Canadian Armoured Cavalry
- Thread starter TangoTwoBravo
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I twigged on this after posting to another thread: the true Cavalry today is no longer mounted on vehicles but rather on aircraft. (Hardly an original thought, true)
The ratio of speed between mechanized and motor troops is not really all that great, it is more a matter of degree than kind: mech forces have better cross country mobility, while motor forces have better road mobility. The addition of heavy wheeled transporters closes the gap in terms of administrative road moves, and it may even be possible that advanced technology like "band tracks" could allow AFVs to do long road marches, approaching the ability of a Marine LAV or Army SBCT to displace 100km in a single night.
The ratio of speeds between aircraft and ground vehicles is probably closer to the ratio of speed between marching infantry and horse cavalry in the past. The flanking, screening and patrolling roles of the Cavalry would be much better performed by fast moving troops mounted on helicopters or some sort of VTOL aircraft. Like the Cavalry forces under discussion earlier in this thread, the Airmobile Cavalry would only have a limited "act" capability, but the ability to provide sensor coverage over the AOR and supplement it by landing foot patrols on or near areas of interest would be "second to none".
This is really an "Air Cavalry Light" option, which could be implemented using Griffons, say one flight with ERSTA suites, one flight carrying recce patrols and one flight kitted with "self defense packages" (say 4X Hellfire and 2 X Stinger), although we could all hope for better platforms to be selected in the place of the Griffin. The other down side to this idea is by consuming the tac air squadron from the brigade, the other duties of the tac air squadron are unfilled, unless the government commits to buying 100 more Bell 412's and painting them green....
The ratio of speed between mechanized and motor troops is not really all that great, it is more a matter of degree than kind: mech forces have better cross country mobility, while motor forces have better road mobility. The addition of heavy wheeled transporters closes the gap in terms of administrative road moves, and it may even be possible that advanced technology like "band tracks" could allow AFVs to do long road marches, approaching the ability of a Marine LAV or Army SBCT to displace 100km in a single night.
The ratio of speeds between aircraft and ground vehicles is probably closer to the ratio of speed between marching infantry and horse cavalry in the past. The flanking, screening and patrolling roles of the Cavalry would be much better performed by fast moving troops mounted on helicopters or some sort of VTOL aircraft. Like the Cavalry forces under discussion earlier in this thread, the Airmobile Cavalry would only have a limited "act" capability, but the ability to provide sensor coverage over the AOR and supplement it by landing foot patrols on or near areas of interest would be "second to none".
This is really an "Air Cavalry Light" option, which could be implemented using Griffons, say one flight with ERSTA suites, one flight carrying recce patrols and one flight kitted with "self defense packages" (say 4X Hellfire and 2 X Stinger), although we could all hope for better platforms to be selected in the place of the Griffin. The other down side to this idea is by consuming the tac air squadron from the brigade, the other duties of the tac air squadron are unfilled, unless the government commits to buying 100 more Bell 412's and painting them green....
- Reaction score
- 8,490
- Points
- 1,160
One big difference I see. The Guy on Horseback? He can stop, get off and have a look around, hopefully without the other guy seeing him. Difficult to do from fast air. Still pretty difficult from rotary wings (OK so they have a video camera - that helps - but not quite as stealthy as Zipper on his faithful steed).
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Sneaking up on someone with a Coyote is probably a bit tricky as well.
There are ways to make "Air Cav" or "Air Cav Light" have a smaller footprint, such as adding surveillance and ground attack UAVs as part of the unit, or deploying the foot patrols by parachute, foot or vehicle and doing the P/U by helicopter for example. The key element I am trying to get at is the key element of Cavalry in the past was speed, and in todays world, airmobility provides more of a differential than wheeled or tracked vehicles. The high mobility and ability to approach from any direction gives an airmobile unit far more of an edge in scouting, screening, flanking and rear security than a wheeled unit which is mostly restricted by the terrain.
Food for thought.
There are ways to make "Air Cav" or "Air Cav Light" have a smaller footprint, such as adding surveillance and ground attack UAVs as part of the unit, or deploying the foot patrols by parachute, foot or vehicle and doing the P/U by helicopter for example. The key element I am trying to get at is the key element of Cavalry in the past was speed, and in todays world, airmobility provides more of a differential than wheeled or tracked vehicles. The high mobility and ability to approach from any direction gives an airmobile unit far more of an edge in scouting, screening, flanking and rear security than a wheeled unit which is mostly restricted by the terrain.
