MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[Kirkhill]

Before commenting further I wanted to post this information.   It is from the New Zealand Defence Plan Update.   I was particularly taken by the Area to be covered.

Land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR)
Description

8.1     This project proposes to equip the Army with an improved land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) capability.

Policy Value

8.2     An improved land ISR capability will provide land forces with the ability to detect threats at greater distances and with greater certainty. An improved land ISR capability is an important element in operations where land forces face a demanding threat environment and need to know what is happening around them.

Capability Gap

8.3     Land forces require integral capabilities to identify personnel and vehicles, both static and moving. Current ISR capabilities are limited to foot, vehicle and motorcycle patrols and include night vision and some ground sensors. A significantly larger area, up to 100 by 60 square kilometres, will need to be observed when the LAV is introduced into service.

Links to other Capabilities

8.4     This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:

Special Operations Capability

Light Operational Vehicle  

Light Armoured Vehicle

P-3 Upgrade

NZDF Helicopter Capability

Timing

8.5     Implementation is expected in 2006 - 2007.

Current Status

8.6     Preliminary work has been completed to determine how the land ISR needs fit within the broader NZDF ISR requirements. Work will now commence on developing options to meet specific land ISR requirements.

Costs

8.7     This project is expected to cost $25 million - $52 million.

The New Zealanders have aquired 105 LAV IIIs with 25mm Bushmasters. Just like ours.  

Is it safe to assume that the area 100 km x 60 km would be a Battle Group Area of Operations? The KIWIs are probably not considering a Brigade AO with only 105 LAVs available to them totally and it seems unlikely to me that this would be the AO for a Company Combat Team.   If so what does that do this discussion of necessary fire support and the MMEVs?


As to your comment on the virtual Arty, thanks for clearing that up.   Put the way that you have now I can see it.   Need some Arty types to weigh in on this I guess but perhaps your needs would be met if each Arty regiment were to congregate all the FOOs and FDCs along with the ISTAR kit in one Battery and make pure Firing Batteries out of the rest of the unit.   As I understand it now the FOOs and the FDCs are integral to the Batteries - I believe part of the reason is it provides a direct link between the gunners doing the firing and the units they are supporting by having one of their own on the receiving end of their fire support.   The counter is the USMC has its ANGLICO companies and the Royal Artillery has its STA batteries, both dedicated to the type of tasking I think you are suggesting.

With respect to the MMEV and LOSAT/FOG-M, I think the problem that I am having is that all of the info that I have seen on the LOSAT is that it is a direct fired missile launched horizontally from a rail.   The FOG-M/EFOG-M/Polyphem missiles all seem to vertically launched from boxes.   It doesn't seem to me that both missiles would be compatible with the same vehicle, not on an interchangeable basis.
That doesn't mean that one unit couldn't be equipped with both systems, and the fact that both systems ultimately have the same job, the destruction of hard targets with precision fire, certainly suggests this as a possibility.   On the other hand the discrepancy in ranges suggests to me that they might be best treated as two separate entities as McG has also proposed.

Now, alternatively, if you want to look at one missile that could operate from the MMEVs in the way that you are thinking then perhaps we would be better off looking at the Hellfire/Brimstone missiles which can be fired in direct mode, in designated mode or self-targeted mode.   Hellfire again has a range of about 8 km while Brimstone can stand back 32 km - not a bad capability if a Battlegroup is to be responsible for a 100x60 km AO.

Interestingly a mock-up photo of the MMEV that McG posted some time ago (perhaps you could re-post that McG) showed it, IIRC, equipped with 70mm rocket pods, anti-aircraft missiles and Hellfire/Brimstone missiles.

 

[ArmyRick]

Art, Kirkhill and McG you guys bring some really good points to the table.. I like the ranging and dividing responsibilities (it keeps ALL our branches alive and it gives us some valuable purposes)..
How about idirect be both volley (traditional HE, WP and ILLUM rounds) and precision (like swiss STRIX 120mm guided mortar munitions)?
What do you guys think of splicing this into the new system of systems in the CF ?

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the 120mm mortar system is a great example of a MME capability.  As you point out it handles traditional HE Smk Ill tasks as well as having an Anti-tank PGM role with the Strix (I think you will find that that is manufactured in Sweden).  As well there are DPICM rounds for the 120mm and I have even heard tell of a FOG round - propulsion is just like any other mortar round, charges around the base, but it trails a Fibre Optic link and is supposed to be guidable.

