Author Topic: Combat Team of tomorrow? Mechanized Infantry Company of tomorrow?  (Read 157541 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Acorn

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2004, 23:37:08 »
"Now for something completely different"   Let's consider Area Domination as a form of offense. Send WELL SUPPORTED Infantry FOO/FAC teams (not Cbt Tms) under a coordinated attack program utilizing Sat Imagery seize or dominate Key Ground, isolate En forces. A well supported FOO/ FAC Infantry Tm could take advantage of Wpn systems not available to the Cbt Tm.

Don't assign too much credit to overhead IMINT.

Acorn
"Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us." - Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,689
  • Freespeecher
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #26 on: November 15, 2004, 00:20:24 »
Tanner might be on to something, but it seems too much of a throwback to the WWI dictum of "Artillery destroys, Infantry occupies". Even in Afghanistan, SF operators with GPS and Sat phones could call in airpower within minutes of detecting a target, but still needed Northern Alliance troops to occupy the ground the B-2 strikes just cleared...

Anyway, if we start doing business that way, the bad guys will operate in places that are hard to shell or bomb (as we are already seeing with Jihadis and the "Mahdi Army" shooting from Mosques and hospitals, or Palestinians using ambulances as logistics and trooplift vehicles). I can also imagine shelter technology evolving rapidly to protect troops from such threats, so we still need a way to force the bad guys out of the places they have dug into.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #27 on: November 15, 2004, 01:04:17 »
It's not that I think tanks are going the way of the dinosaur, just no one is going to buy us any.

Who's to say they aren't? No weapon system lasts forever, except of course the Infantryman. Our thinking needs to be along the lines of answering the question: "How to be as lethal as possible, without tanks" rather than dwelling on "Oh my God we've got no tanks so we're screwed". We are professional soldiers so we better start figuring it out. It will require a major shift in our way of thinking because we have all been brought up with tanks.

Having been in a LAVIII in an urban envronment in Afghanistan I make no misguided beliefs about its abilities or survivability.

Using LAVs (or MGS) in ways that guarantee their destruction by hand held systems is not really what I had in mind either. I think our focus has to be on the lethality of the dismounted soldier, backed up by effects from systems that fire from defiladed positions(possibly exposing only a sighting mast head). The issue of how to cross the open ground in front of an objective (if, in fact, there is any open ground) will have to be solved without the tank.  Perhaps more precisely targeted supporting fires might fill the bill.

On the issue of not wanting to ask Allies for MBT support, I would not be so quick to dismiss that as "begging". If we offer high-quality, well-equipped and trained infantry, the Alliance partner might be only too happy to give tank sp. It seems to me that in Iraq at the moment it is the quality Infantry that are in short supply. not the MBT battalions. Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #28 on: November 15, 2004, 01:52:31 »
Quote
I think our focus has to be on the lethality of the dismounted soldier, backed up by effects from systems that fire from defiladed positions(possibly exposing only a sighting mast head)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/fennek/

Is this the kind of teaming you are thinking of?

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,739
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #29 on: November 15, 2004, 02:00:28 »
Imagine the Coyote surveillance mast being used to guide in NLOS missiles from an MMEV and making precision kills against an enemy position without exposing a single one of our soldiers to a direct fire threat.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 166,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,129
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #30 on: November 15, 2004, 02:17:56 »
Imagine the Coyote surveillance mast being used to guide in NLOS missiles from an MMEV and making precision kills against an enemy position without exposing a single one of our soldiers to a direct fire threat.

Now, imagine that same setup getting taken out by a few goat-herders with RPGs....ain't war hell.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 207,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,739
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #31 on: November 15, 2004, 02:24:22 »
That's why it is all arms.  The infantry worry about the goat herders, and the "system of systems" engages the big targets beyond the next ridge (and the one after that too).

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 166,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,129
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #32 on: November 15, 2004, 02:46:53 »
That's why it is all arms. The infantry worry about the goat herders, and the "system of systems" engages the big targets beyond the next ridge (and the one after that too).

Well, at least I know I have a job now... :)

baa-aaa-aaa-aaa....

On the issue of not wanting to ask Allies for MBT support, I would not be so quick to dismiss that as "begging". If we offer high-quality, well-equipped and trained infantry, the Alliance partner might be only too happy to give tank sp. It seems to me that in Iraq at the moment it is the quality Infantry that are in short supply. not the MBT battalions. Cheers.