Food for thought.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 230
I, along with all of you, am anxiously waiting the defense review. I honestly think that the illusion of the "capable of general warfare" and "alongside the best, against the best" will be totally ignored, lost, and/or forgotten.
With our land forces being stuck in wheeled vehicles, we will certainly be of no use in the assault, or really, in truly modern mobile battlefield. The wheels simply have to many limitations when taken off road. It may raise the hackles on many supporters of the Coyote/LAV III, but these vehicles can only really be used in limited roles, and these roles do not include reconnaissance as we know it.
The new light army will surely be capable of providing a screen, using our surveillance suites.
As mentioned, convoy escort, and similar duties, such as route patrolling, are well within our capabilities.
Rear area security will be a breeze.
In my own, not so humble opinion, our new "improved" army will be highly capable of supporting true combat capable higher formations that belong to our allies. The only other task that we will be capable of is the tasks that we are conducting right now, such as Kabul. Trying to figure out a way that we would be a viable, independent force on a modern battlefield is futility, I think. With no armour, no air support from either rotary or fixed wing, no air defense, and limited mobility, our days of operating anywhere under national command is something we will only see in the history books.
It's unfortunate, but we seem to have subjugated our ability to use force on a battlefield to one of "meet the requirements of the United Nations."
With our land forces being stuck in wheeled vehicles, we will certainly be of no use in the assault, or really, in truly modern mobile battlefield. The wheels simply have to many limitations when taken off road. It may raise the hackles on many supporters of the Coyote/LAV III, but these vehicles can only really be used in limited roles, and these roles do not include reconnaissance as we know it.
The new light army will surely be capable of providing a screen, using our surveillance suites.
As mentioned, convoy escort, and similar duties, such as route patrolling, are well within our capabilities.
Rear area security will be a breeze.
In my own, not so humble opinion, our new "improved" army will be highly capable of supporting true combat capable higher formations that belong to our allies. The only other task that we will be capable of is the tasks that we are conducting right now, such as Kabul. Trying to figure out a way that we would be a viable, independent force on a modern battlefield is futility, I think. With no armour, no air support from either rotary or fixed wing, no air defense, and limited mobility, our days of operating anywhere under national command is something we will only see in the history books.
It's unfortunate, but we seem to have subjugated our ability to use force on a battlefield to one of "meet the requirements of the United Nations."
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,370
- Points
- 1,110
AMajoor,
Air Cavarly certainly has some advantages but I see as part of the whole Cavalry concept and not the whole show. US Divisional Cavalry Squadrons had a mix of ground Troops (sub-units) and air Troops (helicopters) when I was down South (it may have changed). Air Troops with Kiowa Warriors give the CO the ability to quickly cover areas and when working with ground scouts can be a formidable team.
Helicopters working on their own in a Cavalry role, however, would have some disadvantages. First off there is the endurance factor. Helos cannot operate indefinately. A Coyote Patrol can be told to watch an NAI for days at time, while helos will have to work in a rotation. Using helos to bring in infantry for patrols, OPs etc is an advantage, but once the helicopters fly away the guys on the ground are pretty much on their own. Cavalry in Coyotes, LAVs or any other ground vehicle have one thing in common with the old-school cavalry in that their mounts stay close when they dismount. The speed of Cavalry troops once their choppers have left is pretty slow.
Another issue is vulnerability. Coyotes and LAVs are certainly vulnerable, but helicopters working on their own can become isolated when they get shot down or have mechanical failures. This leads to a host of problems (Blackhawk Down). At least a ground based Cavalry force has help immediately at hand in the form of other combat systems and forward moving CSS. Aviation also has severe limitations in the urban environment.
Before the airforce guys jump all over me I do firmly believe that aviation is useful! I am all for an integrated Cavalry Task Force that could include aviation assets. I'd love to have access to OH-58Ds for scouting and CH-47s for lift/resupply. Air assault etc is a whole other ball of wax, so to speak, and is sometimes the only way to get troops around an area of operations.