Another advantage of the 120mm rounds are that launchers can vary from really lightweight towed launchers to the AMOS twin-barrelled turret with auto loader.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m971.htm

These are American requirements for 120mm Mortar rounds, can't find the FOG version just now.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hatm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/losat.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ckem.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mgm-157.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/net-fires.htm

These are the LOSAT and  NLOS systems currently either in production or in testing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_missile

And finally Hellfire and Brimstone - I love that name.... ;D

 

[ArmyRick]

What's brimstone?

 

[a_majoor]

Brimestone is the traditional name for sulphur, and has biblical connotations ( God raining "Fire and Brimestone" on unbelievers). If you think back to your high school chemistry classes, you will remember the god awful smell of burning sulphur....

100 X 60 km is larger than many WW I battlefields, amazing how technology advances. Long range indirect fire assets can be missiles, smart mortar rounds artillery shells or whatever can come flying through the air. I use FOG-M because I think it is very versatile technology, a "FOG-P" (Fiber Optic Guided Projectile) is something I have never heard of before, but it would be interesting to see how it works. Even farther out ideas include electro-magnetic rail guns firing from DD-X ships, the round is projected right out of the atmosphere towards targets several hundred kilometers away. A satellite could theoretically be designed to de-orbit on command; if a few ounces of metal in a shaped charge warhead moving at @Mach 25 can destroy a tank, then a few kilograms of satellite moving at Mach 27 = "look out". Perhaps we need to start a fire support thread?

The actual size and shape of the missiles is really a technical issue. If we want or need to, we could design a common launcher for the DF and IF missiles or weapons, or design the missile characteristics into a common airframe, or have an "all in one" weapon like Brimestone. Looking at the capabilities, it would seem to be an excellent choice, especially if the fire control system can be adapted for individual (serial) engagements as well as volley (parallel) engagements. If future developments pushed its speed into LOSAT territory, then even the need for snap shooting DF targets can be met.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed on all points.

Another critical question in this discussion though is timeline.  When could we implement some of the things we are talking about?  I have been trying to stick with systems that are already in production or are in prototype-low rate initial production phases and are expected to be deployed in the next two years or so.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Last I heard from the Ottawa crowd is that they are looking at the 2012-2015 timeframe to implement the LAV-MMEV.  That's because no other army in the world is interested in such a vehicle, preferring to keep tracks.  So a lot of money is required for development. 

 

[AmmoTech90]

Brimstone is a British version of the Hellfire.  It is fire and forget with a tandem warhead, designed to be launched from fast air rather than attack helocopters.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ammotech 90:

Can you confirm these manufacturer's claims?

Advanced Anti-Armour Weapon.


Operational requirement
Around 30 countries now have more than 1,000 main battle tanks and 4,000 armoured vehicles of all types in operation or reserve.

To counter this threat, a range of anti-armour weapon systems is needed at all levels of the conflict. Direct fire weapons with support from attack helicopters can counter the short and medium engagement, but a flexible, highly accurate fast jet launched weapon is needed to counter the deep battlefield requirement and to provide immediate close air support, anywhere. The Brimstone advance anti-armour weapon has been developed to meet this requirement.


The MBDA solution
Modern main battle tanks are capable of sustaining the high rate of combat orders they receive in an optimal manner. Today, armoured combat units are more mobile and more discrete. They can be deployed more rapidly and can escape from the opponent's detection systems while benefiting from passive and active protection systems that are likely to put today's anti-tank systems in a no-win situation. The BRIMSTONE missile takes into account all these parameters. It has been designed in answer to the UK MoD's requirement for an air-to-surface stand-off anti-tank missile of the fire and forget type capable of being engaged from far inside the opponent's combat system. BRIMSTONE's high flexibility of use is unique in the world. It can be launched from combat aircraft, light armoured vehicles and from the ground. Its millimetric Wave radar seeker ensures target searching and identification 24 hours a day, in all weathers, and is not affected by the smoke and obscurants of today's modern battlefield.
Brimstone is a fully autonomous, fire and forget anti-armour weapon, effective against all known and projected armoured threats. .