I think you are on to something here PBI.   Until I can rebuild the Army in my image, we have to find something to "sell" in the short term.   Since the idea of "selling" Peacekeeping is repulsive to any professional soldier, perhaps light and flexible infantry, supported by light and mobile combined arms support - assets that can be injected into situations across the spectrum of conflict - is the objective.

Kind of like the Swiss.   From their mountainous Helvetian hideouts, they were never up to playing the heavy, mounted, shock cavalry game that the rest of Europe was into.   Instead, they "sold" their Pike, which along with the Condotieri, was to become all the rage in Europe and eventually displace the mounted Knight as ruler of the European battlefield.

The question is, should a combat team that attempts to "sell" this focus on fancy mechanized systems?   Should acquisition instead shift towards a greater variety of hand-held systems, air-portable systems (ie: by tac-hel), and a decent Army chopper as well?   Should our doctrine move away from mass and firepower of the Brigade to a more dispersed, unconventional force?
« Last Edit: November 15, 2004, 02:49:34 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #33 on: November 15, 2004, 03:44:40 »
Quote
The question is, should a combat team that attempts to "sell" this focus on fancy mechanized systems?  Should acquisition instead shift towards a greater variety of hand-held systems, air-portable systems (ie: by tac-hel), and a decent Army chopper as well?  Should our doctrine move away from mass and firepower of the Brigade to a more dispersed, unconventional force?

The more I think about it, the more I think that this may be the way to go, a;lthough I'm not too comfortable with the term "unconventional". We should probably keep some residual"heavy" capability for a protracted or general conflict, but I think we could safely put this capability in the Army Reserve if we enhance that force's readiness and maintenance capabilities  somewhat.

Quote
Is this the kind of teaming you are thinking of?

FOG-M is exactly what I had in mind. I think that in the future, systems like FOG-M will break down the rigid distinction we maintain between direct and indirect fire support, so the function will simply become "fire support".

Quote
Kind of like the Swiss.  From their mountainous Helvetian hideouts, they were never up to playing the heavy, mounted, shock cavalry game that the rest of Europe was into.  Instead, they "sold" their Pike, which along with the Condotieri, was to become all the rage in Europe and eventually displace the mounted Knight as ruler of the European battlefield.

Just as the mounted knight eventually met his nemesis in the pikeman and then the arquebusier, I think that one day the tank will meet its nemesis in the Infantry soldier armed with a system that costs a fraction of what an MBT costs to purchase and sustain, has a much smaller CSS footprint, and can be moved in any manner in which we would move an Infantry soldier. This Infantry soldier will probably not be able to do this alone-a heavier fire support system of some kind will have to support him by suppressing enemy infantry, and perhap by scattering FASCAM in the path of the enemy tanks. Cheers.



The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 166,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,129
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2004, 03:59:31 »
Just as the mounted knight eventually met his nemesis in the pikeman and then the arquebusier, I think that one day the tank will meet its nemesis in the Infantry soldier armed with a system that costs a fraction of what an MBT costs to purchase and sustain, has a much smaller CSS footprint, and can be moved in any manner in which we would move an Infantry soldier. This Infantry soldier will probably not be able to do this alone-a heavier fire support system of some kind will have to support him by suppressing enemy infantry, and perhap by scattering FASCAM in the path of the enemy tanks. Cheers.

It has to be Power Armour....with integral flamethrower and Y-rack for launching A-Bombs.

Mobile Infantry is the wave of the future.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #35 on: November 15, 2004, 04:04:38 »
Quote
It has to be Power Armour....with integral flamethrower and Y-rack for launching A-Bombs.

Bring back the Davy Crockett!!  :threat: Cheers
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 166,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,129
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #36 on: November 15, 2004, 04:07:07 »
although I'm not too comfortable with the term "unconventional".

My mistake, I recognize that the use of the term "unconventional" in a military discussion would imply turning the forces into a bunch of JTF guys riding camels and wearing black pajamas.... :)

By "unconventional" I meant units that could break down easily and provide a wide-range of combined arms capabilities at a unit/sub-unit level (PRT is one thing that comes to mind) as opposed to the beautifully sculpted, rigidly segmented brigades we love to stretch thin (and the doctrine to match).

Quote
We should probably keep some residual"heavy" capability for a protracted or general conflict, but I think we could safely put this capability in the Army Reserve if we enhance that force's readiness and maintenance capabilities somewhat.

