can meet the demands of modern conflict is now a necessity.
While the C3 has served admirably, its time is clearly drawing to a close as the military looks to the future of its artillery capabilities.
The LG1 MK.II
The LG1 howitzer was developed privately for the export market by GIAT Industries (formerly Nexter Systems, recently rebranded as KNDS France) in the late 1980s as a lightweight, highly mobile artillery system.
The impetus for its development arose from the demand for an artillery piece that could be easily transported and deployed in various operational environments, particularly by airborne or light infantry units that required both mobility and firepower.
The howitzer’s design includes a 30-caliber long barrel, capable of firing a range of ammunition types up to 17 kilometers. Its lightweight construction (approximately 1,500 kg) allows it to be towed by light vehicles or airlifted by helicopters. The LG1 has undergone several iterations, with the Mark II and Mark III variants incorporating advanced digital fire control systems and improved recoil mechanisms to enhance accuracy and ease of use.
Since its introduction, the LG1 has seen service with several armed forces, including those of Canada, Singapore, and Indonesia.
Canada purchased 28 units of the LG1 MK.II variant. Giat supplied the first howitzers in 1996 and fielding was complete by November 1997. The LG1 would get its first taste of combat in Bosnia as part of Canada's contribution to SFOR.
The LG1 weren't without issues though. Their lightweight construction, while effective at reducing weight, made the barrels of the LG1 prone to cracking, along with a relatively short barrel life of only around 1,500 EFCs.
These issues came to ahead in 2005, when reports surfaced that Out of 28 guns only 10 were found to not be cracked.
Major Bruno Di Ilio, of the army's directorate of land requirements spoke on the cause of the issue in a 2005 piece in the National Post,
"They came out and took a look at it and determined that it was a problem in the manufacturing process:"
The LG1 Mark II howitzers were upgraded by DEPRO (GVB) Incorporated in 2005 to improve their operational reliability and extend their service life.
These upgrades included enhancements to the digital fire control systems, which have been crucial in maintaining the howitzer's relevance in modern warfare.
Despite the relatively small number of LG1 howitzers in service, they remain an essential component of Canada’s artillery capabilities, primarily in the reserves, along with the C3.
While one could argue they were briefly the mainstay of the RCA (For all sixteen minutes) they were quickly replaced in that role by…
The M777
I love the M777. I want to get that out of the way.
After the retirement of the M109 in 2005 the RCA was left with only the 82mm Mortar and 105mm LG1 and C3 howitzers in its inventory.
Doctrine at the time, centered on peacekeeping and counterinsurgency operations deemed this suitable enough for the conflicts at hand.
This line of thinking lasted exactly fourteen minutes as Canadian forces became more deeply involved in Afghanistan. It quickly became apparent that existing artillery systems were not sufficient for the challenging terrain and the nature of the insurgency they were facing.
A Urgent Operational Requirement was launched in 2005 to fill the need for a lightweight, rapidly deployable artillery system that could provide precise, long-range fire support in the complex and rugged terrain of southern Afghanistan.
That howitzer would end up being the M777, a towed 155mm howitzer designed by BAE systems.
Coming in at only 4,200 kilograms (about 9,300 pounds), it's significantly lighter than previous generations of 155mm howitzers, such as the M198, enabling it to be airlifted by helicopters like the CH-47 Chinook, or transported by smaller vehicles.
Combined this with its ability to fire GPS-guided Excalibur rounds, providing accuracy at ranges exceeding 40 kilometers that was crucial in minimizing collateral damage and effectively engaging precise targets.
At peak performance, the M777 can fire five rounds per minute for short bursts, and two rounds per minute in sustained fire missions. The M777’s ability to elevate between -43 mils to +1275 mils and traverse 400 mils left and right gives it a wide engagement envelope, making it suitable for both direct and indirect fire roles.
Initially, six howitzers were loaned to Canada by the United States Marine Corps to meet the immediate operational needs. They would find their first use in Afghanistan during the Battle of Panjwai.
Following the success of the initial deployment, Canada ordered additional M777, bringing the total number of guns in Canadian service to 37 by 2011.
In April, 2022 Canada announced the donation of four of these howitzers to support the Armed Forces of Ukraine in their defence against the Russian invasion. This brings the total number of M777 in service to thirty-three.
