Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[Kirkhill]

That's why I prefer a system that places smaller orders continuously over a long period rather than in short pulses every twenty years or so.

A factory can be set aside to turn out two thousand trucks in two years or 200 - 300 per year for ten or twenty years (or forever). The first does a fast rollover of a whole new fleet that wears out together, the latter is a more gradual replacement of an old fleet, but provides continuous replacement and maintenance of older vehicles practically forever and, if designed right, could have the ability to ramp up production when a surge is needed.

If all vehicles are planned with life cycles of a RegF use for, say 2/3rds of its full use life and then given to the reserves where it operates at 1/6th of the usage rate then the remaining 1/3 life cycle can be extended for up to six times as long as if it had remained in RegF use. Conceivably one could build up a large reserve of vehicles over time for surge operations.

The key element is to give a guaranteed contract to a manufacturer that dedicates a given low rate production factory indefinitely so that a constant profit is maintained. One could even work in gradual improvements etc when powertrains change or key components need to change. A well designed vehicle maintenance tracking and logistics system can easily manage that.

Peace, if done right, should build armies.

That manufacturer is now providing a caretaker service akin to maintaining a national park.

There is value to maintaining the park but it is not a profitable activity.

The government has to pay to maintain that capability. Now, do they hire an outside party to supply that service? Or do they just supply it themselves?

And how do you budget for a new factory delivering a new capability on spec when, commercially, it is well established that most new companies fail in the first five years?

And no, I don't have the answers.

Unless, like everything else in this world, balance is the goal. Maintenance of historic capabilities out of the government purse but also moneys set aside to experiment with what the market is coming up with.

How would we create Brutinel's Brigade today?

Canadian Automobile Machine Gun Brigade - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

101st Airborne Division Soldiers and Equipment participate in BattleLab 26.2

 

[FJAG]

There is value to maintaining the park but it is not a profitable activity.

Nothing about the military unless you count deterance and combat capability a profit - and IMHO, you should.

The government has to pay to maintain that capability. Now, do they hire an outside party to supply that service? Or do they just supply it themselves?

Do an options analysis.

And how do you budget for a new factory delivering a new capability on spec when, commercially, it is well established that most new companies fail in the first five years?

Like anything else, you do an RFP for a contract but with guaranteed rates of delivery and services over a long term with specified options. See what industry comes up with and if you don't like it create a crown corporation.

And no, I don't have the answers.

Yeah. Neither do I. Just spit balling.

But there are numerous successful small scale vehicle conversion manufacturers that start with a basic frame and go from there. The whole RV industry works like that. And then there is Roshell. I really don't think that there would be a problem in setting something up where there is a long term guaranteed profit in it. I hate cost-plus contracts, but if properly overseen and managed that could do it. It's not like we're short of empty automotive factories and tool sets. Just keep the vehicle designs simple and robust.

If I was to take a guess the problem is in DND's procurement model that has a set pattern of major equipment purchases in bulk. Hell, even the River class are a model of orgy purchasing designed to replace an existing fleet. The only reason it takes so long is because of build capacity. And even with one design, River #1 won't be the same as River # 15. When the last River is floated, it won't be time to replace them yet so we'll need something new or Irving starves. What would be better for a manufacturer than a guaranteed long term contract regardless of the rate?

 

[Kirkhill]

Nothing about the military unless you count deterance and combat capability a profit - and IMHO, you should.

That reflects back to the discussion about knowing the cost of maintaining a frigate at sea, or a fighter squadron on call, or a tank regiment on hand.

The costs should be known. Then the decisions can be made if that money is being spent wisely and securing the desired goal. The hard part about military force is that it is hard to prove a negative. Is it the presence of that tank regiment that is deterring threats and keeping the peace or is it the kid down the street banging on a drum that is keeping the nasties away?

At very least the costs should be known so that the arguments for the expenditures can be made.

....

I know there have been efforts to apply accounting standards to the military and that those efforts have been met with considerable push back, often on the grounds that the military is not like other businesses.

But how do security companies raise capital, track performance, keep customers and investors satisfied?

And how much of their budgets go towards innovation and keeping up with technology?

For that matter, how much of their budgets go towards maintaining proficiency and upgrading their staff's skills?

 

[Maxman1]

That's why I prefer a system that places smaller orders continuously over a long period rather than in short pulses every twenty years or so.

