Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

That sort of thinking killed Combat Support Companies in the Bn’s for years.
It’s not healthy for the Infantry from a combat effectiveness standpoint or a career progression standpoint.

I'll counter that it is not healthy for the infantry battalion to be a single trade combat element.

If the battalion is to continue as a readily deployable, full function, combat element then the Combat Support Coy, like the Service Support Coy, the Sigs, the Clerks and the Meds, should be filled by other trades. And transfers should be easy.

On the other hand, if the battalion were a collection of rifle companies then the correct response would be to create permanent battle groups with permanent cross attachments. If battalion clerks can wear infantry badges then battalion gunners (FOOs, Mortars, AD, and AT), battalion black hats (vehicle crews) and battalion engineers (pioneers and sappers) can too.

In the US, correct me (I don't why I bother asking - you will) but the Infantry battalion contains a permanent arty element with its dedicated FOO/FAC teams.

Airspace control is a vital aspect of current and future conflicts.
I addressed it a little bit in my response to you in a comment above.

I’m of the opinion that the Air Force needs to ‘own’ the airspace, and the only time the Army owns it is if the Air Force isn’t flying in it (which can be for several reasons).

Great stuff. Then the Air Force needs to take on the Air Defence responsibility. But will the Air Force then allow MANPADS and MSHORADs the liberty to shoot anything that is shooting at them?

And doesn't the Air Force need to protect its runways? At least until it stops building aircraft that need runways.

With more UAS, and NLOS Missile systems as well as Artillery and Rockety in the air, deconfliction becomes an exceptionally important aspect.

Absolutely.

Whose job is that?

The job of the Air Force Bombardier or the Arty Bombardier? The Air Force is nothing but Gunners with Wings.

 

[KevinB]

@Kirkhill owns the airspace doesn’t mean they have the trades for all of it.
Someone needs to have overall coordination control. Seeing as how the Air Force (in Canada) has the only manned flying things, it makes sense to control it on their end.
That simply means control of deconfliction, so assigning lanes and heights etc of what can be used when and where.

If you’re getting clobbered by enemy close air - odds are the Air Force isn’t nearby and won’t have an issue with Weapons Free in the localized AO for Air Defense assets.


WRT the Infantry trade - no one is going to want to be stuck as a rifleman in a rifle Coy for their career.
A similar reason why even down here one can move from a Light or Airborne unit to a Mech unit at times.

Mortars, Recce, Snipers, Pioneers and Anti Armor allow for older Privates and Corporals to move out of a Rifle Coy for a while, coming back as Section 2I/C’s and Section Commanders, and moving back occasionally to the various Combat Spt positions— it give a great breadth of experience and as WO’s and higher it makes them able to better assist the Pl and Higher Commanders as to what can be done with Spt Forces.

I like Combined Arms Battalions for Heavier Units - as it gets tank and IFV cohesion. But I don’t see it working as well in Light Units as they don’t have the armor.
Medics sure - but I don't see the need for Arty PY's outside of the Arty Reg'ts - except for ADA again I think concentrated at Bde - and other Cbt Arm personnel who have gone through MANPAD training in their parent units for PDAD.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill owns the airspace doesn’t mean they have the trades for all of it.
Someone needs to have overall coordination control. Seeing as how the Air Force (in Canada) has the only manned flying things, it makes sense to control it on their end.
That simply means control of deconfliction, so assigning lanes and heights etc of what can be used when and where.

If you’re getting clobbered by enemy close air - odds are the Air Force isn’t nearby and won’t have an issue with Weapons Free in the localized AO for Air Defense assets.

Accepted - unless the GBAD troops are wearing light blue wedgies.

Our RCN and RCAF are not much more than large Regiments in any case. Smaller than Canada's largest Regiment - The RCMP.

WRT the Infantry trade - no one is going to want to be stuck as a rifleman in a rifle Coy for their career.
A similar reason why even down here one can move from a Light or Airborne unit to a Mech unit at times.

Mortars, Recce, Snipers, Pioneers and Anti Armor allow for older Privates and Corporals to move out of a Rifle Coy for a while, coming back as Section 2I/C’s and Section Commanders, and moving back occasionally to the various Combat Spt positions— it give a great breadth of experience and as WO’s and higher it makes them able to better assist the Pl and Higher Commanders as to what can be done with Spt Forces.

What you're really talking about, in my opinion is what the career opportunities are for a rifleman. My suggestion is make it easier to transfer from the RCIC to the RCAC to the RRCA to the RCE etc ad nauseum ad infinitum. That's an HR problem. not a tactical or operational one.