Lance,
I think that a Canadian Army consisting of a Light Force and a Cavalry Force could still make meaningful contributions to coalition warfighting in the sorts of roles you mention. The Cavalry role allows us to be an important component of a Coalition formation. Without tanks, arty and the other assets you mention we are certainly precluded from our traditional warfighting roles (ie a CMBG slogging it out with some enemy). I do think that we could also conduct reconnaissance in front of a moving force, but I admit that I am a Coyote believer and recognize that I am somewhat alone in that position here! :warstory:
Cheers,
2B
Air Cavarly certainly has some advantages but I see as part of the whole Cavalry concept and not the whole show. US Divisional Cavalry Squadrons had a mix of ground Troops (sub-units) and air Troops (helicopters) when I was down South (it may have changed). Air Troops with Kiowa Warriors give the CO the ability to quickly cover areas and when working with ground scouts can be a formidable team.
Helicopters working on their own in a Cavalry role, however, would have some disadvantages. First off there is the endurance factor. Helos cannot operate indefinately. A Coyote Patrol can be told to watch an NAI for days at time, while helos will have to work in a rotation. Using helos to bring in infantry for patrols, OPs etc is an advantage, but once the helicopters fly away the guys on the ground are pretty much on their own. Cavalry in Coyotes, LAVs or any other ground vehicle have one thing in common with the old-school cavalry in that their mounts stay close when they dismount. The speed of Cavalry troops once their choppers have left is pretty slow.
Another issue is vulnerability. Coyotes and LAVs are certainly vulnerable, but helicopters working on their own can become isolated when they get shot down or have mechanical failures. This leads to a host of problems (Blackhawk Down). At least a ground based Cavalry force has help immediately at hand in the form of other combat systems and forward moving CSS. Aviation also has severe limitations in the urban environment.
Before the airforce guys jump all over me I do firmly believe that aviation is useful! I am all for an integrated Cavalry Task Force that could include aviation assets. I'd love to have access to OH-58Ds for scouting and CH-47s for lift/resupply. Air assault etc is a whole other ball of wax, so to speak, and is sometimes the only way to get troops around an area of operations.
Lance,
I think that a Canadian Army consisting of a Light Force and a Cavalry Force could still make meaningful contributions to coalition warfighting in the sorts of roles you mention. The Cavalry role allows us to be an important component of a Coalition formation. Without tanks, arty and the other assets you mention we are certainly precluded from our traditional warfighting roles (ie a CMBG slogging it out with some enemy). I do think that we could also conduct reconnaissance in front of a moving force, but I admit that I am a Coyote believer and recognize that I am somewhat alone in that position here! :warstory:
Cheers,
2B
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
a_majoor said:
I do think we could use Air Cav. I would most likely make it Infantry Heavy, making our Light Inf Bns Air Mobile, rather than wheeled.
I disagree with your above thoughts on Recce and Surveillance. There is no way that these Helios will be able to stay on station long enough to do effective Recce or Surveillance. It would have to be only used in the Advance or Withdrawl, but would not be effective in a Screen or any other long term Surveillance task. Wheeled or tracked (the better solution) Recce Vehicles would be better, as they would be able to use more stealth. Aircraft move too much and attract too much attention in this case. Heliborne troops would loose the ability to use their sense of hearing while airborne. Many enemy would be able to seek cover and avoid detection when they hear a flight approaching.
I would truly like to see our Army get more Choppers. I think that they would provide more versitility for our forces on the Battlefield.
GW
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
An Air Cav Light squadron as part of the larger CCBG concept is certainly the ideal way to go, and I have no argument with the need for the long term endurance that vehicle assets can give. (I wrote about this in a somewhat different context in the ADTB http://armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/adtb/vol_5/adtb_vol5no4_e.pdf).
Only an all out "Air Cavalry" equipped with attack (oh, excuse me, "armed") helicopters and a robust logistics train including heavy lift helicopters can be expected to maintain a presence on the battlfield for a long time, or to successfully perform the "act" function. Adding the "Air Cavalry Light" option to our mix increases the speed ratio between "Cavalry" formations and other units, but still has many of the same limitations leading to a "sense" rather than an "act" bias. Keeping this in mind will provide a very useful capability to a Cavalry formation.
So the big question now for 2B is: when are you presenting the staff paper?
Only an all out "Air Cavalry" equipped with attack (oh, excuse me, "armed") helicopters and a robust logistics train including heavy lift helicopters can be expected to maintain a presence on the battlfield for a long time, or to successfully perform the "act" function. Adding the "Air Cavalry Light" option to our mix increases the speed ratio between "Cavalry" formations and other units, but still has many of the same limitations leading to a "sense" rather than an "act" bias. Keeping this in mind will provide a very useful capability to a Cavalry formation.