These pieces have been promised a replacement, though that might be tricky. Production of the M777 was halted in 2023, with thr last deliveries made to the United States.
There has been work to restart barrel production, including a $40 million investment back in January. This thiugh is still a long way from a full restart, and as such a one-for-one replacement with more M777 is currently impossible.
Building for the future
I am often the first to say that the Canadian Armed Forces are going through perhaps their biggest Modernization in history.
Indeed, there are over 64 capital projects in the works, with mote on the way, ranging from Arctic vehicles, to boots and submarines.
I won't be the one to hammer in the dire state of the RCA. The M777, while a fine platform are small in numbers and without a production line to replace those sent out.
The C3 and LG1 are scarce in parts and difficult to maintain. Pieces can go months waiting to be repaired, with no sign that these issues are going to be able to be fixed any time soon, if ever in regards to the C3.
It's a time of rebuilding, of evolving, and the RCA is no different. I would say it's them who perhaps has one of the biggest transformations coming, both in enhancing their capabilities and adding new ones.
This will be less analytical than usual. I want to focus on the projects themselves and less on my own rantings. As such, it's best we get the ranting out the way quick.
Ground-Based Air Defence (GBAD)
I've spoken on GBAD already, in fact, it's the one who got its own separate piece! It's the only one that's actually funded and has released it's qualified suppliers, so that helps a lot.
Obviously, I won't repeat myself here, so for a refresher, the GBAD project will deliver two batteries of Air Defence which will be integrated into the 4th Artillery Regiment.
This will include both a VSHORAD and SHORAD requirement with focus on Rockets, Artillery and Mortar, Air to Surface Missiles and Bombs, and Class 1 & 2 Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS).
The project is set to be awarded next year and includes four qualified suppliers:
Raytheon
SAAB
The team of Lockheed and Diehl
MBDA
Again, you can find my deeper analysis over at my piece on the project, where I go into far more detail on the project and competitors.
Of course, while here, I will say that my dream would be a mix of RBS-70NG, Skyhunter and NASAMS. Add in a RIwP Turret or Skyranger 30 based VSHORAD/CUAS system amd I will never complain again.
We can do it. It's not that hard. Please.
Joint Fires Modernization
The Joint Fires Modernization (JFM) project focuses on digitizing the Joint Fires process, allowing for real-time sharing of a common operating picture. This will integrate tactical, operational, and strategic fires data across the Army, Navy, and Air Force, as well as coalition partners.
At its core, the CJFM aims to improve the CAF’s ability to conduct joint fires operations in a multi-domain operational environment. This includes land, air, sea, cyber, and space domains.
The initiative involves upgrading existing systems and incorporating new technologies that facilitate real-time data sharing and decision-making across all levels of command.
We can break down JFM into three seperate categories:
C2 Systems
Tactical Equipment
Training Systems
I am not a digital guy sadly, so I feel highly underqualified to speak on the highly technical aspects of JFM. So I shall keep it simple, so as to not accidently mess up and invoke the wrath of thr faced Alex Rudolph, whom will not let me live it down (I love you Alex please spare me)
JFM needs to provide a scalable, modular, network able digitally transmit and receive data regardless of the location, extreme environmental conditions, and in adverse cyber/GPS environments.
The project will also tie in with similarly scoped projects, such as the Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization (SOCEM) that aims to acquire new tactical equipment, such as laser rangefinders, night vision systems, and designators, among many others things I will one day talk about.
Along with this, JFM will play a big role in the CAFs wider Pan-Domain Command and Control (PDC2) system.
The Pan-Domain Command and Control (PDC2) system is a comprehensive framework being developed by the CAF to unify command and control capabilities across all operational domains. This initiative is a central component of the CAF's broader digital transformation strategy.
PDC2 is heavily inspired by the United States' Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) concept, which seeks to enable seamless coordination and information sharing across multiple domains.
Similarly, PDC2 strives to establish a cloud-based, AI-driven network that ensures rapid decision-making and action across all military operations. It will provide the CAF with a significant decision-making advantage, leveraging AI, machine learning (ML), and data analytics to process and analyze vast amounts of information swiftly and accurately.
I don't talk about digital projects enough, mostly because they confuse me at times, but it's hard to understate just how important projects like PDC2 are. They're transformative, if that word is still allowed for how much it's overused.