I like Combined Arms Battalions for Heavier Units - as it gets tank and IFV cohesion. But I don’t see it working as well in Light Units as they don’t have the armor.
Medics sure - but I don't see the need for Arty PY's outside of the Arty Reg'ts - except for ADA again I think concentrated at Bde - and other Cbt Arm personnel who have gone through MANPAD training in their parent units for PDAD.

What's armo(u)r got to do with Combined Arms? Combined Arms as a philosophy is just as appropriate, if not moreso, in the absence of armour. The light force has to make full use of all its available support precisely because it can't rely on steel plates.

Also, the replaceable unit, the lego block, of the infantry is The Company. A Regiment can have an infinite number of companies. The Battalion was originally a Battle Group of companies (note the similarity in the name). In the absence of reliable comms the Battalion COs started developing their own in-house skills because they couldn't rely on getting in touch with their support when they needed it.

I think the Permanent Light Combined Arms Battle Group is equally as justifiable as the Permanent Heavy Combined Arms Battle Group or, for that matter the Permanent Medium Combined Arms Battle Group.

 

[FJAG]

In the US, correct me (I don't why I bother asking - you will) but the Infantry battalion contains a permanent arty element with its dedicated FOO/FAC teams.

Yes and no. This is governed by ACP 3-09.42 Fire Support in the BCT (2016)

FSOs officers and NCOs are MOS 13A and 13F respectively and are part of the field artillery branch. They are assigned to the headquarters battery of the BCT cannon battalion and are held at the scale of one Fire Support Coordinator for the brigade headquarters, one Battalion Fire Support Officer per manoeuvre battalion in the brigade, one Company Fire Support Officer per manoeuvre company in the brigade and a forward observer per manoeuvre platoon. Unlike Canadian forward observers who first work their way through positions on the gun line, 13As and Fs are trained directly as observers and assigned to observer positions after training and work their way up within their field.

A battalion Fires Cell generally has an FSO, an NCO, an EW NCO and a digital systems operator. The makeup of the remainder of the manning and equipment of manoeuvre battalion's Fire Support Team varies based on the type of brigade supported.

While a battalion FIST is habitually associated with a given manoeuvre battalion, the brigade commander and his FSCoord can assign or reassign them as required.

I can't speak to the status of US arty observers as FACs. There are, of course JTACs who are generally associated with TACPs within the brigade to provide that job and there is a lesser category of qualification called Joint Fires Observers who are individuals given some skill sets short of JTAC. I have no idea, however the degree to which arty FSOs and observers are trained as either JFOs or JTACs.

 

[KevinB]

Accepted - unless the GBAD troops are wearing light blue wedgies.

Never happen = you couldn't get them out of the hotel, and into the field...

Our RCN and RCAF are not much more than large Regiments in any case. Smaller than Canada's largest Regiment - The RCMP.

I'm not tracking you there at all.

What you're really talking about, in my opinion is what the career opportunities are for a rifleman. My suggestion is make it easier to transfer from the RCIC to the RCAC to the RRCA to the RCE etc ad nauseum ad infinitum. That's an HR problem. not a tactical or operational one.

What does that save? And you are losing sight of why those roles are organic Inf positions.

What's armo(u)r got to do with Combined Arms? Combined Arms as a philosophy is just as appropriate, if not moreso, in the absence of armour. The light force has to make full use of all its available support precisely because it can't rely on steel plates.

At the Bde nothing - but at the Bn everything -- Your maneuver elements are either Inf or Armored.
If you combine them into a Armor Heavy CAB - you get a 2:1 Armor to Inf Coy/Squadron set - and in an Inf Heavy CAB, a 2 Coy:1 Squadron setup
If you don't have armor - it isn't a CAB.

Also, the replaceable unit, the lego block, of the infantry is The Company. A Regiment can have an infinite number of companies. The Battalion was originally a Battle Group of companies (note the similarity in the name). In the absence of reliable comms the Battalion COs started developing their own in-house skills because they couldn't rely on getting in touch with their support when they needed it.

I think the Permanent Light Combined Arms Battle Group is equally as justifiable as the Permanent Heavy Combined Arms Battle Group or, for that matter the Permanent Medium Combined Arms Battle Group.

I totally disagree - BattleGroups are generally temporary entities tailored to fit missions at hand as needed.
You are talking about all arms positions all over the map.