MAIN FEATURES and ADVANTAGES

Launch Modes
Indirect Mode is used when the targets are known and are out of sight of the attacking aircraft. The attack will usually have been planned in advance. If the aircraft has a databus between the cockpit and the weapons pylon, the aircrew can carry out mission planning or amendments en route to the release point. The engagement is set up so that the aircraft releases BRIMSTONE from a safe position, ensuring aircraft and aircrew survivability. The missile can be fired off boresight to facilitate use of terrain masking.

Direct Mode is where the pilot usually visually selects the target prior to weapon release, which may be assisted by an on-board sighting system. This mode is primarily intended for targets of opportunity or for self-defence against suddenly uncovered targets.

In both modes, BRIMSTONE supports off bore sight operation so the aircraft does not have to carry out any special manoeuvre prior to launch.

Once launched, BRIMSTONE is fully fire and forget. Autonomous on-board targeting algorithms means that there is no need for post launch target designation, allowing the attacking aircraft to retreat to a safe position. On leaving the launcher, the missiles are boosted to supersonic speed by the solid propellant rocket motor. The short burn time, minimum smoke design of the motor gives a reduced optical and infrared signature minimising the chance of Brimstone's detection by the target's Defensive Aids Suite (DAS).
BRIMSTONE's millimetric Wave (mmW) radar seeker is able to operate in allweathers and throughout the 24 hour day. It is also not susceptible to battlefield obscurants such as smoke, dust, flares or chaff. A second function of the seeker is to give Brimstone a terrain avoidance capability, allowing it to cruise at a fixed height above the ground. It can be launched from ultra-low to high altitudes, allowing the pilot to select the launch altitude that avoids the possibility of successful attack from SAM systems. When launched from medium or high altitude, BRIMSTONE goes into a steep dive until it detects the ground below. The missile then pulls out to the cruise height.

Mid-course guidance is controlled by a digital autopilot and a highly accurate digital inertial measurement unit, giving the necessary high performance navigation required to locate the targets at long range and off-boresight operations.


Salvo Firing
When the target is a group or array of armoured vehicles, a broad attack front is required to engage the maximum number of vehicles. In such cases, multiple BRIMSTONE missiles can be fired in salvo, up to the entire platform load.

The missiles fly on separate paths that are spread out to cover the largest area.

Alternatively, missiles can be flown down the same corridor for the attack of in-line formations. A variety of engagement algorithms are used to eliminate the probability of hitting the same target more than once. For example, individual missiles can be commanded to hit sequentially numbered valid targets according to information passed from the aircraft before launch.

Target Engagement
During the search phase of the engagement, BRIMSTONE's mmW seeker performs a comprehensive sweep on the ground directly ahead and to each side, searching for targets in its path. The advance mmW seeker constantly monitors the received radar signal, comparing it to a known target signature in its memory.
It automatically rejects returns which do match (i.e. cars, buses, buildings) and continues searching and comparing until it identifies a valid target.
The missiles can be programmed not to search for targets until they reach a given point, allowing them to safely overfly friendly forces. They can also be programmed to stop searching beyond the safe engagement area or to only accept a target in a restricted box area. This provides collateral damage control.

The BRIMSTONE seeker operates in the high mmW band providing a high-resolution radar return image of the target, allowing real time target recognition and classification using on-board algorithms.

Once identified, BRIMSTONE scans the target to optimise its aimpoint and to maximise its lethality.

BRIMSTONE emits a low power signal as it searches the ground just ahead of itself. Should the armoured target have a Defensive Aid Suite it will have little opportunity for successful deployment of countermeasures against the supersonic missile.

The BRIMSTONE warhead is a tandem shaped charge High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead. The front charge initiates any reactive armour on the Main Battle Tank and clears the path for the main charge. The warhead is capable of defeating all known and projected armoured threats.


Launch Platforms
BRIMSTONE has been designed to operate from all fast jet aircraft, such as the Harrier, Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, F/A-18 and Gripen. It is also suitable for operation on light attack aircraft such as the Hawk, F-5 and L-159.