I think so to.   It seems to be that the heavier assets could be part of a Reserve/Reg "break in case of fire" capability

"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline pbi

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,961
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #37 on: November 15, 2004, 05:31:52 »
Yes-that is all pretty well along the lines I have been thinking of. Cheers.
The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. ...

The true measure of a man is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out...

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,689
  • Freespeecher
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #38 on: November 15, 2004, 10:07:51 »
We can sort of do that now, but until there is some revolutionary advance in energy storage or distribution systems, man portable systems will still be limited in range and effect. The mass and volume of such systems has to decrease as well, since there is a limit to how much a soldier can carry and still be effective. Another generation of "smartness" will also be needed for the rounds; just imagine a tired and frightened infantryman attempting to "snap shoot" a target with his "Mr. Fusion" powered portable rail gun and an unguided kinetic energy projectile....

This kind of ties up the ideas from other threads: We need a White paper to tell us what to plan for, funding to buy the proper kit and train the right numbers of troops to do the job as defined, and organizational changes to do the job better and faster. Tanks and heavy systems are not in our future for now, nor have I heard any serious discussion about purchasing such systems, so we are left to try to lash together a tactical doctrine using what tools we can get our hands on.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #39 on: November 15, 2004, 11:01:13 »
Imagine the Coyote surveillance mast being used to guide in NLOS missiles from an MMEV and making precision kills against an enemy position without exposing a single one of our soldiers to a direct fire threat.

That's why it is all arms.  The infantry worry about the goat herders, and the "system of systems" engages the big targets beyond the next ridge (and the one after that too).

Uhm....


I agree with PBI we have to shift into a W/O Tank mode and make it work.

As one of those Infanteers with his *** hangin in the breeze as it where I am hoping we can work this out sooner than later.  However w/o a large influx of captial equiptment I don't see it working.  We can play LI-SOC with the JTF all day w/o tanks but for anything more than SOF type missions we need a cabability that we dont have --> Firepower.

 

Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #40 on: November 15, 2004, 11:54:41 »
Warning: Fecal Agitation Occuring.

Why is a "system of systems" considered a detestable concept and a "Combined Arms Team" is considered time-tested dogma?  Isn't a "Combined Arms Team" a "system of systems" by definition?   Sword, Lance and Bow combined in a team equals a system of systems.

I have seen references to a theory that one reason the FOG-M/LOSAT combination has not been fielded earlier (they have both been around since the late 80's early 90's) is that the Americans didn't want to undermine the dominance of their own tank-heavy forces.  They felt that they could beat any army in the field with the system of weapons they had even if forced to fight tank-on-tank.  If they introduced the FOG-M/LOSAT combination and demonstrated that they believed that tanks could be defeated by a light force so equipped then they would lose the physical and psychological edge they enjoyed over all opponents.  Potential opponents would figure out how to produce the things cheaply and in large numbers.  The US Army would then be forced into a rapid transformation that they couldn't afford and would ultimately be destabilizing.

I will try to find links for reference - lost in the mists of time and the ether...............
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,689
  • Freespeecher
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2004, 13:08:58 »
LOSAT and FOG-M are potentially as destabilizing as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnaught was to the capital fleets of the world in the early part of the last century. The biggest problems right now is there isn't a doctrine or organizational structure in place to take full advantage of the capabilities these systems can offer. If we go in too early without thinking about how they can best be used, we might end up like the British navy in WW I; armed with very impressive looking "Battlecruisers", which were fatally flawed in concept and operation.

This author looks at the idea of tanks being technologically obsolete, but once again we are left with the question of how do you replace those functions without using a tank? http://www.knox.army.mil/center/ocoa/ArmorMag/ja97/4lastmbt.pdf. The modified Bradley pictured in the article represents a "best guess" look at a quickly available LOSAT platform, and there is no reason the same vehicle couldn't carry FOG-M or even a mixed battery of missiles. Close protection would have to come from accompanying infantry, and long range target data will have to be available to the vehicle crew to use the weapons to their best effect. Using this as the baseline, and assuming we can purchase Bradley's as the US forces does a draw down, we can build the Combat Team of Tomorrow with the following:

"Kodiak" section carriers. The M-2 turret is removed and replaced by a low profile weapons mount for survivability.
"Cheetah" fire support vehicles carrying FOG-M, LOSAT or mix as the tactical situation dictates (as in illustration)
"Fox" recce and surveillance vehicles. Similar to the Kodiak, the Fox -A have a mast mounted sensor suites (surveillance, FOO/FAC/MFC vehicles), while the Fox-B carries the dismounted recce section. The mast is quick raising and lowering, and robust enough to use on the move. Think of a submarine periscope rather than the current Coyote mast.
"Kodiak mortar carrier", using the 120 mm mortar for area coverage (HE/smoke/illum). Cheetahs use the PGM's to take out point and hard targets.