 

[ArmyRick]

Updates on the CV90

CV90 with combined anti-tank anti-aircraft sight, drone and Akeron MP missiles along with the autocannon.

CV90 MkIV

For a Medium Weight Force - why not just focus on the CV90 for infantry, recce and fire support and ditch the MBT?

If you must have an MBT here is the Leo 2A7

I am starting to really think the CV90 is probably the best all around IFV. Every new variant they design, gets better and better. Maybe having Russia on your front door step as kept the swedes highly motivated to keep making and designing kick ass vehicles. Where as the USA is at what version of a Bradley replacement?

 

[IKnowNothing]

For a Medium Weight Force - why not just focus on the CV90 for infantry, recce and fire support and ditch the MBT?

OK, this is the cranky, cynical, pre-caffeine me coming out but maybe the correct question actually is not what should we replace our Leopards with but should we replace our Leopards at all?

Question for the field on this front, how effective is the armour of standard Western MBT's against the weapons designed to defeat it? Can/ do they survive frontal hits from Kornet/ 125mm? What is the capability loss (in terms of weapon(s) classes that gain effectiveness) by shifting to a ~40tonne CV90120 or MPF?

What about the reverse, T90's vs NATO standard 120mm /Javelin/ Spike?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am starting to really think the CV90 is probably the best all around IFV. Every new variant they design, gets better and better. Maybe having Russia on your front door step as kept the swedes highly motivated to keep making and designing kick ass vehicles. Where as the USA is at what version of a Bradley replacement?

Plus you can throw in some cheaper SPG's. Plus there is a ARV version and engineering version. If we did go the CV90 as the CCV to supplement the LAV. You could assign the ARV and some engineering versions to the LAV brigade for recovery and engineering tasks.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Question for the field on this front, how effective is the armour of standard Western MBT's against the weapons designed to defeat it? Can/ do they survive frontal hits from Kornet/ 125mm? What is the capability loss (in terms of weapon(s) classes that gain effectiveness) by shifting to a ~40tonne CV90120 or MPF?

What about the reverse, T90's vs NATO standard 120mm /Javelin/ Spike?

Regardless, as we have seen during recent conflicts, you need alot more tanks than you might think to make up for attrition.

 

[KevinB]

Question for the field on this front, how effective is the armour of standard Western MBT's against the weapons designed to defeat it? Can/ do they survive frontal hits from Kornet/ 125mm? What is the capability loss (in terms of weapon(s) classes that gain effectiveness) by shifting to a ~40tonne CV90120 or MPF?

All are classified.
You can do an OS search and see many Abrams hit in Iraq, as well as Challengers, plus some LEO2's in Afghanistan.
Short answer is NATO MBT's are very very effective.

CV90 appears to be about the top of class right now in terms of protection in an IFV, to get more you need to move to a NAMER style HAPC.
The Namer is about what you need for frontal hits from a 125mm/Kornet
I suspect that with the vulnerability of BMP type vehicles that most Next Generation NATO IFV will grow to be like a CV90/NAMER Hybrid running near 70t

What about the reverse, T90's vs NATO standard 120mm /Javelin/ Spike?

You haven't been following the turret launching Olympics?

 

[childs56]

Add some armor, put a turret on it with a 30mm and a couple ATGMs, maybe another road wheel, a more powerful engine and we might have a winner for Canada.

 

[ArmyRick]

Add some armor, put a turret on it with a 30mm and a couple ATGMs, maybe another road wheel, a more powerful engine and we might have a winner for Canada.

Or invest in CV90s.

 

[Kirkhill]

Plus you can throw in some cheaper SPG's. Plus there is a ARV version and engineering version. If we did go the CV90 as the CCV to supplement the LAV. You could assign the ARV and some engineering versions to the LAV brigade for recovery and engineering tasks.

I glommed on to Matsimus's comment about the value of the Mjoelner.

From his standpoint the first advantage was the large magazine. Something like 104 rounds on board deliverable at a rate of up to 16 rounds per minute.

The second point of interest was his observation that the future battlefield for the arty (guns, mortars and rockets I'm guessing) will be based on a nodal network of small packages (2 to 4 vehicles) engaging in shoot and scoot tactics. One vehicle (or tube) is not going to stay in place supplying sustained support. Sustained support will come from the network with the nodes constantly shifting. Mission planning sounds like it is going to be a b*tch.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, for the Light Guys - GDLS competition to the Rheinmetall Missionmaster.

