Infantry of Tomorrow

[daftandbarmy]

unlimited ammo, in what reality?

Compared to what the light infantry can carry, tanks have unlimited coax

 

[KevinB]

Is it 880 in the can on a Leo 2? That’s what @KevinB is getting at. Obviously it’s not unlimited. It just represents substantially more sustained fire power than a section.

4000 in the Abrams. I thought the Leo2 had the same.

Does that matter? Is it material to their understanding of how their Meekavs employed the small space they have? Because what it has is a small space meant primarily for ammunition storage that can - in extremis - be used to carry soldiers. It is not some tank / IFV hybrid. It’s a crawl space.

110%. It is an emergency evacuation shelter, and mainly as a rear egress route.
It wasn’t intended as an IFV. Furthermore the space only really existed because when the IDF looked at crew losses, the majority where from engine fires - so they put the engine up front to also provide protection to the crew (rounds need to into it first) and the rear was designed to allow the crew to exit the vehicle. When they realized they had more room, it was then setup to accommodate being able to shelter a lost crew from another tank. The entire IFV aspect is a myth that has been popularized from folks not understanding the concept.

 

[markppcli]

4000 in the Abrams. I thought the Leo2 had the same.

110%. It is an emergency evacuation shelter, and mainly as a rear egress route.
It wasn’t intended as an IFV. Furthermore the space only really existed because when the IDF looked at crew losses, the majority where from engine fires - so they put the engine up front to also provide protection to the crew (rounds need to into it first) and the rear was designed to allow the crew to exit the vehicle. When they realized they had more room, it was then setup to accommodate being able to shelter a lost crew from another tank. The entire IFV aspect is a myth that has been popularized from folks not understanding the concept.

It’s 4000 in the Leo, but that’s for both and I believe the bin itself is only 4 belts but I could t find details and am probably wrong.

 

[KevinB]

It’s 4000 in the Leo, but that’s for both and I believe the bin itself is only 4 belts but I could t find details and am probably wrong.

I’ve admittedly never dug into that deep.
When I was in Fallujah a MARSOC team had some twin 240 setups on Hummers with a ginormous ammo bin on both sides (running a left and right fed gun) when I asked them how much it had and where they got it - they said it was the hopper bins from an Abrams and each held 4000 rounds, so I accepted that as gospel.

 

[Kirkhill]

One Weapon, Two Roles: New System Adds Drone Control to the Rifle

LADRS uses a 250-gram rifle-mounted interface to control drones through weapon orientation, laser designation, and integrated buttons.

nextgendefense.com

"LADRS uses a 250-gram rifle-mounted interface to control drones through weapon orientation, laser designation, and integrated buttons."

"Frontline troops may now be able to pilot drones without reaching for a handheld controller, thanks to a rifle-mounted system developed by US firm Pyrrhus Aeronautics.

"Called the Laser Aiming & Drone Remote System (LADRS), the 250-gram (0.55-pound) device replaces tablets and joysticks by turning a soldier’s rifle into the drone’s control interface.

"Instead of lowering the weapon to operate a separate controller, troops can aim the rifle toward a target or area of interest, using the weapon’s orientation, laser designator, and integrated button controls to point, designate, and execute drone missions."

Pyrrhus Aeronautics

PYRRHUS builds LADRS - a joystick-free drone control system that lets warfighters operate unmanned aerial systems without breaking weapon readiness.

pyrrhusaero.com

This is not the CUAS system. This is a UAS control system.

 

[HavokFour]

One Weapon, Two Roles: New System Adds Drone Control to the Rifle

LADRS uses a 250-gram rifle-mounted interface to control drones through weapon orientation, laser designation, and integrated buttons.

nextgendefense.com

"LADRS uses a 250-gram rifle-mounted interface to control drones through weapon orientation, laser designation, and integrated buttons."

"Frontline troops may now be able to pilot drones without reaching for a handheld controller, thanks to a rifle-mounted system developed by US firm Pyrrhus Aeronautics.

"Called the Laser Aiming & Drone Remote System (LADRS), the 250-gram (0.55-pound) device replaces tablets and joysticks by turning a soldier’s rifle into the drone’s control interface.

"Instead of lowering the weapon to operate a separate controller, troops can aim the rifle toward a target or area of interest, using the weapon’s orientation, laser designator, and integrated button controls to point, designate, and execute drone missions."

Pyrrhus Aeronautics

PYRRHUS builds LADRS - a joystick-free drone control system that lets warfighters operate unmanned aerial systems without breaking weapon readiness.

pyrrhusaero.com

This is not the CUAS system. This is a UAS control system.

I think the obvious downside of this system is both needing line of sight and potentially exposing the user, even if momentarily.

 

[Kirkhill]

Another nation bringing the unmanned bren carrier closer to deployment.

South Korea ramps up mass production of military robot

South Korea has handed its first mass-production contract for a multipurpose military robot to Hanwha Aerospace, and the real story behind that decision has less to do with cutting-edge robotics than with a shrinking pool of young men available to

defence-blog.com

"“The pool of young men assessed fit for active-duty conscription fell 29% over the past decade. The Korea Institute for Defense Analyses expects it to reach the 100,000 range by 2038. Restructuring units or extending service terms cannot absorb a decline on that scale, which leaves substituting machines for manpower at squad level. A UGV that carries the load, runs route reconnaissance and moves casualties returns soldiers from carrying tasks to fighting tasks. The requirement here is arithmetic rather than doctrine,” Mangure said."

