Scrap it. Although not a direct replacement, the auto-GL does more and better anyways.
$1:
For its part, the Army has been silent on the pros and cons of its decision on the 60mm mortar….or the benefits over that piece of kit that CASW will bring.
I’ve tried several times now to talk to the CASW project folks on this and other issues related to the project (Project Manager Maj. Willard McCutcheon, Project Director Maj. Carl Gendron, Deputy Project Director Geoff Hutton) but they have consistently declined to be interviewed. Same goes with interviewing an Army official on the value and use of the 60mm mortar…..the request was not granted.
So it’s unclear what research the Army has to back up its assertions that CASW will be able to handle the mortar role.
I did, however, get a series of emails from Army public affairs detailing information about the 60mm mortars and CASW (these were approved by the Prime Minister’s Office, a process which took about three weeks). So here are some of those responses to the questions I posed:
QUESTION: Why are Canadian Forces changing from the 60mm mortar to the CASW?
ANSWER: As part of our ongoing effort to enhance our capabilities, we are replacing the 60mm mortar with the superior CASW system.
QUESTION: How will this new weapon match the current 60 mm mortar? How will it perform? What are its technical specifics?
ANSWER: The CASW will be based on a modern Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) that fires the high-velocity 40x53mm round. An advanced Fire Control System (FCS) will be coupled to the AGL. The FCS will have day/night vision capabilities and provide full ballistic solutions to fire the weapon in both direct and indirect mode and to use airburst programmable rounds. The CASW will have a range of at least 2000m and will be using a High Explosive Dual-Purpose (HEDP) round for both direct and indirect fire.
QUESTION: How much money will be saved by phasing out the 60 mm mortar?
ANSWER: The phasing out will neither save nor cost more money as the current funding will be spent on the improved CASW and its ammunition.
OTHER ANSWERS: “In response to your question about why not maintaining both systems, the 60mm mortar and the CASW are two separate systems and use different ammunition. As the 60mm mortar is nearing the end of its life-cycle, it doesn't make sense to keep it while the CASW will be meeting the same requirement. For equipment that will be in our inventory for the next 20 years, we need to go through the life-cycle process, which includes National Procurement (NP) funding. NP is the guaranteed recurring budget from year to year that deals with spare parts, ammo, refit, etc. And there is a cap on NP funding. Bringing in the CASW meant that the NP offset had to come from within the Army and the NP for the 60mm was the natural choice because of the overlap in desirable effects.”
http://communities.canada.com/ottawacit ... ortar.aspxThinking about this more, I wonder if there were folks who didn't want to get rid of indirect machine gun fire or volley fire from rifles?
CKA Uber 