BRIMSTONE is suitable for operational deployment on helicopters, armoured vehicles and ground-based launchers. These launchers can be adapted to carry a mix of both BRIMSTONE and Hellfire missiles. Such a deployment is being offered to the British Army on the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle programme
Status of programme
In November 1996 the UK MoD awarded MBDA the development and production contract for Brimstone. In October 2003, a successful series of test firings were carried out as part of the final stages of Brimstone's development phase. During one of these tests, a ripple test firing, three missiles successfully impacted on three different targets with an array of armoured vehicles.
Brimstone will enter into service during the course of 2004.

http://www.mbda.co.uk/

 

[AmmoTech90]

Sure, you can lauch almost any weapon from almost any platform.  Some work better from other, for example a CRV7 rocket launched from fast air is going to have significantly higher velocity and therefore a bit more accuracy and shorter time of flight than one launched from the ground.  It also depends on the data bus used on the pylon.  Most US/NATO smart weapons use the MIL-STD-1760 bus I believe to pass info between the weapon and launch platform.  If the weapon is designed for that and has compatible rails/dispensers it should be fine.  For aircraft there is also seperation concerns.  I am not sure why Hellfire is not used on fast air.  Could be technical or it could be because the US has Maverick that fills a very similar niche but for fast air.

 

[Kirkhill]

Point taken AmmoTech90:

In particular, for both the CRV7 and the Brimstone range would probably be greater when launched from a platform moving at 500mph than from a stationary platform so the 32km range cited by Wikipedia may only apply to the Fast-Jet launch.  I notice the manufacturer doesn't specify a range in the public literature nor does Global Security, Federation of American Scientists or Army Technology.

As to why the Hellfire might not be used from Fast Air, could that be a range thing as well?  5-8 km at 800km/h doesn't leave a very large firing window I wouldn't think.

Maybe Inch or some of the other Air Force types could comment on that as well.

 

[McG]

I've been skeptical about rocket pods in MMEV concepts.  I just can't picture them having the right combination of reach & punch.

 

[Kirkhill]

Just compared the Hellfire and Brimstone dimensions

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114.htm
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/

It looks like the two missiles are identical with the exception of the seeker which looks to be something like that used on the Merlin 81mm mortar round that wasn't adopted and the Strix round that is in service.  That would likely mean that a quoted range of 32 km is assuming launch from a fast jet while 5-8 km is from a stationary platform like a hovering helicopter or a ground platform.    That would mean that both missiles could expect to be launched from comparable positions on the battlefield - making it understandable to me why both missiles would be mixed on the same platform.  One missile is self designated, the other missile is laser designated.

As to the Rocket Pods on a MMEV.  I know that the Belgians , amongst others employed trucks with boxes of 40 70mm rockets in fire support. The range was somewhere round about 10 km and with each round having 1 kg payloads 40 rockets would deliver about as much HE as 3 rounds, battery fire from a 105 battery.

 

[McG]

What effect does that have on the ground?

 

[a_majoor]

Another critical question in this discussion though is timeline.  When could we implement some of the things we are talking about?  I have been trying to stick with systems that are already in production or are in prototype-low rate initial production phases and are expected to be deployed in the next two years or so.

It seems insane that it takes so long to modify an already existing platform, especially in this age of computer assisted design/computer assisted manufacture. In the Second World War, entirely new generations of war machines were created virtually from scratch by teams of designers with pens and T squares. If we want to fast track the Fire Support Vehicle, here are some suggestions:

Gun LAV: first iteration replaces the 105mm with the ARES 75 (straight swap) to examine stability and recoil issues. Future modifications to interior for increased ammunition stowage (even though the telescoped 75mm round is much smaller than a 105, we still need more that going from 18 X 105mm to @ 22 X  75mm. At least 35 rounds must be carried internally).

Missile LAV: To max out on stowage, use a "Stryker" hull with the troop compartment cleaned out. Install a "pop-top" like the old BRDM-2 anti tank variants, so when the launcher is stowed, the hull is flush, but the top deck doubles as the top of the launcher when raised, for protection. Hellfire/Brimestone and CKEM are all about the same size, so we can hold a competition to choose the primary weapon, and have the option to change if tactics or countermeasures dictate. If a FOG-M is desired, tell the manufacturers to build them to the same size as the above.

Most of the systems exist already, and installing a databus designed for fighter aircraft should be no problem in the much larger hulls of armoured vehicles. I can't see a LAV pulling 9 gs either. Putting the program together, running trials and doing mods to address deficiencies shouldn't take more than two years, given the fact that almost everything described already exists as MOTS (AAI probably has the ARES prototype in storage somewhere). In fact, given the right incentives, the program should be fast and relatively inexpensive, and we could probably get a lot more Fire Support Vehicles than the MGS/LAV-TOW/MMEV for the same money. I would predict the trials could be done by early 2007, and service entry by 2008-09.

 

[Kirkhill]

What effect does that have on the ground?