A factory can be set aside to turn out two thousand trucks in two years or 200 - 300 per year for ten or twenty years (or forever). The first does a fast rollover of a whole new fleet that wears out together, the latter is a more gradual replacement of an old fleet, but provides continuous replacement and maintenance of older vehicles practically forever and, if designed right, could have the ability to ramp up production when a surge is needed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A video from Polyus about ADATS. They should have ditched the AT role and just kept it as a AD system and buy dedicated AT systems.

 

[AmmoTech90]

A video from Polyus about ADATS. They should have ditched the AT role and just kept it as a AD system and buy dedicated AT systems.

I've seen around 30 ADATS shots. Three, I believe were at ground targets. One missed (gunner didn't turn on the laser- training scar).

I think it was mostly focused on AD. Given the size of the warhead it didn't matter it was shaped, it would throw enough frag to deal with aircraft.

 

[FJAG]

Completely off topic and yet on topic, I came across this little brewery in Oakville that brews my kind of beer (even if not German)

Shipping is free on orders in Ontario over $50.00

My eighteen cans of Lager M109 arrived today. The cans look even better than the above one. Makes my old SP Bty heart pound.

The funny part is we didn't hear the delivery arrive. Some time latter I opened my front door to go out and there they were. Three sixpacks in little open cardbox carriers - like the ones at the LCBO when you do a pick your own beer purchase - sitting on the porch on top of a packing note. No box, nothing sealed up just 18 cans open to the world. I have no idea who the delivery company was or whether someone from the brewery just does a tour around Southern Ontario with the orders.

 

[FJAG]

I've seen around 30 ADATS shots. Three, I believe were at ground targets. One missed (gunner didn't turn on the laser- training scar).

I think it was mostly focused on AD. Given the size of the warhead it didn't matter it was shaped, it would throw enough frag to deal with aircraft.

The focus in 2004 changed from AD to AT with the Direct Fire Unit experimentation that went on with the LdSH which continued to operate its Leopard 1s (as stand ins for the soon to arrive LAV MGS) together with a TOW Under Armour company from the PPCLI and an ADATS battery from 4 AD Regt. In the years 2004-2005 4 Air Defence Regiment fired more rounds in the AT role than the AD role. Thankfully all that went to hell in a handbasket when the MGS was scrapped and the Leo2s purchased for Afghanistan - suddenly TOW UA and ADATS became redundant for the DFU role - If I recall all the TOW UA LAVs were disarmed and refitted as infantry section carriers.

 

[ArmyRick]

The focus in 2004 changed from AD to AT with the Direct Fire Unit experimentation that went on with the LdSH which continued to operate its Leopard 1s (as stand ins for the soon to arrive LAV MGS) together with a TOW Under Armour company from the PPCLI and an ADATS battery from 4 AD Regt. In the years 2004-2005 4 Air Defence Regiment fired more rounds in the AT role than the AD role. Thankfully all that went to hell in a handbasket when the MGS was scrapped and the Leo2s purchased for Afghanistan - suddenly TOW UA and ADATS became redundant for the DFU role - If I recall all the TOW UA LAVs were disarmed and refitted as infantry section carriers.

I wonder if a modernized ADATS with newer designed missiles, would not have been relevant in the modern warfare context?

 

[AmmoTech90]

Understandable, my last shoot was a ground target for a dog and pony show in Gagetown, 2004 to 5ish.

 

[FJAG]

I wonder if a modernized ADATS with newer designed missiles, would not have been relevant in the modern warfare context?

ADATS was actually modernized several times - including updating its computer systems to digital.

There was a project as of 2005 to replace ADATS from an M113 chassis to a LAV chassis, which was called the Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle. Again, this was tied in with the MGS project and the DFU. The intent was to keep the AD and AT role for the vehicle. The US Army evaluated MMEV and in some respects its features appeared later in the Stryker MSHORAD which is in service with them now.

For a variety of reasons the army decided to kill MMEV in 2006. ADATS continued to limp on in ever decreasing numbers until 2011. All the remaining hundreds of missiles (except 10 kept for operational purposes) were fired off on one big exercise (see @AmmoTech90 above). The missile carriers went into storage but the associated radar systems were kept in operation with what had then become 4 Arty Regt (GS) until the MMR entered IOC late in the decade.