Joint Fires isn't a flashy project, but it's a major one, one that will make sure all the other projects work to their full potential.
Indirect Fires Modernization/Howitzer UOR
I'm combining these two into one category as both, at least in principle, are aiming to achieve the same target in some ways. As such it is much easier to put them together than have them seperate.
The Indirect Fires Modernization (IFM) aims to acquire a new range of mobile, 24/7, all weather indirect fire systems to replace/supplement the current howitzers in use by both the Regular and Reserve forces.
The project is currently unfunded though estimated price tags put it at between $1-5 Billion depending on who you ask.
There are two options that are currently in discussion for the project:
Acquiring a 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer
Acquiring a mix of Self-Propelled Howitzers and 120mm Mortar Systems.
As far as I know a final choice has yet to be revealed, although fans of the 105 are in for disappointment as it seems like any attempt to procure a new system is off the table (There wasn't many options anyways)
The project is expected to release an RFI in the fall, where we will get a more clear picture on what exactly is wanted. For now though we can take a look at the various 155mm systems on the market.
As for the Howitzer UOR, this is a seperate project, also unfunded, currently being pursued as an Urgent Operational Requirement for EFP Latvia.
The Howitzer UOR aims to acquire up to a battalions worth of Self-Propelled Howitzers. The project would acquire up to 20 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzers along with resupply equipment, 155mm ammunition, etc.
This is along a similar requirement to the larger Indirect Fires Modernization, although UOR come with added financial and production requirements that are often the deciding factor in these situations.
Moving back to potential options there exists quite a few that we will briefly go over starting with…
The M109A7
The M109A7, is the latest in the U.S. Army's long-serving M109. Developed by BAE Systems, this variant, also known as the Paladin, features substantial upgrades over its predecessors, particularly the M109A6.
While retaining the same M284 155mm cannon, the M109A7 shares a chassis with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, enhancing logistical efficiency and reducing operational costs.
The M109A7 is powered by a Cummins 675hp diesel engine and features a new transmission, suspension, and improved electrical system, which is designed to support future upgrades, including advanced fire control systems and new communication technologies.
The M109 is legendary, having previously served in the RCA until 2005. While often less talked about than newer systems like the K9, the M109 remains the poster child for western SPH and continues service despite a half a million different programs to replace it (RIP Crusader & ERCA)
The K9
If the M109 is the classic, then the K9 is the new kid on the block. The last decade has been quite favorable to Hanwha Defense whom have been able to make the K9 the new face of Western artillery.
Powered by a 1,000hp Ka-500 diesel engine, The K9 Thunder is equipped with a 155mm gun that can fire up to six rounds per minute, with a maximum range of 40 kilometers using base bleed ammunition.
One of the standout features of the K9 Thunder is its high degree of automation. The system is equipped with an advanced Fire Control System that significantly reduces the crew's workload and improves response times.
The FCS includes an advanced onboard ballistic computer and GPS, allowing the K9 to conduct accurate, rapid-fire missions with minimal manual input.
Future developments, such as the K9A2, plan to introduce further automation, including a fully automated ammunition handling system, which will allow for an even higher rate of fire and reduced crew size.
The K9 has found massive success on the global market, perhaps the thing that stands out most about it. The K9 has been adopted by several countries, including Turkey (T-155 Fırtına), Poland (AHS Krab), India (K9 Vajra-T), Norway, Finland, Australia, and Estonia.
The K9 club, as it's called, also shares in training and cooperation, created a globalnetwork of supply and support. They recently met infact, and Canada has attended the annual club meetings as an observer in 2023
It's hard to ignore the K9, in fact many seem to downright peg it for this, helped by Hanwhas aggresive approach to marketing. The K9 is by far the most popular SPH I the western world, and only poised to grow larger from here.
CAESER
The CAESAR (CAmion Équipé d'un Système d'ARtillerie) is a self-propelled howitzer system developed by KNDS France.
It's development in the early 2000s was driven by the need for a highly mobile artillery platform that could be rapidly deployed and used in a variety of conflict scenarios, from conventional warfare to counter-insurgency operations.
