Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

I believe he is wanting the turret to be a top deck add on.
But not understanding the needs of the hull for ammo storage and more.

The Turreted AMPV will still hold 6-7 crew based on how I saw the setup, but has a turret basket.

What is the depth of the basket on that turret?

 

[Kirkhill]

The thought was:

Either - a fifth vehicle in each platoon with a turret of the type seen on the truck above (SkyRanger)

OR - swap out one of the conventional Bradley's for a SkyRanger AMPV.

Either reduce the number of GIBS, in necessary, or buy another crew.

 

[GR66]

The thought was:

Either - a fifth vehicle in each platoon with a turret of the type seen on the truck above (SkyRanger)

OR - swap out one of the conventional Bradley's for a SkyRanger AMPV.

Either reduce the number of GIBS, in necessary, or buy another crew.

I think @FJAG hit the nail on the head with:

Tactically I can't see the idea of having riflemen in the back to bolster the platoon/company dismounts or other crew-served weapon dets in any event because an AD vehicle generally doesn't conform very closely to the platoon/coy movements. Its movements and positioning is based on locations which provide the most efficient use of its weapons which are often at odds with the ground the infanteers seek.

I like Skyranger a lot and would be disappointed if it doesn't form part of our GBAD system but its not a system to be integral to the platoon or even company. It's part of an area air defence system that can control, coordinate and sustain it. I see it as a bde asset.

 

[KevinB]

Okay. I'm onto the idea of a RWS system and think that's right and proper by the time you add radars etc.

I can't see the usefulness of the 6-7 crew if those are expected to be part of the platoon's dismounts. My guess is that any vehicle mounted AD system takes a crew of three, add an additional one or two for better 24/7 operation and a possible dismounted MANPADand/or aC-UAD weapon. Then add ammo for the gun and MANPAD etc. and the vehicle is already full.

Tactically I can't see the idea of having riflemen in the back to bolster the platoon/company dismounts or other crew-served weapon dets in any event because an AD vehicle generally doesn't conform very closely to the platoon/coy movements. Its movements and positioning is based on locations which provide the most efficient use of its weapons which are often at odds with the ground the infanteers seek.

I like Skyranger a lot and would be disappointed if it doesn't form part of our GBAD system but its not a system to be integral to the platoon or even company. It's part of an area air defence system that can control, coordinate and sustain it. I see it as a bde asset.

I think the mobile gun systems for C-UAS/C-RAM need to be viewed as a platoon or company attachment if not a direct part.

Mainly as they don’t have significant range, and to cover the IFV’s and Tanks. Now down here we have a AD Det at the Platoon for Stinger, so it’s not a large leap.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the point under discussion is how do you handle point defense.

What do you do if you are the lucky bugger dodging the FPV that has made it through the area defense?

Do you give each vehicle an ability to respond individually with 25mm prox rounds? Or do you treat the platoon as an entity and give the platoon its own personal umbrella in the form of an AA vehicle? Or do you trust to the RRCA and Area Defence?

Personally I would lean towards both the individual AND the area solutions.

 

[FJAG]

Personally I would lean towards both the individual AND the area solutions.

I take your point and think that in light of the changing situation the old tried and true AD measures may no longer be fully valid. There's no doubt in my military mind that a coordinated area defence is needed to deal with big high cost threats - aircraft and helicopters and glide bombs and cruise missiles and the like - but that also there needs to be a low cost close-in, integral capability within the company to deal with leakers and UAVs and LMs of all sorts.

I don't think that there is ever a chance in hell that it will be something like a dedicated Skyranger. Earlier this year Germany bought 18 systems for US$644 million (presumably the Boxers they are mounted on are included in the price)

I know we like to talk about what the savings are in vehicles and people protected from being struck, but the real cost analysis is done on a cost per intercept basis. Here guns have a real benefit over missiles (even the Stinger which is expensive but luckily there are vast quantities in the US Army's inventory already) when it comes to intercepting low-cost UAVs.