So the big question now for 2B is: when are you presenting the staff paper?
- Reaction score
- 10,637
- Points
- 1,260
Since we're considering an "Air Cav" mix for the combined-arms "Cavalry" team, should we maybe consider the famous Aero-Rifles, the 9th Cavalry Regiment, of the (Vietnam-Era) First Cavalry Division. A truly combined-arms formation, it had "Teams" - Red, White, and Blue - of which one was an Air-Assault Infantry, one was Attack Helos, and one was Recce Helos. Anyone who has seen the famous "Apocalypse Now" scene with Col Killgore's Air Cav? This is the unit the movie is referring to.
Could we fashion something like this for inclusion in the Canadian Cavalry Concept?
An Air Cavalry Squadron would have a Headquarters Troop. As well, there would be three tactical units:
- An Air-Assault Troop, which would contain 4 Helos each with a section of Infantry soldiers.
- An Air-Attack Troop, which would contain 4 Helos configured for ground attack
- An Air-Recce Troop, which may contain a mix of Surveillance equipped Helos and UAV's.
For Airframes, ideal airframes would be UH-60's for Air-Assault, UH-1Z's for Air-Attack, and perhaps the Kiowa mixed with UAV's for Air-Recce. Now, putting down the Monopoly money and sticking to the "Canadian Cavalry" principle of using kit that is On-Hand in the next 5 years:
If it were possible to upgrade the Gearbox and Rotormast on our Griffon fleet (as Inch seems to allude to on this thread) perhaps we could up the power specs and get over the most severe shortcomings of the platform.
A Griffon utilizing that swank engine performance could most likely be used for its modularity, allowing it to fullfill the troop carrier role as well as a stand-off attack mode with Hellfire or Minigun stations. A suite of UAV's could be used for the Recce roll, minimising the logistical footprint of the squadron (say, 8 helos in the troops, a command helo and a spare in the HQ troop, and 4-6 UAV's).
An Air Assault Squadron configured like this could be embedded into a Cavalry Structure, allowing the Ground/Air team to leapfrog or work together, or allowing the Ground Cavalry to work in close operations while the Air team moves to Deep Operations.
Just an idea for the mix....
Could we fashion something like this for inclusion in the Canadian Cavalry Concept?
An Air Cavalry Squadron would have a Headquarters Troop. As well, there would be three tactical units:
- An Air-Assault Troop, which would contain 4 Helos each with a section of Infantry soldiers.
- An Air-Attack Troop, which would contain 4 Helos configured for ground attack
- An Air-Recce Troop, which may contain a mix of Surveillance equipped Helos and UAV's.
For Airframes, ideal airframes would be UH-60's for Air-Assault, UH-1Z's for Air-Attack, and perhaps the Kiowa mixed with UAV's for Air-Recce. Now, putting down the Monopoly money and sticking to the "Canadian Cavalry" principle of using kit that is On-Hand in the next 5 years:
If it were possible to upgrade the Gearbox and Rotormast on our Griffon fleet (as Inch seems to allude to on this thread) perhaps we could up the power specs and get over the most severe shortcomings of the platform.
A Griffon utilizing that swank engine performance could most likely be used for its modularity, allowing it to fullfill the troop carrier role as well as a stand-off attack mode with Hellfire or Minigun stations. A suite of UAV's could be used for the Recce roll, minimising the logistical footprint of the squadron (say, 8 helos in the troops, a command helo and a spare in the HQ troop, and 4-6 UAV's).
An Air Assault Squadron configured like this could be embedded into a Cavalry Structure, allowing the Ground/Air team to leapfrog or work together, or allowing the Ground Cavalry to work in close operations while the Air team moves to Deep Operations.
Just an idea for the mix....
TangoTwoBravo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,370
- Points
- 1,110
Art,
I really should get down, stop tinkering and finish...
Cheers,
2B
I really should get down, stop tinkering and finish...
Cheers,
2B
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
As one of the detractors to this mode of thinking, I will say it was a very good presentation and sure, why not. Get it published.
However, it still has a lot of dreaming involved helicopter wise. Is there a hope in hell of Air Cav? Probably as much chance of a Marine type unit.
What worries me (a little conspiracy theorizing here), is those at NDHQ who may actually read these threads and be rubbing there hands together going... ..."Their buying it! Excellent. We'll continue to lighten our forces until there of absolutely no use as anything other then heavier armed police. My masters on the Hill will love me, and give me a promotion.".