'Enemy' Unmanned Ground Vehicles Are Now Facing-Off Against Army Soldiers In Training

The unmanned vehicle made a helicopter landing zone unusable, which could happen during a real battle as adversaries field similar capabilities.

www.thedrive.com

And MUTT working with the UK

A couple of observations

Use of the vehicles in open and close terrain.

There were some interesting comments in the long presentation about how the Cav and the Light Infantry used the vehicles differently and particularly how the Light Infantry incorporated the XO in their field ops.
Also of note was that when it came to integrating night sights the guys in the field were happier integrating the $400 solution they were comfortable with and had in inventory than adding a new geewhiz colour sight.

The other observation comes from this video, showing a couple of CROWs machines, being remotely controlled via a tethered UAS that acted as an RRB, as they provided targeted suppressing fire on an objective.

 

[childs56]

Or invest in CV90s.

Only if we can manufacture them here. I like the CV90 I think it is one of those platforms they actually spent time building and working on to fulfill their needs.
I think the LAV series has proven itself for decent level of protection, for most of our operations. Many have said the LAVS biggest down fall is not being tracked. Here is a tracked version that may fit our requirements. Add some armor and build all the variants with the different turrets and we have a sustainable domestic product that will serve us in all aspects.
We can then have two lines of equipment. Wheeled and tracked that follow similar lines. Be easier to sell the Canadians especially if we ordered 200 tracked versions with out a bid going out.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry about the on-line editing - I lost track of the videos I was watching and where the points of interest were.

 

[Kirkhill]

Only if we can manufacture them here. I like the CV90 I think it is one of those platforms they actually spent time building and working on to fulfill their needs.
I think the LAV series has proven itself for decent level of protection, for most of our operations. Many have said the LAVS biggest down fall is not being tracked. Here is a tracked version that may fit our requirements. Add some armor and build all the variants with the different turrets and we have a sustainable domestic product that will serve us in all aspects.
We can then have two lines of equipment. Wheeled and tracked that follow similar lines. Be easier to sell the Canadians especially if we ordered 200 tracked versions with out a bid going out.

I think BAE is open to local manufacture.

CV90 instead of Ajax ‘kept under review’

As part of normal business, the Ministry of Defence keeps a range of capabilities under review.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Slovakia & Czech Republic to Jointly Procure CV90 - European Security & Defence

The Czech Republic and Slovakia have signed an agreement to jointly procure the CV90 IFV for their respective requirements.

euro-sd.com

 

[Dana381]

All are classified.
You can do an OS search and see many Abrams hit in Iraq, as well as Challengers, plus some LEO2's in Afghanistan.
Short answer is NATO MBT's are very very effective.

CV90 appears to be about the top of class right now in terms of protection in an IFV, to get more you need to move to a NAMER style HAPC.
The Namer is about what you need for frontal hits from a 125mm/Kornet
I suspect that with the vulnerability of BMP type vehicles that most Next Generation NATO IFV will grow to be like a CV90/NAMER Hybrid running near 70t


You haven't been following the turret launching Olympics?

Leopards and Abrams pop turrets too. One video I watched said the Leopards were dying fairly easily in Syria. I think it was the 2A4 variant.

 

[KevinB]

Leopards and Abrams pop turrets too. One video I watched said the Leopards were dying fairly easily in Syria. I think it was the 2A4 variant.

When hit from a Russian Aircraft with a 500+lb bomb not much on tracks will shrug it off.
Also keep in mind who is driving those tanks in Syria, hint not us...

 

[Prairie canuck]

Only if we can manufacture them here. I like the CV90 I think it is one of those platforms they actually spent time building and working on to fulfill their needs.
I think the LAV series has proven itself for decent level of protection, for most of our operations. Many have said the LAVS biggest down fall is not being tracked. Here is a tracked version that may fit our requirements. Add some armor and build all the variants with the different turrets and we have a sustainable domestic product that will serve us in all aspects.
We can then have two lines of equipment. Wheeled and tracked that follow similar lines. Be easier to sell the Canadians especially if we ordered 200 tracked versions with out a bid going out.

Exactly. Why buy European manufactured equipment when we have the the world's biggest Armoury/Arsenal as our neighbour. It's a no brainer to spend a few million more at GDLS on a tracked LAV and what could be the answer to acquiring tracked vehicles.
Rebuild some M1s under License in CANADA at GDLS
Build Tracked LAVs in CANADA at GDLS
Sole sourced Canadian content.