Infantry of Tomorrow

[Kirkhill]

Hmmm...those numbers don't seem to jive with the distribution plans I've seen.

Hopefully the plan dies a quick death so the Infantry isn't burdened with 3 fleets of vehicles, all in the light to mid-weight armoured range.

Left hand, meet Right hand?

 

[Kirkhill]

Wasting time today I came across these dated tidbits from the AdmMat site on Projects.  Are these numbers still current?

.....


TAPV Project  Equipment List May 2010

Recce Variant 3 Crew (with respirators) 1 Surveillance Operator (without respirator  ;D) and one other "enabler" would be nice if possible....

Utility Variant 1 Sect Comd, 3 Riflemen, 1 Grenadier, 1 LMG gunner ......0 Crew Commander, 0 Driver, 0 Gunner, 0 Surv Ops.

Looks like your sections are going to be getting smaller......?  Or is this just a planning exercise?



Future Infantry might start to look like US Cavalry - Lots of Vehicles with 4-6 Dismounts (And I would bet on 4 rather than 6)

Taking another look at the TAPV equipment list I noticed this:

Gun, 84 mm, Carl Gustaf, M3 ........ 1 veh in 8 would carry this, a pax seat can be sacrificed for stowage.
SRAAW(M) - 84 mm HEAT x 4 rounds ......1 veh in 8 would carry this, a pax seat can be sacrificed for stowage.
C6 Dismounted ....... 1 veh in 8 would carry this.
FS Kit - C6 ....1 veh in 8 would carry this.
Ammo C6 Dismounted ......1 veh in 8 would carry this. 2 boxes of 880

From that I would infer an 8 Car (General Utility Version) organization each carrying 6 pers with the exception of one Car which will only carry 5 pers (the Wpns Det apparently (minus the 60 mm MOR))

That results in a 6x8-1=47 pers command ..... a large Platoon or is it a small Company?

The earlier text  describes the occupants as a "Commander (not a Section Commander - my error)" and 5 "Assaulters (3 Rifle, 1 LMG and 1 Grenadier) for a total of 6.

I think it is fair to say that if and when TAPVs are issued then 2 troops, probably "Assaulters - Rifle" will stay behind with the vehicle as Driver and Gunner.  That will reduce the 47 pers command to two separate commands.  One of 16 pers manning the 8 TAPVs and GMGs and a dismount group of 31 organized in 7 groups of 4 + 1 group of 3.  Would it be reasonable to suggest that this is a "traditional" Platoon of 3x 8 pers Sections of 2 dets of 4, a 3 pers Wpns Det and a 4 pers Cmd cell?

The organization has the advantage that the Platoon/Company Commander can field 3x 2 Car patrols each with 2 C6/GMG RWS and an 8 Pers Dismount Section.

So far so good..... but is this the same organization that will be fielded when the unit deploys in LAVS (3 crew + 7 dismounts)?  How about CCVs (3+5)?  How about when on foot?

And I take to heart Infanteer's comments about these numbers not jiving with what he has been seeing.  I am fascinated watching this Transformation play out.

 

[Infanteer]

If I'm not mistaken, the plan calls for all 27 Rifle Companies to be the same - not to be fashioned after a specific vehicle.

Something like this:

http://www.army.gov.au/lwsc/docs/Owen_Universal_Infantry.pdf

 

[Kirkhill]

If I read Owen right, and understand you correctly, then what is being suggested is something like this:

CCV crews - Driver/Gunner/CC
LAV crews - Driver/Gunner/CC
TAPV crews - Driver/CC-Gunner combined

Helicopter Crews
Assault Boat Crews

And then the Universal Infantry or 27 Rifle Companies that will be tasked to operate with one of the above for a limited/extended duration depending on operational needs.

Can I also infer that the Rifle Company will be the basis of employment and not the Battalion and thus the Company will be Heavied Up by adding a 4th Depth/Support Platoon?

 

[Infanteer]

Close; I disagree with Owen that crews should be separate - we've debated this on a few occasions and I'm likely a prisoner of my own experiences...so be it.

However, I put the Owen article up as I found it struck a cord - we don't get to pick what sort of environment we'll fight in and trying to plan for them all is too expensive so just generalize as much as possible.

In terms of Infantry 2013 for Canada, we'll likely have 27 Companies of the same cut (3 x 39 man platoons and Coy HQ - fairly in line with Owen's proposition) operating 3 different platforms.  From this, we will force generate rifle companies as needs be to man whatever platform is suitable for operational employment.

Seems like an attempt to have our cake and eat it too.  I am wondering why the horsepower and money put into the TAPV and CCV wouldn't be funnelled to give us 24-27 LAV companies, virtually eliminating the Force Generation/Force Employment gap.

 

[ArmyRick]

Owen's article was interesting. One simple platoon organization and re-organized to suit the mission.

Could we make it work?

MY Idea (in my warped reality that only I understand and my wife fears)

The ideal Canadian Platoon. 35. With 4 in a company.

