Arty to assume the DFS role?

[birdgunnnersrule]

The DFS concept is the best because it is a real attempt to get rid of the Armoured/Arty/Infantry politics that dominate the Army. Sustainability will be a problem.  A Regiment built around the TUA may be more suited and much more sustainable.  P.S.  An ADATS missile does not cost 300,000 +.  They cost around 100,000 in the late 1980's when they were purchased. Its the same as that 1965 mustang that in mint condition. Probably paid 30000 for it, but its worth much more today because its vintage.  Problem is no one makes them anymore and the few hundred we have left in stock are becoming more valuable as we await for the high and mighty MMEV. Zipper, I agree with 95% of what you say.  I just think that the DFS is start of one army one cap badge experiment.

 

[Zipper]

Ok. With that part out of the way.

The DFS concept is the best because it is a real attempt to get rid of the Armoured/Arty/Infantry politics that dominate the Army.

I myself do not understand this politics? There has been "friendly" (and not so in the bars) rivalry between the arms for as many years as they have exsisted. I think we should keep the separate arms as in a way of training the various skills, as well as a way to keep their individual histories alive.

Why they cannot co-exsist under a particular cap badge or beret I don't know? If we go the way that has been bandied about on some of the other threads, it would be nice to see our "light" forces wearing the green beret, while the Cav wear the black. Does this mean the Arty lose out because they are part of another force? No. They have their guns, and they have their history.

Do people who are trained in armour and once were part of an armoured regiment any less armoured because they are now part of a "light" infantry regiment that has jeeps or armoured cars attached and wear a green beret? No.

Same with those who were infanrty that are now trained cavalry dismounts and wear a black beret instead.

What I'm trying to say is, that if your a ground pounder/zipperhead/gun jock, you'll still throw insults at the others because that is the thing to do. And more power to you.

What the combined arms may do is get rid of the backroom politics as far as resources are concerned. Although I doubt that happens much anymore either. Its not like the old days of the Horse Guards controlling everything and doleing out equipment as per your political standing at white hall.

 

[Gobsmacked]

Sustainability will be a problem.  NO ARGUMENT!  NOT TO MENTION SURVIVABILITY!
(ESPECIALLY IN THE ENVISIONED '8-PACK' [4x MGS; 2x LAV-TUA; 2x MMEV-ADATS] DEPLOYMENTS THAT CAN BE EASILY OVERWHELMED BY DETERMINED OPPOSITION WITH MULTIPLE MBTS.)
A Regiment built around the TUA may be more suited and much more sustainable.  VERY DEBATABLE.
P.S.  An ADATS missile does not cost 300,000 +.  They cost around 100,000 in the late 1980's when they were purchased. Its the same as that 1965 mustang that in mint condition. Probably paid 30000 for it, but its worth much more today because its vintage.  Problem is no one makes them anymore and the few hundred we have left in stock are becoming more valuable as we await for the high and mighty MMEV.

Hate to burst your bubble, but as I've previously pointed out on the Re: ADATS and Ex Perfect Kill  thread  http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=0ed9b740a58b798c33821d68a6635008&topic=18535/post-101223#msg101223 
your superiors know otherwise.
A 9 May 2003 CLS 'Training Ammunition Request - ADATS Missiles' BN notes "the estimated replacement cost, should production be started, is a minimum of C$360K per ADATS missile." 
Definitely Not Cost-effective for shooting <US$100K T-72s or recce vehicles.  :

 

[Zipper]

Which is why I stated somewhere around here that we would be able to afford MBT's and their supports for as much as we'll spend on training gunners on the ADATS. Of course, we could REALLY afford CV-90's or their like for the same amount as well.

 

[ArmyRick]

Zipper, the CF is not going with the LAV MGS, TUA and MMEV because of cost.
They are going with an all wheeled force because of deployment issues and they want they assetts to move around rapidly. Tanks don't move rapidly from one city to another.

Your still stuck in cold war mentality and thinking combat team is the only way to go. MBT and IFV blasting their way across the rhine. Or in your case the cougar blasting from the firing pad in meaford.

Thats not the type of mission the CF has been doing in the last decade.

Have you seen some of the new roles the arms are tackling? Probably not since your profile puts you out for awhile..

Arty (UAV tasking as well as Light Gun)
Reserve armour is all mounted on G-wagons or worse silverado (where is the armour in that?)
RegF Armour will now handle DFS and Surveillance.
Infantry has no mortars, pioneers or TOW.

So um yeah, A single arms regiment will more than likely work.

Just about every tour the sub units are gathered together (plug 'n' play) to form battle groups under the command of an inf or armour HQ.

