ADA was a problem when we had over 900 gunners out of 4,000 (RegF and ResF) doing AD. It's going to be even worse when we go back to 2-300.
Well we could always go with the M1 Abrams for the heavy Brigades and the MPF for the Light and Medium Brigades.
Of course we're talking for the Armoured folks here. Infantry would have to slum it in LAVs or the Griffin III (IFV on the same chassis as the MPF).One problem... no room at the back for Infantry to ride into the assault
Would your first, "ready" division be mostly RegF and the second be mostly ResF? Or try to strike a balance?I'm a two divisions guy. One capable of actual deployment (whether with one or four brigades) and the second as the organization to build and control the follow up force on. I think we need a real functioning and not admin HQ for the primary reason of keeping the skill levels needed for that alive. If you do not have a real division HQ, trained or equipped, you will never be able to create one in a reasonable time. The Army, as it stands, is large enough for two divisions (not 5) regardless how the brigades are organized.
www.army-technology.com
johncockerill.com
www.edrmagazine.eu
The text makes it clear this thing is in the nature of an assault gun. Makes one wonder why they didn't put a bigger gun into the hull and forget about the turret and give all the extra space over to more ammunition.
I thought the 250 number was just to start ADA back up, not a final trade cap.ADA was a problem when we had over 900 gunners out of 4,000 (RegF and ResF) doing AD. It's going to be even worse when we go back to 2-300.
I think the numbers are so small that this is one of those times where a little fine tuning to the present system is about the best that one can do.
Tankers are going to tank regardless of platform, and Commanders are going to use anything with a gun as a tank until they get educated/corrected about employment of a DFS asset.The text makes it clear this thing is in the nature of an assault gun. Makes one wonder why they didn't put a bigger gun into the hull and forget about the turret and give all the extra space over to more ammunition.
These things look like a Tank Mini-me. That became a problem with the Stryker MGS as well as COs of Stryker bns ran them as tanks at NTC and kept being blown away.
Never Bring a Stryker to a Tank Fight - Modern War Institute
www.battleorder.org
www.battleorder.org
www.battleorder.org
True enough. There are more folks available, however.
They tried running arty STA through an ISTAR system in Afghanistan - first an ISTAR company then a recce squadron. It didn't work. There are issues respecting enemy artillery tactics and sensor shooter links amongst others. It's basically the separation between the deep battle and the close battle.
I’m having issues with that breakdown.They tried running arty STA through an ISTAR system in Afghanistan - first an ISTAR company then a recce squadron. It didn't work. There are issues respecting enemy artillery tactics and sensor shooter links amongst others. It's basically the separation between the deep battle and the close battle.
The brigade recce squadron is and should be focused on the close battle.
There is a place where I see a better meld of recce and artillery STA and that's for something like the Brit's Deep Strike Brigade and to an extent what used to be the US Army's Cavalry Regiments where the role is to look and engage deeper. That doesn't mean the resources go to the recce elements but that you make Arty STA resources available as part of its organic structure.
Agree to a point. Our radars, even the LCMR are clearly counterfire assets and should stay STA.
alphaunmannedsystems.com
That would work in a world where Int wasn't the circuit breaker that it is in taking raw data and turning it into actionable info. I keep harping on the sensor-shooter link for a reason It's to take action on a target as soon as practical after acquisition before it changes posture or location. The formal motto for the artillery is "Ubique". Its unofficial one is "24/7 Sense of Urgency"
100% agree which is why I like loitering munitions. Find a target; kill a target; set out another drone.
There are lots of products out there. Our current system is the RQ-21 Blackjack flown by 4 RCA(GS) and which (at least according to the brochures) has a longer range and significantly longer endurance than the Alpha. The system isn't so much the issue as its tactical employment.Something like this however is where I see a Bde Recce/ISTAR asset
Home - Alpha Unmanned Systems SL
Alpha Unmanned Systems, SL is a world leader in the design and manufacture of advanced tactical UAV helicopters.
That was the theory up here in the early 2000s. I believe in tiered systems based on tactical employment and functionality. Group 2 is the ScanEagle class. We occupy Gp 1 with Raven and Gp3 with Blackjack. We rented ScanEagles in Afghanistan and ran them in conjunction with the bigger Sperwers and then Herons.
There has to be both. As uneducated folks looking at data aren’t going to give a good picture of the ground.
I grabbed Alpha simply as they had a decent PDF and was capable of carrying/dropping munitions.
We have even smaller stuff than Raven now at Squad level. Honestly every time I visit someone there is a new system being played with.
We returned Armed UAS to the Intelligence community. Right now there are supposed to be no Predator/Reaper/Avenger ER systems in the USAF, but I’m not sure that has been fully implemented, and I don’t think it will continue based on what has occurred in Ukraine.Again, I think Predator was used quite a bit for surveillance as well as attack in Afghanistan so there was no urgency for Gp2 or Gp3 although the Gp 3 Shadow logged a lot of time in Iraq and Afghanistan but I never knew for certain what organization operated them (I think, but am not sure, they came out of the Div Aviation Brigade's UAV company - which incidentally remains under the new div structures).
It’s gotten a lot better, Afghanistan was the beta test area
They can be released by Unmanned vehicles
But yes, the assumption is that most Airborne, Airmobile operations including supplying of same that friendly Air has air supremacy and SEAD missions have degraded enemy AD assets.
Army Experiments With Next-Gen Aerial Resupply
12/21/2022
By Mikayla Easley
Defense Dept. photo
FORT IRWIN, California — To improve the Army’s ability to move supplies into future battlefields, the service is experimenting with new technologies for its contested logistics strategy.
The Army recently tested how the Joint Precision Aerial Delivery System, or JPADS, could deliver critical supplies directly to soldiers in austere environments where they may be unable to use GPS to locate supply packages. The system was one of two dozen logistics technologies tested during the service’s annual Project Convergence 2022 experiment in late fall, said Col. Marchant Callis, the Army’s sustainment capabilities development and integration director.
The experiment is helping bring the service’s sustainment efforts into the 21st century by conducting missions “over increasingly dispersed footprints and across contested, degraded or denied environments,” Callis said during a demonstration at Project Convergence.
The services already use JPADS in operations today. The system comes in two variants — one able to carry 2,000 pounds of supplies and a 10,000-pound version — that are typically launched from a C-130 aircraft from altitudes up to 24,500 feet and around 15 miles from the target destination, Callis said.
Once dropped, an onboard computer uses GPS-designated coordinates to autonomously steer a parachute that delivers the palletized load. Multiple JPADS can be launched simultaneously and sent to different waypoints on a battlefield, Callis noted.
“This is key in that it reduces the aircraft’s loitering time, which by extension reduces its exposure to enemy air defense systems,” he said.
At Project Convergence, the Army used JPADS to conduct an aerial resupply mission through congested airspace to a GPS-jammed battlefield. Despite friendly and enemy aircraft crowding the skies, the system delivered 4,000 pounds of supplies so accurately that soldiers didn’t need GPS on the ground to locate it, Callis said.
The experiment reflects an operating environment Army leaders said they believe will be common in the future: one with multiple manned and unmanned systems, as well as cyber and electronic warfare technologies.
The service is evaluating different ways an adversary can contest logistics and how autonomous capabilities could give them an advantage, Lt. Gen. Charles Hamilton, deputy chief of staff for Army logistics, told reporters.
“We’ve gone uncontested in the last 20-plus years now in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Hamilton said. “We know that will not be the case in the next large-scale combat operation.”