I won't even pretend to know the proper mix and deployment concept. These systems - both defensive and offensive - are changing daily and I simply do not trust glossy brochures and "product announcements." (But if I was, I'd be very interested in how much further Moog can push the gun elements in their RIwP turrets - with the right kind of round and radar and maybe DE . . .) There are folks in Ottawa and Gagetown working these issues. I'll go so far as to make one prediction: the AD and C-UAV role will go to 4 GS (which will probably revert to 4 AD at some point) and to an extent the CS arty regts and that they will be tasked to force generate appropriate task modules to attach to any operational battle group or the Latvia bde rotos.

 

[Kirkhill]

Slinger - Electro Optic Systems

One of these per Platoon (1 of every 4 vehicles) or per Patrol (1 of every 2 vehicles?)

SkyRangers - 4 per Coy or 4 per Bn?

 

[markppcli]

But you (Canada) doesn't have an IFV.

Sigh, says who? Please define an IFV - I like using the treaty on conventional arms in Europe, but I’ll also accept role.


@FJAG talks about C-UAS, all discussions and open source briefs were getting is that STA Bty will adopt the C-UAS role. Probably at least.

 

[FJAG]

Sigh, says who? Please define an IFV - I like using the treaty on conventional arms in Europe, but I’ll also accept role.


@FJAG talks about C-UAS, all discussions and open source briefs were getting is that STA Bty will adopt the C-UAS role. Probably at least.

One should keep in mind that there are two distinct tracks here - the current UOR track for Latvia and the GBAD project. You're bang on that the Latvia UOR C-UAS troop role will go to the CS regiments (which almost makes it a no brainer to devolve it onto the STA batteries). 4 GS is the mounting unit for the Latvia UOR VSHORAD troop.

What happens under GBAD and any permanent C-UAS role is anyone's guess at the moment. There are some interesting discussions ongoing but whatever the arty is currently considering is very much dependant on the direction the new army comd wants to take.

 

[markppcli]

Again, just talking through what we’re hearing about where those capabilities are going to land. That’s probably well off the actual topic of this thread though.

 

[FJAG]

Again, just talking through what we’re hearing about where those capabilities are going to land. That’s probably well off the actual topic of this thread though.

Agreed, and it does put paid, for the time being, to any discussion about infantry vehicles being added or dual-purpose assigned to either an AD or C-UAS role.

My guess is the next few rotos will establish some SOPs at the eFP battle group level that may graduate to doctrine.

 

[markppcli]

Agreed, and it does put paid, for the time being, to any discussion about infantry vehicles being added or dual-purpose assigned to either an AD or C-UAS role.

My guess is the next few rotos will establish some SOPs at the eFP battle group level that may graduate to doctrine.

I suppose prox fusing is prox fusing regardless of if it’s engaging dismount or UAV.

 

[FJAG]

I suppose prox fusing is prox fusing regardless of if it’s engaging dismount or UAV.

Okay. At this point I'm just being a smart-ass.

If we're talking Skyranger then it's technically not a proximity fuse. A proximity fuze does not use a fuze setter per se but achieves its airburst effect by a transmitter-receiver fuze which bursts the round when the round is at a preset distance from the ground or an airborne target.

Skyranger generally uses AHEAD ammunition which uses a ground based radar to measure the distance gun to target and then sends an impulse to a "fuze setter" at the muzzle which sets a timer in the fuze as it exits the barrel causing it to burst just short of the target sending a cloud of fragments forward.

IMHO, AHEAD is a very elegant solution with a round that is substantially cheaper than any AD missile made.

 

[PrairieFella]

Thank you for the chart, very helpful. Two questions on the AHEAD round, first is it susceptible to ground based jamming? I'd imagine there's some comms between the round and the transceiver relaying radar data. Second, do the ball bearings follow a trajectory similar to the chart like a shotgun shell or is it more like a grenade with projectiles going every which way?

 

[FJAG]

Thank you for the chart, very helpful. Two questions on the AHEAD round, first is it susceptible to ground based jamming? I'd imagine there's some comms between the round and the transceiver relaying radar data.

The fuze is set by induction as the round passes through the muzzle of the gun. Thereafter all the functioning happens inside the fuze. I can't say one way or the other what effect EW has on the projectile once it is in flight.

I can't speak as to the various systems' components as to vulnerability to EW.

Second, do the ball bearings follow a trajectory similar to the chart like a shotgun shell or is it more like a grenade with projectiles going every which way?

They do have a pattern which is spirals like a galaxy.

This little video shows how it operates.