The CAESAR is mounted on a 6x6 or 8x8 wheeled chassis, making it significantly lighter and more mobile than traditional tracked self-propelled guns. This mobility allows the CAESAR to deploy, fire, and relocate quickly, minimizing exposure to counter-battery fire.
The system is highly automated, featuring a fully integrated fire control system that allows for rapid targeting and firing. The CAESAR can be deployed in under 60 seconds and can fire six rounds per minute. It is ompatible with a variety of NATO standard ammunition, including Excalibur amd BONUS shells.
CAESER has seen extensive use in Ukraine, where it has been popular enough to warrant additional orders for more systems. It has also found export success in countries such as Lithuania, Estonia, and Belgium, even if not to the same degree as the K9 or M109.
To me, CAESER is probably the most proven Wheeled SPH in the world, and an excellent alternative to the traditional tracked platforms that are most commonly seen.
CAESER has found its niche, carved out from the traditional tracked platforms. If we don't want tracked then we'll want to look at CAESER first.
Panzerhaubitze 2000/Artillery Gun Module (AGM)
Once again I'm combining two options here, for good reason. The Artillery Gun Module is based off of the Panzerhaubitze (PzH) 2000. It only makes sense to discuss both of them here.
The PzH 2000 and the Artillery Gun Module were both developed by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW), now KNDS Deutschland. KNDS comes up in a lot of these but don't worry, I promise they're different.
While the PzH 2000 serves as a traditional self-propelled howitzer (SPH), the AGM is a modular artillery system that can be integrated into a variety of platforms, primarily on both 6x6/8x8 trucks and the more famous RCH-155, based on the Boxer chassis.
The PzH2000 was developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The system was designed to replace the aging M109 howitzers in the Bundeswehr (German Army) and to provide superior firepower and mobility on the battlefield.
The PzH 2000 is equipped with a 155mm L52 gun, capable of firing a variety of NATO-standard munitions, including precision-guided munitions such as Excalibur and BONUS.
The system's advanced automatic loading mechanism allows it to fire up to 10 rounds per minute, with the ability to conduct Multiple Rounds Simultaneous Impact (MRSI) missions, where multiple shells are fired at different trajectories to strike a target simultaneously.
The howitzer is mounted on a tracked chassis and is powered by an MTU 881 Ka-500 diesel engine.
Alternately, AGM is a modular artillery system developed as a more flexible and adaptable solution compared to traditional self-propelled howitzers like the PzH 2000.
The AGM was designed to offer the same firepower and precision as the PzH 2000 but with a lighter and more modular design that could be easily integrated into different platforms.
The AGM shares the same 155mm L52 gun as the PzH 2000, however, the AGM is designed to be a self-contained unit, with its own automated loading system, fire control system, and power supply. This modularity allows the AGM to be mounted on a variety of platforms, making it a versatile solution for different military needs.
The PzH 2000 and the AGM are closely related in terms of their technological heritage and operational philosophy, however, the two systems represent different approaches to modern artillery warfare.
The PzH 2000 is a traditional self-propelled howitzer, offering high mobility and protection, making it ideal for use in conventional warfare scenarios where sustained firepower and mobility are crucial. The system has seen extensive service with several NATO countries, including Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and Greece.
The AGM, on the other hand, represents a more flexible approach, allowing the same firepower to be deployed in a variety of configurations. This modularity makes the AGM particularly attractive to smaller militaries or those seeking to modernize their artillery capabilities without committing to a large, heavy self-propelled system like the PzH 2000.
Both systems are excellent, and both would fulfill the requirements laid out by the IFM. Yet a part of me, even if just the excitable part, can't help but take a great interest in AGM.
Maybe I just really want to see one on a LAV 6. Maybe it's the automation, or the selling point on being easily adaptable to multiple different platforms, allowing for a variety of options in hoe to integrate the system into the wider CAF.
Granted, the AGM is new, untested. We will only get to truly see it in the next year as it enters limited service, yet already Germany and the United Kingsom have signed on to the concept, while Ukraine is set to relieve their first systems by the end of the year.
Time will tell if AGM holds to the massive hype it has created for itself. I sure hope it does.
Archer
ThebArcher artillery system, officially known as the Archer Artillery System or FH77BW L52, is a wheeled self-propelled howitzer developed by BAE Systems Bofors. It was introduced to provide rapid, mobile, and precise artillery support. Originally mounted on a modified Volvo A30 6x6 articulated vehicle, the Archer features a 155mm L52 gun with a range of up to 50 kilometers when using precision-guided munitions.