....

"The vehicle now positioned to help absorb that manpower gap has spent several years building a track record with both South Korean and American forces before landing this contract. Arion-SMET stands for Autonomous and Robotic systems for Intelligence Off-road Navigation, Small Multi-purpose Equipment Transport, and the roughly 2-ton, six-wheeled, fully electric vehicle can carry a maximum payload of 550 kilograms (1,213 pounds) while traveling up to 100 kilometers (62 miles) on a single charge, reaching speeds of 43 kilometers per hour (27 mph) on paved roads and 22 kilometers per hour (14 mph) off-road. Its capabilities include remote-controlled driving, autonomous off-road navigation, and a soldier-following mode that lets it trail troops on foot without a dedicated operator steering it the entire time, "

....

"the platform can also be fitted with a remote-controlled weapons station capable of detecting enemy fire and returning it automatically,"

....

On the wheels vs tracks issue these use airless tyres like the Michelin Tweel

No Flats with an Airless Tire | MICHELIN COMMERCIAL TIRES

Eliminate flat tires with the MICHELIN® X® TWEEL® SSL Airless Radial tire.

business.michelin.ca

....

More carriers in the Combat Support Company with more of them pushed forwards to the platoons and sections, and smaller sections.

 

[KevinB]

I’m utterly agnostic on track/wheel on the ‘micro’ vehicles.

The biggest issue with so many of these UGV ‘enablers’ is that they are primarily suited to fixed defensive positions.
The infrastructure requirements to keep them charged, maintained and in position makes them suited for large fixed defensive works.
Which for Korea the DMZ checks all that.

But I tend to think that most of the firepower or sensing envisioned roles in the fixed defensive could be done by actually fixed systems - and the logistical support by underground subway.



As for expeditionary operations, the logistic demand for power is far more significant that most consider. The footprint increases required from adding even a section/squad vehicle is exponentially higher to a Bn that one that was previously considered foot borne.

Adding UGV’s for most setups does not decrease personnel requirements, it just shuffles them into a support role. In some models it actually has increased requirements for manpower at the Bde level to support the systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’m utterly agnostic on track/wheel on the ‘micro’ vehicles.

The biggest issue with so many of these UGV ‘enablers’ is that they are primarily suited to fixed defensive positions.
The infrastructure requirements to keep them charged, maintained and in position makes them suited for large fixed defensive works.
Which for Korea the DMZ checks all that.

But I tend to think that most of the firepower or sensing envisioned roles in the fixed defensive could be done by actually fixed systems - and the logistical support by underground subway.



As for expeditionary operations, the logistic demand for power is far more significant that most consider. The footprint increases required from adding even a section/squad vehicle is exponentially higher to a Bn that one that was previously considered foot borne.

Adding UGV’s for most setups does not decrease personnel requirements, it just shuffles them into a support role. In some models it actually has increased requirements for manpower at the Bde level to support the systems.

I agree with you. Defence is the strong suit for UGVs. I particularly like them for domestic VP work.

I also like them for the Combat Support company because I have always seen it as a primarily defensive element. It provides a firm base from which a minority of the battalion can dominate ground by fire and supply a secure position from which the rest of the battalion can sally forth and to which it can recover. It is the "one foot on the ground" that permits bite and hold tactics.

I also agree with the point about manoeuvre being necessary but the scale of manoeuvre is debatable, And I debate the utility of the tank in long range offensives.

The Taiwanese are using their tanks to thicken their airfield security forces.

Taiwan’s Abrams tanks train to defend key airport

Taiwan's Army deployed M1A2T Abrams tanks to Taoyuan International Airport for the first time during the third day of the Han Kuang No. 42 exercise, Taiwan's annual live combat drill, joining Yunpao wheeled armored vehicles in a defense exercise built

defence-blog.com

 

[KevinB]

I agree with you. Defence is the strong suit for UGVs. I particularly like them for domestic VP work.

I also like them for the Combat Support company because I have always seen it as a primarily defensive element. It provides a firm base from which a minority of the battalion can dominate ground by fire and supply a secure position from which the rest of the battalion can sally forth and to which it can recover. It is the "one foot on the ground" that permits bite and hold tactics.

I also agree with the point about manoeuvre being necessary but the scale of manoeuvre is debatable, And I debate the utility of the tank in long range offensives.

The Taiwanese are using their tanks to thicken their airfield security forces.

Taiwan’s Abrams tanks train to defend key airport

Taiwan's Army deployed M1A2T Abrams tanks to Taoyuan International Airport for the first time during the third day of the Han Kuang No. 42 exercise, Taiwan's annual live combat drill, joining Yunpao wheeled armored vehicles in a defense exercise built

defence-blog.com

Think about how big Taiwan is -- one may actually wonder why they have Abrams - as if it ever becomes a ground offensive they are in trouble.

While many countries have similar needs from their militaries - there are quite a lot of situations due to geography where one is pretty unique.