Yeah I know. Drama Queen.
But it does seem to me that we are continually being ordered to lower our capabilities and liking it. With this threads idea, we will only be useful in other nations formations and thus subject to their requirements. If we do that, whats next? The Gov lowering the budget even more and getting rid of all combat capabilities to the States? Then we only need supply support services? Hell, we're doing mostly that now.
Sigh
However, it still has a lot of dreaming involved helicopter wise. Is there a hope in hell of Air Cav? Probably as much chance of a Marine type unit.
What worries me (a little conspiracy theorizing here), is those at NDHQ who may actually read these threads and be rubbing there hands together going... ..."Their buying it! Excellent. We'll continue to lighten our forces until there of absolutely no use as anything other then heavier armed police. My masters on the Hill will love me, and give me a promotion.".
Yeah I know. Drama Queen.
But it does seem to me that we are continually being ordered to lower our capabilities and liking it. With this threads idea, we will only be useful in other nations formations and thus subject to their requirements. If we do that, whats next? The Gov lowering the budget even more and getting rid of all combat capabilities to the States? Then we only need supply support services? Hell, we're doing mostly that now.
Sigh
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
The unfortunate outcome of making our Army lighter, is that it may become more expensive in the long run.
When we start talking of Light fighting troops, Armoured as well as Infantry and Arty, we are being very shortsighted. Sure they will not have Heavy Armour anymore and we are saving in equipment purchases that way, but how do we move these new troops around the battlefield? We need Airlift. I wonder if it is cheaper to fly a large fleet of CH 53 PavLow choppers or a fleet of Armoured Vehicles? What are the Maintenance costs and times involved with Heliborne equipment compared to Armoured vehicles?
This is what gets me about all the decisions coming out of NDHQ and the Government. Decisions to save a buck today, but that will cost us hundreds tomorrow.
GW
When we start talking of Light fighting troops, Armoured as well as Infantry and Arty, we are being very shortsighted. Sure they will not have Heavy Armour anymore and we are saving in equipment purchases that way, but how do we move these new troops around the battlefield? We need Airlift. I wonder if it is cheaper to fly a large fleet of CH 53 PavLow choppers or a fleet of Armoured Vehicles? What are the Maintenance costs and times involved with Heliborne equipment compared to Armoured vehicles?
This is what gets me about all the decisions coming out of NDHQ and the Government. Decisions to save a buck today, but that will cost us hundreds tomorrow.
GW
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Zipper said:
If thats what the secret readers are thinking, they are not reading very closely. We are changing the way we think, the way we use equipment and manpower and the organizations that control and employ the assets to wring the maximum "bang" out of the buck. While (to tie some other threads together),in the short term, we may not get an effective MGS with a 75mm high velocity cannon, or MMEV firing 10+km ranged FOG-Ms, or "Air Cav Light" with armed helicopters, by thinking about it now, we can control the parameters of the debate and direct future thinking towards more effective solutions.
(Damn, did I say that out loud?)
- Reaction score
- 10,637
- Points
- 1,260
It is certainly better to be proactive in thought and ideas with the realities of what you have then to simply give up and say "what's the point, we don't have X". As professionals, we can't afford to do that and if it takes some serious "Out of the Box" thinking to avoid it, then so be it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Again, no argument on those two points. Thinking out of the box is fine. Its buying into the boxes that scares me.
Again, I have to agree with George. The long term costs are something to consider. I honestly, I just did... ...scary.
With the idea of thinking outside the box and going over to lighter vehicles and such. Are we paying for these things in extra lives since each vehicle does not have the survivability that even a slightly heavier tracked vehicle may? I'm not talking about heavy MBT's, but I believe Majoor is big on the CV-90?
As well by getting rid of our heavier on the move DF systems in the Leo, and going over to this layered idea, are we not actually raising the cost of each round? As far as I know a TOW missile costs a hell of alot more then a 105mm round, or even a 120mm for that matter? Also, these missile mounted vehicles are only able to get maybe 2 shots off before they need to reload, which then takes them off the line. Not to mention the fact that being light armoured vehicles that have to sit there until their missiles hit makes them rather vulnerable to pretty much any counter fire, including arty.
And I am not even going to go into this 8km direct fire idea. How many places in the world are we realistically going to be able to have a chance of doing this? Besides Saskachewan and maybe Hwy 400 going towards Windsor and like places (hill tops in Afghanistan?), the ranges we'll end up in contact with the enemy will be alot less. And if we can hit them? They can sure as hell hit us.