Its fully automated loading and firing system allows a crew of just three to operate the entire system, enabling high rates of fire—up to 8 rounds per minute—with minimal human intervention.
One of the Archer's most notable capabilities is its rapid deployment and redeployment. It can fire its first shot within 30 seconds of halting and relocate within 30 seconds after firing, making it a highly elusive platform that can avoid counter-battery fire.
The Archer's fire control system is networked, providing integrated battlefield management and coordination with other artillery units or command centers. The system can fire a variety of munitions, including the precision-guided Excaliburrounds.
If Caeser represents a reasonable, flexible wheeled option, Archer represents the advanced end, arguable the most advanced wheeled system on the market right now.
While pricier, there is a notable difference between the two in that catagory. Archer is meant to be highly automated, with minimal crew and as autonomous as possible. I would argue it's the one system that could match the K9 in that regard.
I have chosen to ignore a few different systems here, for good reason though. I did not wish to go after everything, and instead wanted to limit to the systems I believe had the best chances of pulling through.
Yes thwre is ATMOS and Zuzana. All of these, as we know, could fulfill the requirements laid out. I do not see then pulling through though. The chances these systems pull through over the four above are fueled by thoughts and prayers.
Commonality and interoperability are always key with projects like this, as well as sustainment. Systems like Atmos, while good, do not provide those benefits on the same scale as something such as the K9.
So while I may like them, they sadly have to go and while I'm on this topic, I don't think I have a call on this.
Obviously any of these would be a step up, and any one would be a fit. Until we have the proper requirements laid out its going to be hard to come to a precise winner.
I love the K9 for the large user base and advanced systems. I love the modularity and automation of the AGM. The CAESER is still the most proven wheeled option of the bunch, compared to the still not in service AGM, while I'd argue in the wheeled caatagory, ARCHER remains the most advanced.
High automation and low crew count will be big in my opinion. The future is in automating these kinds of processes, and in an army short thousands of people? The less people, the better.
So for now? this is a toss up for me, but the next project not so much.
Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF)
The Long-Range Precision Fires project is perhaps one of the most anticipated projects the CAF is currently undertaking, indeed, the project has often ranked highest in priority when it had come to army projects.
LRPF is a new capability, one that will transform how the RCA performs Precision Fires for decades to come.
The project aims to provide a highly responsive, all weather, 24/7, accurate, medium to long-range indirect fire against high payoff and time sensitive targets (TST) at ranges greater than 70 km.
The current project aims to acquire a battalion of 9-12 launchers, along with munitions, FCS/C4ISR systems, maintenance, training, and spare parts.
A small order, but still a massive capability that gets people really excited to talk about. The first RFI was released early last year, with another expected in the fall, like every other project in the CAF.
When speaking on this, unlike IFM, this competition to me feels very small and much simpler. Let's take a look at our two competitors that I think are in this.
HIMARS
The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a Multu-Launch Rocket System developed by Lockheed Martin for the United States military. Designed to enhance rapid response capabilities and precision strike options, the HIMARS has become a key asset for ground forces across the planet, from the United States to Australia to Ukraine.
The HIMARS is mounted on a 5-ton Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) truck chassis, which grants it a high degree of mobility This mobility is crucial for the system’s operational doctrine, allowing rapid repositioning to avoid counter-battery fire and to support dynamic battlefronts. The range of approximately 480 kilometers enable quick deployment and redeployment, making it a vital component of expeditionary warfare.
The HIMARS system is designed to carry one pod of either six Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rockets, one Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile, or a Precision Strike Missile (PrSM).
Future plans also call for the integration of the Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) amd 122mm Rockets to the platform.
HIMARS is equipped with the Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS), which enables seamless integration with other military assets and command and control networks. AFATDS allows for the real-time coordination of fire missions, ensuring that HIMARS can deliver precise and timely support to ground forces.
The launch system itself is highly automated, with a digital fire control system that enables rapid targeting and firing. The crew can engage targets within minutes of receiving a fire mission, and the ability to load and reload pods quickly ensures sustained fire capability. HIMARS can conduct shoot-and-scoot missions, where it fires on a target and relocates immediately to avoid detection and counterattack.