LT (COMD)
WO (2IC)
SIG

4 x Identical Sections
SGT, MCPL, 6 x PTE/CPL

Dismounted Operations (where LAV can not support)

PL HQ = same
a section is tasked as weapons det
SGT (Gun controller) 4 x PTE manning 2 x C6 GPMG with each 3 x belts of 220, each section tasked to carry an additional 2 x belts (12 x belts total), The M/CPL can take the other two and equip them with 7.62mm Scoped rifles or task them as 84mm crew (An UNDER APPRECIATED weapon IMO).

More to follow....

 

[ArmyRick]

LAVIII Configuration

Task 3 sections minus their MCPL (Sect 2IC) to be the dismounted element. 1 x SGT (The LAV SGT), 3 x MCPL, 8 x Troops crewing LAV. Dismounted LT, SIG, 3 x sections of 7 to fight, WO and the 4th MCPL (As his helper guy? Don't know what to do with him just yet)

Where the C6 dismounted in this case? Come on, 25mm x 4 should be good enough for the greediest fire power man...

FIRE SUPPORT PLATOON CONFIGURATION
-Supports the other platoons in dismounted company attack scenario
-borrowing some of this idea from the brits
PL HQ same
1 section man 2 x 60mm Mortars (each 4 man group should be able to hump 32-40 x bombs, I didn't pleasant)
2 Section man 2 x Javelin ALAWS (IF WE had such a system, only wishing, 3 missiles each det?)
3 and 4 section man 2 x GPMG in SF role each

How am I doing so far? Waiting for the flame throwers from the DS infantry officers to light me up....

 

[Michael OLeary]

How am I doing so far? Waiting for the flame throwers from the DS infantry officers to light me up....

The critical point is that there is no "DS solution." Any reasonable platoon organization can be made to work IF it is accompanied by a corresponding system of training, tactics, reinforcement, etc., etc., and a system of command and control that understands its capabilities and limitations in each role it may be assigned. The danger comes from thinking a single "sect/pl org" is the solution for every situation. Manning, weapon mix, vehicles, tactics ... they all form part of a system, or "system of systems" if you like the phrase. Changing any of the elements requires examination of the other parts to see what is affected and how overall capabilities and limitations change.

 

[ArmyRick]

Light Mortar Platoon Configuration

PL HQ (same)

4 x Sections of 6 (MCPL Leading 5 x Pte w/2 x 60mm Mortar)

4 x SGT w/PTE (As spotter/signaller) Fire Controllers

Mike, as our resident Mortar God, interested in your opinion using my strict 35 man pl cut out.

 

[ArmyRick]

If I am not mistaken (maybe I am?) He was talking about taking a set of infantry guys organized into Sect and PL. Then train them and equip them to perform their mission or task within a mission. Am I off track here?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Mike, as our resident Mortar God, interested in your opinion using my strict 35 man pl cut out.

Refer to my comments above. First we need to define the role and requirement for this light mortar platoon. What tactical scenarios will it be used in, either collectively or distributed to coys. If the latter becomes the norm, is a platoon org redundant? We have often stated that its is a tragedy that the 81 mm and Pnr platoons were struck without a comprehensive examination of doctrine, strategy and tactics to justify the decision - by the same token, we shouldn't be arbitrarily creating organizations without a similar basis of argument.

 

[Kirkhill]

Suppose we apply Owen's logic not just to the Infantry but also the Blackhats (and I heard the message about dedicated crews but I'm not sure that Messrs Natczynski, Devlin and Leslie are necessarily of the same mindset - something about not letting Corps affiliations and hat badges getting in the way).

Suppose you were to do the following:

4 Leo2s with 4x4=16 Troopers
8 TAPVs with 8x2 =16 Troopers

Now consider a CCV as a CV90 married with a RheinMetall 30mm Lance Turret (Remote) as the winner of the CCV Competition - 2 Troopers per Vehicle 16 Troopers = 8 CCV 
Further assume Minimum 5 Pax and you have 8x5 = 40 Pax or a Platoon plus Command plus Specialists

And if we further consider the LAV III UP as a LAV-H with the aforesaid RH-Lance Turret then you could have 16 Troopers carrying 8x 7-8 or up to 64 (2 Platoons ?? A bunch of Specialists)

I know the debate about 2 or 3 man crews - and I have no doubt that somethings work better with a 3 man crew than a 2 man crew but given your own experiences with RWS vehicles (and the Yanks and everybody else) from an outside observer's point of view you seem to be making the system work with 2 man crews......


So.....

With all those IFs in the pot  what happens to the Armoured Regiment if, like its Infantry counterpart, it is built on 4 man bricks.  Those bricks could then be variously assigned to a Leo2, a CCV, a LAVH or a TAPV with a lot of commonality amongst the CCV, LAVH and TAPV in systems and tactics.