Took a little time to get back to you on this McG.   Wanted to get the numbers right.

There are three manufacturers of this system as far as I can determine, Bristol Aerospace of Winnipeg, BEI of Houston, Tx and FZ of Belgium.

The systems comprise a missile, made up of a rocket motor, a warhead/cargo round and a fuze.   The Americans are now building/developing a bolt-on guidance kit consisting of a laser seeker and a system designed to move the guidance fins in flight.

Depending on motor choice, warhead weight and launch angle in the ground to ground role the various motors have ranges varying from about 6000m to 14000m.

Warheads include various HE, HEAT, DPICM, Penetrating and Flechette types as well as WP, RP, Ill, IR and Chaff.   They have proven effectiveness, again depending on warhead on everything from personnel, light vehichles, light armour, armour up to 400mm and also against light aircraft ( the missile was originally developed as an air to air weapon - the flechette is apparently particularly effective acting like a shot-gun - it could be useful in the anti-UAV role).

The most common HE warhead, the 10 pdr as the Americans call it (@3.85 kg with 1.04 kg of comp B-4) has a burst radius of 10 m   (314 m2)   but can be lethal up to 50 m (7850 m2).   The DPICM round carries 9 submunitions each with a 10 m burst radius.  

The Belgians claim that their 40 round launcher, the LAU-97 that could be mounted on the back of a vehicle like the Pinzgauer with a 1.2 tonne payload, that 1 launcher would cover an area of 200 x 300 m (60,000 m2) with 40x8000 fragments or 320,000 fragments.   With flechettes the area would be inundated with 40x1180 flechettes or 47,200 flechettes.

NATO standard launchers are 7 and 19 round pods.   4 19 round pods can be carried by one AH-64.   6 19 round pods can be carried on a C1 Howitzer bed or on the back of any vehicle with a 2.5 tonne payload.   1 pod, loaded, weighs about 600 pounds. 6 pods would weigh 3600 pounds or 1.6 tonnes.   Allow about another tonne for elevating and traversing mass and electric motors.

I believe that if a flat-bed LAV were procured, similar to the MTVL logistics, or fitters, variants where you have a 2-3 person crew pod and an open deck in the rear, and that a powered pedestal mount were installed that had 6 "hard points" on it similar to the AH-64 or even our CF18s then we could create a mini-MRLS system for a Combat Team commander to fight the 5-15 km battle.

The Commander would have available as options Unguided and Guided HE, DPICM, HEAT, Penetrating, Flechette, SMK, Ill, IR and Chaff rounds, as well as the Hellfire Laser designated Anti-Tank round and the Brimstone Self-Designating Anti-tank round.   He would have anti-pers, anti-armour, anti-structure and even anti-UAV/helo capabilities.   4 vehicles would supply 456 ready to fire 70 mm rounds or   something like 72 Hellfire/Brimstone rounds.   Essentially he would have on hand the underwing firepower of 9 6 AH-64s.   Available to him, under his command, ready regardless of weather.   It would replace the 120mm mortar system in the planning.

Cheers

Error on my part 6 MMEVs with 6 hardpoints could carry the same weight of ordnance as 9 AH-64s with 4 hardpoints.   Or 4 MMEVs would carry the load of 6 AH-64s.

And just a final note - the 200x300m footprint for the 40 round launcher (60,000 m2) would require 30 rounds of Denels new, improved prefragmented 105mm rounds which have an effective area of 2000 m2 each.  
My old 309(3) info states that the burst radius for the 81mm round is 40 m (or 5,000 m2).  

If true info then 2x19 70mm rounds =38 or about 60,000x38/40 = 57,000 m2.   That would require 12? rounds of 81mm   or about 30? rounds of the improved 105mm?

Comparing effect is obviously difficult but comparing loadout is much easier.  

http://www.clw.org/cat/newswire/nw083100.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hydra-70.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/apkws.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-64.htm

By the way, why does it take a crew of 3-4 to drive, navigate and fight a ground vehicle but only a crew of 1 or 2 to fly, navigate and fight a helicopter or aircraft?

 

[a_majoor]

All this catalogue shopping still is not answering the fundamental question of "what is an MMEV?"  Looking over the posts, about the only thing anyone agrees on is it isn't a tank. If an MMEV is a form of SP artillery, then some of the systems suggested here are inappropriate, while if the MMEV is meant to provide direct fire support to the combat team, then the artillery/area munitions are not very helpful.