HIMARS is in use with a number of NATO/5E partners, including the United States, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and Australia.
To me, there is no better system for us than HIMARS. It fulfills our needs, is widely available, can be easily integrated with allies and has an extensive supply chain already developed.
The future induction of PRSM and LRASM will further enhance the already potent ability of HIMARS by providing an even deeper strike capability, along with a dedicated anti-ship munition that is likely to already enter service with us in the future.
But Noah. What about GMARS?
I debated adding GMAR onto here as a seperate catagory. While on one hand, GMARS is a seperate system, it's design and lineage is an advancement of the HIMARS platform.
GMARS, or the Global Mobile Artillery Rocket System, is a new long-range rocket system being developed by Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin.
It was designed to address the needs of the German market as a replacement for the MARS-II (M270) in Bundeswehr service.
This is done with the pairing of a Rheinmetall chassis, the HX 8×8, with Lockheed Martin’s launcher-loader, same as the HIMARS.
There are a difference though, not just in the chassis but in what's carried. GMARS has a two-pod system, compared to HIMARS single-pod configuration.
GMARS also advertises itself with munitions not commonly used by the HIMARS platform, such ad the use of 122mm Rockets, thoufh given they're the same launcher this is more a choice then a limitation.
And this is why it was hard for me to separate the two. While they might have different chassis, the two platforms have the same core system that matters here.
Do you want one pod or two? Are you alright with a heavier platform or do you want someone light and maneuverabile? Thats more the question here.
So I elect to lump them together for simplicity. No need to speak on the same launcher twice.
Yet, there is still another, a system that has slowly creeper more and more into view.
Chunmoo
The K239 Chunmoo, is a Multi-Launch Rocket System developed by South Korea's Hanwha Defense. It is designed to provide the Republic of Korea Army with a modern, precise, and multi-caliber artillery capability.
Its development began in the early 2010s as a response to North Korea's increasingly advanced artillery systems, and was first fielded in 2015.
The K239 Chunmoo MLRS is distinguished by its highly modular design, which allows it to fire various types of rockets and missiles. The system is mounted on an 8x8 K239L, providing mobility across a wide range of terrain types.
This modularity is central to the system’s flexibility, enabling the vehicle to carry different combinations of munitions depending on the operational requirements. The Chunmoo can be fitted with two pods of rockets, each capable of carrying different calibers of munitions. This allows the system to rapidly switch between mission profiles, from saturation bombardment to precision strikes.
Technically, the K239 Chunmoo can fire three main types of rockets: 130mm, 232mm, and 239mm. The 130mm rockets are relatively simple, unguided munitions with a range of up to 36 kilometers. The system can carry 40 of these rockets, allowing for a rapid and sustained barrage over a large area.
Up the ladder we have the 239mm guided rocket, which offers an extended range of up to 80 kilometers. These rockets are typically equipped with advanced guidance systems, such as INS and GPS, making them highly accurate and suitable for striking high-value targets deep within enemy territory.
Beyond the rockets are where things get really interesting. The Chunmoo can be integrated with a number of larger missiles for more precise, longer range strikes.
The KTSSM-I is designed for short-range precision strikes, effective against fortified targets such as enemy bunkers or hardened infrastructure. The KTSSM-II, on the other hand, extends the platform's capabilities with a range of approximately 290 kilometers.
In terms of fire control, the Chunmoo is equipped with a fully digital fire control system (FCS) that integrates real-time targeting data with GPS-based navigation systems. This FCS enables Chunmoo to conduct simultaneous multi-target engagement, minimizing response times and maximizing operational effectiveness.
Chunmoo, in my opinion represents a healthy, cheaper alternative to HIMARS. While relatively new to the market, Chunmoo has a lot of room to grow, backed by an impressive digital backbone that allows it to be highly modular and autonomous.
Chunmoo wouldn't be bad for Canada, although those expecting massive technology and production benefits from it (As people always get giddy over with Hanwha) should best remember the small amount we are looking to procure.
The small number of systems limits how much investment we are likely to see directly from a purchase like this. While I would love for a LRPF contract to include some sort of local munitions production, I just don't see it happening with such a small order.