This would then give the CDS the ability to deploy a 60 tonne force (Leo), a 36 tonne force (CCV), a 24 tonne force (LAVH) or a 12 tonne force (M-ATV) - which, incidentally, is roughly the maximum lift capacity of the CH-147F.  And if CSOR with their Jackal SOVs are considered then he/she can also deploy a 6 tonne force.  We could also talk about Bv206s, helicopters, boats, parachutes and feet.

Just as Owen is suggesting it shouldn't take a lot of time to swith a Rifle Platoon to an ATGM Platoon (not sure if people would agree about Mortar Platoons or Pnr Platoons) equally I don't think the conversion training amongst platforms should take an inordinate amount of time.

The combination of the Multiplatform Armoured Regiment and the Universal Rifle Company seems to be a suitable fit for the CF. 

And I wouldn't begin to underestimate the massive conversion bill initially nor the potential impact on morale and unit cohesion.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Some good ideas from one of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children

The M224 60mm mortar is the most versatile weapon in the current rifle company. It has double the range of any other weapon, and other than the M203, no other weapon can hit targets in defilade. The article, "Rethinking the 'Rifle' Platoon," detailed numerous instances where having mortars on hand was crucial to battlefield success while arguing for making a mortar organic to the infantry platoon. Like any supporting arm, however, the firepower the mortar brings should not be wasted away in attachments but should be massed. Yet the mortar section is the smallest of the weapons sections, despite having the highest weapon system weight and highest ammunition burden.15 Also, the section leader is overtasked with the responsibility of leading the section, acting as a forward observer (FO) to direct fire, operating a radio, and possibly performing the functions of a fire direction center (FDC).

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/rethinking-rifle-company

 

[a_majoor]

Back to the PBI and their load carrying capacity:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/lockheed-martins-hulc-robotic.html

Lockheed Martin’s HULC Robotic Exoskeleton Enters Biomechanical Testing

Biomechanical testing of the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] ruggedized HULCTM exoskeleton is now underway at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center in Natick, Mass. The testing is expected to help shape future requirements for the HULC based on feedback from soldiers.

    For seven weeks, U.S. Army warfighters will be evaluated to assess the effects of load carriage with and without use of the HULC exoskeleton. Biomechanical testing will measure changes in energy expended by users, assessing how quickly individuals acclimate to the system and whether there is a reduction in metabolic cost. Testing will also determine if there is an improvement in metabolic efficiency as measured by oxygen consumption per unit total mass, when wearing the ruggedized HULC as compared to not wearing the device under identical load, speed, grade and duration conditions.

    Lockheed Martin’s HULC is an un-tethered, battery powered, hydraulic-actuated anthropomorphic exoskeleton that provides users the ability to carry loads up to 200 pounds for up to 20 kilometers on a single battery charge over all terrains. HULC’s design allows for deep squats, crawls and upper-body lifting with minimal human exertion. An advanced onboard micro-computer ensures the exoskeleton moves in concert with the operator. HULC is an innovative solution that improves endurance and reduces the risk of injury to the soldier.

    “Our latest generation of the HULC design provides unmatched flexibility, strength and endurance,” said Jim Ni, HULC program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “It will enable soldiers to do things they cannot do today, while helping to protect them from musculoskeletal injuries.”

    The Department of Veterans Affairs reports that the most prevalent service-connected disabilities stem from musculoskeletal system injuries.

    Following successful biomechanical evaluations, the ruggedized HULC system will transition to a series of field excursions to measure its utility in simulated operational environments.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Back to the PBI and their load carrying capacity:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/lockheed-martins-hulc-robotic.html

So I guess we don't need an efficient echelon system if we issue these things.  :

 

[Michael OLeary]

Back to the PBI and their load carrying capacity:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/07/lockheed-martins-hulc-robotic.html

Is there a repair and recovery variant?  Does the system include an extra transport vehicle for the "exos" when they're not being used? 

"Soldier, I expect you to come back on your exo, or carrying it, is that understood?"

"Look at me guys, I'm a Transform ... frig ... anyone got a half-inch wrench and some extra hydraulic fluid?"

Call me when the bugs are worked out.

 

[Kirkhill]

So I guess we don't need an efficient echelon system if we issue these things.  :

Personally I prefer to travel with a credit card and have UPS deliver what I need.

 

[a_majoor]

So I guess we don't need an efficient echelon system if we issue these things.  :

Of course we do.

Now the CQ will need to hand over a copy of your 638 on an iPOD due to the vast increase in the amount of kit you should be able to carry, and Sergeant Majors everywhere will have the joy of kit inspections that last for hours per individual soldier. ADREPs can run to 14 pages, and PT will be conducted wearing exoskeletons with the power turned off...

The future of the Infantry is looking brighter already.  >

 

[daftandbarmy]

The future of the Infantry is looking brighter already.  >

Especially for those in their 70s who want to soldier on!

 

[BernDawg]

PT will be conducted wearing exoskeletons with the power turned off

Only for the first 45 minutes. The following 45 minutes will be in the parking lot throwing around your car.