I am going to throw this in the ring: "The MMEV is a precision fire support platform, which is capable of destroying point targets in  support of the close combat elements of the battlegroup." I am further going to stipulate the Army formations (of whatever size) will be optimized for Cavalry operations, that is screening, flanking, economy of force, rear area security and the ability to act as the exploitation force in conjunction with heavy elements.

Given these parameters, the MMEV could be armed with either a gun system (CASR posted an interesting gun concept, using the cast off 155 barrels from the M-109 as a starting point. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm), or a missile platform primarily armed with LOSAT/CKEM/Brimestone type missiles, and indirect fire missiles like FOG-M carries for NLOS targets, flanking unit support and so on. Indirect fire would be the province of mortars and artillery, which would be given the job of providing area fire in support of the close combat elements, with the secondary role of neutralizing point targets with PGM's.

Logistically, the MMEV would be loaded up with LOS/NLOS munitions in support of the mission, a higher proportion of FOG-M in complex terrain, or LOS in clear terrain. The mortars and artillery would have the traditional HE/Smk/Ilum, with a portion of "smart" rounds like STRIX to cover complex terrain.

Kirkhill is right in suggesting we need area coverage with a "mini MLRS", and maybe that system will supplement or replace the mortar platoon, or exist in artillery along with EFOG-M with really long range capabilities to cover the 100X60 Km "box". I still feel the idea of a mini combat team along the lines of a USMC LAV Coy provides the flexibilityand the built in firepower to respond quickly to deal with many situations. One can only imagine the scene in a combat team armed with MGS/LAV-TOW and MMEV when the call "Ambush Left!" comes in.

Using these parameters and also stipulating the ability to shoot on the move provides what I think is the "right" answer to the MMEV dielemma, and I hope the powers that be are at least giving this some consideration.

 

[pbi]

First off, direct fire is the role of armour.  Indirect fire (NLOS) belongs to the artillery, and air defense belongs to the artillery

This type of thinking is rooted in "the way we've always done it", and nicley protects the jobs of the Cavalry and Gunners. Technology will, I think, very soon render this outlook OBE. We need to focus less on protecting branch ricebowls and more on what gives us the effect we need for the ops we are likely to take on. I have some misgivings about MMEV but I think it is a step in the right direction. Cheers.

 

[Kirkhill]

The point about catalogue shopping is that there are an awful lot of solutions out there. Somebody I know used live by the expression "Anything is possible, if cash."

We do not lack for technical solutions.  There are a myriad of them and not all of them are ridiculously expensive and beyond our means.  A lot of people much brighter than me, with much better views of the catalogs and better senses of what is required can produce much better answers.

At bottom I believe that the most important discussion on this board is the one about Regimental structures, roles and rice bowls.  Everything else follows on from that.

Once you have a sense of the battles you will be asked to fight and jobs you will be asked to do and the bodies and dollars you have to work with then you check out the catalogs.  Look at what effects can be delivered, the kit that can deliver the effect and then the vehicles necessary to deliver the kit.  After that you can divvy up the work amongst the cap badges.

The thing is the structure and cap badges you are operating under were basically formalized in year 5 of a 6 year war, in a world of vacuum tubes and slide rules where your ONLY option for finding the enemy was to fumble forward until you bumped into him.  Then your buddies killed im and if you were lucky the stretcher bearers following along behind would clear you off the battlefield in a few hours.

The Americans are demonstrating that technology works.  Fallujah wasn't Ortona, much less Stalingrad or Berlin and the Fedayeen weren't Fallschirmjager but kill ratios of 20 and 30 to 1 are still pretty impressive.  Yes they used heavy fire power, and they have even used some tanks, but most of the work has been the guy on foot fumbling forward.  Thing is technology is reducing the amount of fumbling and also reducing the ability of the enemy to run away.

Technology isn't going to eliminate the fumbling and the dying but it would be ludicrous not to look at what technology offers.

 

[pbi]

Technology isn't going to eliminate the fumbling and the dying but it would be ludicrous not to look at what technology offers.

Exactly. Both the Armour and the Artillery branches are themselves products of this very argument. And if it brings us a system that can reliably engage in both the direct and indirect modes, with adequate destructive power, then we seriously need to ask ourselves why we need to perpetuate separate branches to deliver these capabalities.  Cheers.