Similarly, one might wonder about why I chose to ignore the PULS system here? While PULS has gained traction among certain countries, I don't see it viable beating out both Chumoo and HIMARS for this competition.
PULS/Lynx is a very capable system. It has found success in Denmark, Spain (where it is made under license), the Neatherlands, and Germany (as an Urgent purchase) among other countries.
Is it on it's way to becoming a NATO standard? Unlikely. We are likely to not see one at all, with a mix of rockets systems between the HIMARS/GMARS, Chunmoo (at a smaller scale), and PULS taking the forefront.
So why did I choose Chunmoo as the Second option over PULS? It is more widespread in NATO, cheaper than HIMARS, and, if Spain is any indication, is likely to offer local transfer of technology.
Chunmoo is also cheaper than HIMARS, if not reportedly cheaper than PULS. It offers a wider range of munitions that, to me on paper, offer for more than PULS.
It is by far a heavier platform, which might be discouraging compared to the lighter HIMARS and PULS, but that is for the future RFP to likely give more info on.
In terms of licensing, I have serious doubts that if asked the Korean team wouldn't deliver. They are historically quite open to local production and transfer, from Poland to Romania, Korean companies have been willing to go to great lengths to secure contracts.
That is another thing, relationships. Companies such as Hanwha have been heavily promoting their products to the CAF the last two years.
Between LRPF, PFM and the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) we have seen Korean companies aggressively pushing their products at almost any chance they get.
Local production, quick delivery, cheap, and robust ISS have been the tools that these companies have used to sell their products, helped by the fact they are genuinely good at what they do.
It, to me is going to make it hard for PULS to jump in there, especially as the Chunmoo aims to deliver itself on both wheeled and lighter chassis.
I think it will be hard for anyone to beat HIMARS. It is so close to the perfect fit, especially as several new munitions are planned to further add to the platform.
The only way I see Chunmoo pulling a win here is to either package it with the K9, or offer such benefits that would be unreasonable to suggest.
Remember that this is only for, at most, twelve launchers, hardly a massive amount. The key here should be interoperability with allies and sustainment, something the HIMARS beats out the others in handily, especially if we consider it along with the M270.
But the LRPF didn't just include Rocket artillery, no, hidden deep within the RFI was another type of system that many have come to familiarize themselves with.
Loitering Munitions
Loitering Munitions are definitely the new hot thing, for good reason. They're hard to ignore.
We watch footage everyday of Shaheed and Lancet drones circling in the skies above Ukraine. Some of us saw the extensive use of them before in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Dozens of new videos every day, although Loitering Munitions, Suicide Drones, Kamikaze drones, whatever you want to call them, have been around for decades.
What started with the Harpy in the 1980s has now evolved to a complex, highly prolific asset that nations are now scrambling to acquire, Canada included.
An Urgent Operational Requirement was put out last year in regards to Loitering Munitions. I don't have the numbers on me sadly, thoufh based off the LRPF RFI we can get an idea of what is wanted.
The project aims to acquire munitions with ranges exceeding 10 km and greater. It aims to provide a long-range precision strike capability beyond 40km range of the M777, as well as providing front line manoeuvre forces with a beyond line-of-sight solution to acquire targets and defeat threats on the battlefield.
There are literally dozens of different types of Loitering Munitions available out there, so much so that I feel ots best to focus on the two most common systems you may hear about. Keep in mind, again, I will be skipping over quite a few of them.
Switchblade
The Switchblade series are tactical loitering munition systems designed by AeroVironment. It can be broken down into two variants, the 300 and 600.
The Switchblade 300, a lightweight, portable system, is optimized for close-range engagements and is typically used by infantry squads. It features a small, tube-launched design with a wingspan of about 2.5 feet. The 300 variant is equipped with a high-explosive warhead, and its guidance system includes a GPS and inertial navigation, enabling it to deliver precise strikes against targets within a range of approximately 10 kilometers. The 300's rapid deployability and compact size make it suitable for dynamic, fast-paced operations.
In contrast, the Switchblade 600 is a larger and more advanced variant, designed for extended-range engagements. With a wingspan of over 5 feet, it can carry a larger warhead and has an operational range exceeding 40 kilometers. The 600 features an advanced guidance system incorporating GPS, inertial navigation, and real-time video feeds for target identification and precision. Its larger size allows for a more robust payload and enhanced endurance, making it suitable for engaging high-value targets and providing tactical reconnaissance in more extended operations.