It all sounds pretty scary to me.
Again, I have to agree with George. The long term costs are something to consider. I honestly, I just did... ...scary.
With the idea of thinking outside the box and going over to lighter vehicles and such. Are we paying for these things in extra lives since each vehicle does not have the survivability that even a slightly heavier tracked vehicle may? I'm not talking about heavy MBT's, but I believe Majoor is big on the CV-90?
As well by getting rid of our heavier on the move DF systems in the Leo, and going over to this layered idea, are we not actually raising the cost of each round? As far as I know a TOW missile costs a hell of alot more then a 105mm round, or even a 120mm for that matter? Also, these missile mounted vehicles are only able to get maybe 2 shots off before they need to reload, which then takes them off the line. Not to mention the fact that being light armoured vehicles that have to sit there until their missiles hit makes them rather vulnerable to pretty much any counter fire, including arty.
And I am not even going to go into this 8km direct fire idea. How many places in the world are we realistically going to be able to have a chance of doing this? Besides Saskachewan and maybe Hwy 400 going towards Windsor and like places (hill tops in Afghanistan?), the ranges we'll end up in contact with the enemy will be alot less. And if we can hit them? They can sure as hell hit us.
It all sounds pretty scary to me.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 208
- Points
- 710
Zipper said:
Damn it! I knew it. Years ago I said that we should not look at the successes of the First Gulf War to become the latest in War Game Strategies. It is truly a bad model to get trapped into formulating future Combat. It was fought by a well equiped but questionably lacking Army of Iraq and a vastly superior Army of the more technicallly advanced and better trained Armies of the Coalition. It was fought, for the majority, in a desert with few obstructions of vision and fire. I look at it as a textbook "TableTop" war, fought basically on a flat 'playing surface'. I would say that any lessons learned would only apply to ideal and identical situations; such as Gulf War II. This type of war would not be able to be fought in Africa, Asia, Europe or the Americas.
Zipper asks a good point - Where are we likely to employ a ground weapons system that is lightly armoured and can continually find fire positions that will give it 7 to 8 Km ranges? I could see an airborne weapons system being effective that way, but not a ground mounted system. At most, I would say that most ground systems would find their average maximum ranges would only stretch out to 2 - 4 Km.
Is the ADATs a false starter, an attempt to redefine an AA system into a Ground Defence role?
GW
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Long range weapons systems like ADATS are not likely to find a good firing position in anyplace besides Suffield, which explains my support for N-LOS systems like HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or FOG-M, which can cover 8 or more km through the use of a scout/forward observer to identify the target, then can fly in under command of a forward observer, seek the target autonomosly, or be steered in by operator command.
Missile systems have advantages (can course correct to the moment of impact, and carry large or multiple warheads) which make them good compliments to a gun system. It is unfortunate we seem to be tied to some of the lesser lights in the missile department, but there are work arounds.
Zipper and GW raise some good points, but as Infanteer says, we can't just throw up our hands and walk away. We may just have to tear the lid off the box and flood the interior with light instead....
Missile systems have advantages (can course correct to the moment of impact, and carry large or multiple warheads) which make them good compliments to a gun system. It is unfortunate we seem to be tied to some of the lesser lights in the missile department, but there are work arounds.
Zipper and GW raise some good points, but as Infanteer says, we can't just throw up our hands and walk away. We may just have to tear the lid off the box and flood the interior with light instead....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ARGH!! The light, it burns! it burns!!! Nasty Light! ( I think Gollum said something to the effect?)
Sorry.
Agreed that missile systems have their place, and that N-LOS would be very handy. ADATS on the other hand should be kept with the Air Defense Batteries.
How we "tear the lid off" is another question? As per another thread, I am still not sure where our CDS lands on all this? I guess we'll just have to wait until the policy comes out. Not that the Gov just wouldn't ignore him if he decided to voice his full concerns.
Sigh
Sorry.
Agreed that missile systems have their place, and that N-LOS would be very handy. ADATS on the other hand should be kept with the Air Defense Batteries.
How we "tear the lid off" is another question? As per another thread, I am still not sure where our CDS lands on all this? I guess we'll just have to wait until the policy comes out. Not that the Gov just wouldn't ignore him if he decided to voice his full concerns.
Sigh
Similar threads