A combat team would cover a lot of ground, with a Fox recce troop operating ahead, Kodiak's and Cheetahs one or two bounds back and the Mortar carriers a bound in the rear.

In principle, a new series of LAV based vehicles could also be built to take on these roles (LAV 3.5), but they would have lower cross country mobility and armour protection compared to the M-2 baseline. Given the decades of use and development in the Canadian Army, we probably could make a LAV 3.5 which addresses some of the mobility and protection issues in a wheeled platform.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #42 on: November 15, 2004, 18:09:48 »
Another way to think of the LOSAT/FOG-M/what-have-you fire support combination is to consider more as Engineer stores. Consider Claymore - emplaced one location, remotely fired.

Consider the missiles on lightweight trailers with a pair of small motors and a rechargeable battery pack.  Tow the missiles into the firing point.  Unhitch the trailer.  Move the G-Wagen and the set-up crew off the firing point.  Payout a fibre-optic link like a signal wire from the firing point to a pair of Coyotes with Mast mounted sensors via the G-Wagen.  The Coyotes could be up to 10 km from the firing points and the firing points could be kilometers apart.  Radio or Laser comms systems in parallel to the fiber optics to supply redundancy.  The only power draw while the system is waiting to be tasked is the standby power to maintain the comms link to a solenoid switch which would turn on the power pack when a fire mission is in the offing.  Gunners might have to stop by the emplacement site every now and then to recharge the battery from an APU on the G-Wagen.    If emplaced behind a conventional front-line no security might be necessary.  In a 360 battlefield it might be worth tasking a section to look after an emplacement with 2-4 trailers.

No exposed crews once the firing starts.  Low heat signatures.  Trailers cheap enough to be considered disposable if necessary but rugged enough to justify reloading and reusing if the trailers can be recovered safely.  Less manning requirements.  A real lightweight, low cost, deployable fire support capability to complement, not replace, conventional gun and mortar artillery.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,689
  • Freespeecher
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #43 on: November 15, 2004, 20:18:07 »
Nice idea Kirkhill, but it still has the objection of the MGS/LAV TOW/MMEV troika: this system does not fire on the move. In the defense it would be mind boggling, and if there was time to set up a deliberate assault, this would be a sneaky way to set the fire support.

If these are long range missiles, then the Artillery or Mortar Platoon could be in charge of the system, to back up the combat team as it makes its move.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #44 on: November 15, 2004, 20:50:51 »
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/polyphem/

The French version of EFOG-M uses a 130 kg missile to deliver a 20 kg warhead at speeds of approximately 600 km/h.  That means that it takes about 10 minutes for the missile to transit from launch point to target 60 KM away.  It is available in truck and ship launched variants with heli-launched variants in the works.

The system of systems, as you suggest, would be best suited to an arty tasking with the firing points being employed the way that towed arty and man-pack mortars always have - move to position, wait for fire mission, fire, relocate.  Long Range means fewer firing points necessary to cover ground, greater dispersal, less need to unmask all of your available assets at the same time.

The general concept of remote deployment of unmanned firing posts was proved by mounting 6x19 rd Hydra-70 70mm rocket pods on old M-101 howitzer mounts.  Originally evaluated by the US for their Light Infantry Divisions in the 80's and 90's.  An old Janes' Armour and Artillery will show the system under US Towed Rocket systems.

By the way, if France and Germany get their way in the EU and are allowed to sell arms to China, China will have access to Polyphem technology amongst other things.


Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #45 on: November 15, 2004, 21:17:37 »
70mm Rapid Deployment - Multiple Launch Rocket System

Manufactured by   BEI Defense Systems Company of Texas

Reported in Janes' Armour and Artillery (Year Unknown)

Quote
â Å“Description:

Up to six 19-tube replaceable launchers can be mounted on a towed M91 chemical rocket launcher chassis or a 105mm howitzer bed.   Other configurations include six 19-tube launchers on a 2  ½ -ton truck, three 19-tube launchers on a High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle, a 25-rocket square array universal mount, various armoured vehicle turret mounts, two 7- or 19-tube launchers on a Fast Attack Vehicle, four 19-tube launchers on and M42 carriage or quad 12.7mm machine gun mount, and a man-portable 4-tube launcher on a tripod mount.   Launchers are reusable 7-tube M260 or 19-tube M261 lightweight aircraft pods or are specially configured for the tripod and universal mounts.  

Up to eight fire units can be controlled by cable or radio from one location.   The operator can select single, pair or four-round bursts from each launcher and he can select the total quantity to be fired and the firing rate for a salvo.   Range is 700m to over 15 km.

The crew for the larger systems is four with a typical six-pod launcher system taking 10 minutes to reload.   A single 19-round launcher can be fired in about 0.5 second in the quick fire mode and within 1.5 seconds in the slow fire mode. A full six-pod launcher takes less than seven seconds to empty in the slow mode.â ?

I never quite understood why this concept didn't go farther.   All the kit was NATO standard, in fact the HYDRA-70's and the launchers are manufactured in Canada.   It seemed to me to make a lot of sense to add one of these batteries to a 105mm unit.   However, regardless of the value of the 70mm system, the remote firing concept applied to the LOSAT/EFOGM or POLYPHEM systems would add a lot of fire support at a relatively low price in kit and gunners, not to mention gunners killed.

There's one of my pet projects.....

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #46 on: November 15, 2004, 21:32:37 »
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm

As a final point for consideration, this is a modification of the Hydra-70 missile.  Basically it is a guidance package for a standard Hydra-70 rocket that is intended to supplement Hellfire for less well armoured targets.  It is called APKWS or Advanced Precision Kill Weapons System.  The payload is 1.04 kg of  HE.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Acorn

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #47 on: November 15, 2004, 21:46:49 »
I'll need time to wrap my brain around most of this, but I think it's a mistake at this point to start considering a tankless force. It's one thing to abandon the tank because it's gone the way of the battleship, but quite another to do it soley because our government doesn't have the political will to fund such things. In this respect I think we, the Army, are often our own worst enemy. We have an attitude of "adapt and overcome" or "seek a niche role" when we should have senior people pointing out the flaws in trying to make do. Sgt Majoor pointed out the flaw in the concepts discussed so far - they provide for kick-*** infantry in the defence, but the lack of capability on the advance is obvious.

However, we still need to function in the four phases of war that have been reality for a long time. Investing (money or intellectual capital) in systems (or "systems of systems") that are functionally defensive is, to be blunt, defeatist. This is where the average civvy lacks understanding - "why do we need tanks/attack helos/submarines/whatever? They are offensive systems, and we are not an offensive country." I certainly don't need to explain the logical fallacy to this audience.

I agree with the points above that we will likely see the day (or my successors will) where the infantry soldier, with some inexpensive support elements, becomes more cost effective in all phases of war than the tank. We have not reached that point yet.

Oh, and by the way, as much as I would enjoy the discussion of Dreadnought on Naval warfare, all I can offer that that analogy is that we have yet to see the same sort of revolution in land warfare since the advent of the tank. I would point out that her construction rendered allprevious ship designs obsolete (though part of that parcel was a revolution in Naval gunnery. A discussion outside the scope of this forum, I should think.)

Acorn
"Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us." - Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil

Tanner

  • Guest
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2004, 23:35:40 »
We need to introduce a 3 dimensional battlespace into the though process. All this ground mounted stuff is great, but most of it can be neutralized by a $10 mine. FA, AH, UAV provide platforms for both direct and indirect wpns systems. Example: If we integrate UAV mounted GPS and lazer targeting (as per the coyote) with a LOSAT tech we have formidable standoff Anti Armour capability for reasonable cost.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 201,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,459
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Combat Team of tomorrow?
« Reply #49 on: November 16, 2004, 00:18:08 »
Right enough Tanner, you do need at least a UAV and/or even the CH-146 ERSTA capability as a minimum to what ever system you come up with.  And as Acorn and a_majoor have also pointed out there will also be a need to have an ability to rapidly move a lethal response capability around the battlespace  to cover the unexpected.  The fixed system that I suggested as an option isn't a guaranteed cure for anything. Its an option to be torn apart.

Cheers :) ;) :salute:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"