The Switchblade is the most common Loitering Munition in western arsenals. They're low cost, minimal training to operate, and simplicity make them a well loved, easy to use system.
The Switchblade though has been having some competition come up on it though, primarily…
The HERO family
The HERO Family of loitering munitions was developed by UVision Air in partnership with Rheinmettal. It includes six different munitions based off a common design.
Each member of the HERO family is tailored to specific mission requirements, from tactical to strategic operations.
At the lower end of the spectrum is the HERO-30, a small, man-portable system designed for short-range missions. Weighing just 3 kg, the HERO-30 can loiter for up to 30 minutes with a range of approximately 5 km, making it ideal for special operations or infantry units requiring rapid, precise strikes against enemy personnel or light vehicles.
Its compact design enables it to be deployed from vehicles or carried by individual soldiers, enhancing battlefield flexibility.
For medium-range anti-armor missions, the HERO-120 is the most prominent variant. This loitering munition weighs around 12.5 kg and is designed for use by frontline forces, providing them with an organic anti-tank capability.
The HERO-120 has a range exceeding 40 km and can loiter for up to 60 minutes, allowing tactical units to independently conduct reconnaissance, identify armored targets, and engage them without relying on external fire support.
Its warhead is optimized for anti-armor operations, and is further equipped with an independent Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR) Ability.
The HERO-120 can be integrated on a number of different platforms including vehicles, navalcraft, aircraft, helicopters, in containerized modules or via ground launcher.
At the higher end of the series, the HERO-400EC, HERO-900, and HERO-1250. These are designed for long-range, strategic missions.
The HERO-400EC is an electrically powered, multi-purpose munition capable of loitering for several hours at a range of over 150 km. Its larger warhead and advanced sensor suite enable it to engage fortified positions, moving vehicles, and high-value targets with extreme precision.
The HERO-1250, with an extended range and larger warhead, is intended for deep-strike operations requiring significant lethality, particularly against hardened targets.
The HERO series has found a gaining following of users, including Israel, the United States, and Hungary. The common design, combined with the wide number of variants, allows the HERO family to fill a number of tactical and strategic roles.
I know someone is going to yell at me for missing a few others, such as the Polish designed Warmate, or the Coyote. Although both systems are not quite as prevalent as the others, whom I both believe are likely to be the eventual choice for any sort of Loitering Munition project.
Anyone who knows me knows I love the HERO family. I love the people involved in it, and I believe is having a common family of munitions that can be rapidly scaled for the task at hand.
That isn't a knock to something like the Switchblade, who also tries to fulfill the need for multiple classes of Loitering Munitions. The fact is that the future army will need multiple types of these munitions tailored to different tasks and targets, including both tactical and strategic level assets.
We see this in Ukraine, where loitering Mujitions are commonly flying hundreds of kilometers to strike at targets in the Russian Federation, far beyond the borders, as far as 4000km away.
Ukraine shows how these assets can be utilized in place of things such as long range cruise missiles, taking advantage of the gaps to strategically hit targets deep behind enemy lines and under the nose of prying air defence systems.
The future
I am a hopeful optimist. I don't like to think in terms of what might happen or what might fail. I like to believe that things will work out.
It'd undoubtable that the RCA has suffered as we shifted away from the peer-on-peer conflict mentality towards one focused on clunter insurgency. The fact is that the RCA, like many in the CAF, are struggling eith the lack of proper equipment.
It's a universal issue, one constantly mentioned the last twenty years amd one that is being struggled with to fix. Despite all the recent good news the last year, and good signs, the fact is that the prevalent issues remain.
Financial constraints, lack of personnel, a procurement beurocracy that is broken at its core. These are fundamentals that will take a monumental shift to fix, and something that won't come quickly.
Yet the RCA has probably one of the best chances to come out of this period better. They have the support, their projects constantly rank high in terms of urgency, and most of all it'd a capability that these days can't be ignored.
While many projects remain unfunded, I'm confident that things will come through. We have a string of RFI releasing in the next few months that will hopefully paint a clearer picture on what we can expect.
For now the RCA will continue to have to make do, though hopefully not for long.