 

[Zipper]

Zipper, the CF is not going with the LAV MGS, TUA and MMEV because of cost.
They are going with an all wheeled force because of deployment issues and they want they assets to move around rapidly. Tanks don't move rapidly from one city to another.

Huh??? ???

The LAV MGS, TUA, and MMEV ARE wheeled? Hence the LAV part. The Strats moving to a DFS unit (whatever the hell that is) are slated to use just those vehicles. Which is the whole argument from my side.

Unless there has been another announcement say that we are no longer considering them?

As for changing roles and tasks. I am well aware of that. Yes it has taken me some time to come around to such thinking, but I have. That is why I have referred to some of the other threads which talk about the use of Cavalry and light Infantry units. All of them are combined arms regiments.

Is the regimental system going to die. I don't think so.

Are they going to be made into these combined arms units, but keep their names? That is what I think most likely.

Which is why I referred mainly to one of the more accepted ideas (around here) of the Infantry moving towards a totally light tasking with all the other arms adding their capabilities within the unit. Same with Cavalry. The Armoured units would move towards this tasking using LAVs and having all the other arms included within the same beret or cap badge.

The Infantry/Armoured/Arty Corps would still exist, but mainly as a means of working through there various schools to train each of the components of an all arms regiment.

Will any of this actually happen? I don't know. And I doubt it.

NDHQ works in its own way.

If anything, they are still stuck in a cold war mentality with the idea of keeping the Infantry mounted as Mech Inf. Mech Inf cannot work properly if they do not have Tank support. Thus get rid of Mech Inf and move all the vehicles to a more rapid Cavalry idea. Make the infantry into Light so they can rapidly respond to any mission. (like the RM, Rangers, etc...)

If anything, they are still stuck in a cold war mentality with this DFS idea. The MGS is NOT an tank. So it cannot move, fire, and support like one. Yet what are they doing with their 4 MGS/2 TUA/2 MMEV idea? Moving like a tank. As well with only 1 regiment tasked, they are basically taking them out of the ability to be deployed.

If anything, they are still stuck in a cold war mentality with the idea that we need so many Armoured Recce units. Why? Every unit is capably of doing recce, and calling in fire missions with the ISTAR. You don't need 6 or more squadrons of armoured recce to support your other units, since we vary rarely deploy anything larger then a battle group. As well, with all your militia regiments going recce, and since we increasingly use the militia. Just plug a squadron of militia Gwagons into your formation and your covered.

Also on this topic and covering the Cavalry idea. Since we have lost the Tank, and thus any kind of true bite we had, we need to reconfigure our forces to gain some of that back. Thus the Cav. If you go and read the Light vs Medium thread, you'll see that is just what is being discussed. And fully deployable in a sustainable manner and capable of supporting the other elements within our own forces and well as out.

But I say again. Will any of this happen? I doubt it. NDHQ has its own agenda.

 

[ArmyRick]

I do agree with you on NDHQ being stuck on cold war however give General Hillier a year or two there to shake some sense into them (That would be a miracle in its self).

I don't agree with the idea of concentrating the DFS system all in one regt (No logic). I beleive they should divide up the DFS assetts between each armoured regt and that would give each of these regts a DFS Squadron.

I will ease off on the trigger as far blasting you for cold war thinking. From reading what you posted it seems as though your thinking transformation rather than blasting away on the front in Germany (old school)

I am embracing the MGS. Why ??? WHY IN GODS NAME WOULD I DO THAT ??? Because we have to. We have to learn what this weapon is capable of and what its limitations are and employ it as such. The question should not be "Should we purchase the MGS". That decision has already been made, like it or not. Its being forced on us therefore we must make it work.

As long as we don't use MBT tactics.

Cheerio.

 

[Zipper]

Now we agree for the most part! ;D

Hee hee

I wonder about our vaunted CDS in that he seems to be fully behind the DFS unit. We'll see.

I agree that we have to work with what we're getting. I still think the MGS is a load of crap, and may still be axed by the States. If that happens, then I have no idea what will happen.

If you read the Light vs Medium thread. I incorporated the MGS (2) into each of what I would like to see as a Cavalry troop. This brings a large amount of firepower to use within each troop as support (they would be behind by 1 or more bounds) and thus give each Cavalry troop the hitting power somehwat similiar to the old tank troops. Along with TOW on the turrests of the LAV III's and the dismounts, this would give each troop alot of hitting power and still keep the mobility high. As well with each of the LAV III's able to tie into the ISTAR, and a troop of Gwagons out front locating targets quietly, fire support can be called in from either the Arty boys or air support.

This formation is still able to engage reasonably heavy opposition, but able to patrol, scout, screen, etc...