Infanteer said:
15 Love. As MCG said, let's get back to the issues and not personality.
Arius, as you are obviously in a position to know, my original questions still stand.
As I said, this seems to be like the MBT/MGS debate. Why has the AGL/Mortar debate become an "either/or" argument? I think a 40mm AGL is a "nice to have", but not at the expense of a light mortar - the questions above highlight why I hold this conclusion.
Doctrinally, where does the 40mm AGL sit in our organization? I ask because I really cannot see a place for it in either the mounted or dismounted roles.
Doctrine has a hard time in the CF and in the Army in particular. It should get directions from strategic thinkers and drive equipment acquisition but it doesn’t happen that way. Without the strategists – political or military – painting us a decent picture of the battlefield where they will commit us 10 years down the road it is impossible for the doctrine people to come up with the requirements for the hardware. We then have the equipment people trying to meet needs or replace stuff without a clear long term vision. That’s why we have 3 types of RWS in service, unsustainable vehicles in theatre and fast-tracking of tanks and airplanes. Over-simplified a bit but not far from the truth. There is no hard doctrine for the AGL but there is enough of a consensus in favour of its potential to keep moving it forward. Your post and the discussion we have here are probably the seeds of that doctrinal employment.
If our Infantry Companies are mounted in the LAVIII, they have an exceptional 25mm stabilized turret. I can't see a AGL being mounted on the pintle due to its size and due to the fact that it will compete with (and lose to) the 25mm for ammo storage.
True for the LAVIII as we know it now. The AGL/CASW can be adapted to an M3 pintle if needed but we are most likely to have it mounted in a RWS in the next fleet of vehicles. The RWS and the weapon(s) that will go on it are another ball game. For discussion sake, the RWS come with their own FCS so if you only put the AGL part of the CASW into it, it’s not a CASW anymore. I don’t see the RWS people buying the full CASW but only the AGL if they go for a 40mm solution..
So are we going to have this big AGL in the back of a LAV to pull out if we need to lob a few rounds high angle to hit a target that the 25mm cannot punch? Considering this is a tripod mounted weapon with a sophisticated fire control system, due you think that a mechanized platoon or company rolling along is going to have the time to employ this? Manpower, along with space, also becomes an issue; two men can easily employ a mortar and pack it up and revert to riflemen by slinging the 60 onto their back in minimal time - an AGL takes three guys out of the picture.
Are we rolling in through the objective or cordoning it off and destroying in place? For the first scenario, I think the the CASW is a very deliberate weapon and that it will not compete with readily available direct fire weapons, be it 120mm or 25mm, unless you need that capability in a location a turreted vehicle cannot reach. I would also expect that we will consider using the Carl Gustaf airburst ammo before we think about breaking out the CASW for its airburst capabilities. Direct and airburst fire are faster to bring to bear effectively and more precise than indirect so for me indirect is a last option. I would personally prefer using the artillery to reach a non-line-of-sight-target. Full MET data allows a M777 to hit within 100m at 20km and correct within 50m on the subsequent shot. That’s the weapon of choice imho. If this is not available, I would like to have my dreamland 120mm mortars from battalion (Nevermind the CASW/60mm polemic – I believe in the need for integral, modern, fast-firing, high lethality, PGM-enabled, heavy mortars in infantry units). No big indirect and no CAS available? We should know in advance I hope. We then break out the CASW within range and plug in the computer the likely grids from which we will correct fire – or fire and walk the rounds to the target. I would deploy a CASW before rolling in if possible. Would a CASW deploy as fast as a handheld light mortar? Of course not but bringing the target under constant effective fire is the key here - Constant fire with a handheld is difficult. Against a light mortar with bipod and baseplate that need one or two bedding shots? The CASW will deploy and pepper the target effectively faster. Second scenario is no contest I believe as I see it as a cut-off or support weapon on a known target. The direct, airburst, high angle, IR observation combination almost nullifies the concept of cover and dead ground. But it needs to be a deliberate well thought out deployment of the weapon.
Okay, how about a dismounted platoon or company? An AGL is huge; looking at the pictures, the .50 cal was very unpleasant to hump in the dismounted role (thankfully, something I never had to do). If we got a patrol moving through the mountains or jungle, you want them to hump this thing?
No. In fact, I don’t want anybody to carry anything that deliver an effect on the target that can be achieved from another remote/long-range weapon system. Be it close air support or long range artillery. The current infantryman is grossly overloaded even with just his basic load. I humped 105lbs of kit at 5000m altitude in 35 degree heat without carrying any crew served ammo – It is demented. We lose guys from dehydration before getting to the start line these days. I cringe whenever we talk about new personal kit with improved armor or that require batteries.
And the ammo? Ever played with a can of 25mm rounds or a bandoleer of 40mm grenades? Very awkward and very heavy.
Yes and yes. No arguments there.
Mortar bombs are fairly light and easy to break down within the company.
Maybe but we now get back to the discussion about total weight per fire mission…
Conversely, a broken down 40mm belt is awkward and heavy (the link is the real killer in the heavier rounds) and, as with any machine-gun, continually breaking and relinking is liable to cause damage to the link and increase your rate of stoppages and misfeeds. Having fumbled around with 25mm link, I can only imagine how un-fun 40mm link must be.
The coupling often gets sheared when you de-link and you need a special pliers-type tool to relink. A soft pack can be easily designed to avoid the awkwardness of the box. But you still look at a 30-40 pounder bag.
To be honest, I don't really see a dismounted role for this thing.
It’s not an easily man portable weapon that’s for sure. The question is the type of dismounted operation, how far, what effect, etc. Long-range patrol? Forget it. Urban ops? I can see some use. Overwatch/op day/night? Definitely.
The most likely method of employment will be on the LPV (RG-31), attached to the remote weapon station. This is similar to how the Americans employ their AGLs - in a mix with .50 cal M2's on Humvees and other light vehicles. This is great, and is a "nice to have" that I'd like to see. However, as others have said, this is apples and oranges. An AGL mounted on a remote weapon station does not seem to be a replacement for a lightweight mortar tube. Is this relatively narrow method of employment really a good justification to do away with a weapon system like a 60mm mortar which is quite versatile?
I understand the first part but RWS and CASW are two very different things right now and they shouldn’t mix. For the last sentence we could flip it around a bit and ask ourselves: Is a 60mm as versatile as a CASW and CG84 with new AB/Smoke/Illum? Because that’s what the financial offset of the light mortar buys. Vesatility+effect on the target may not be in favour of the 60mm at the moment.
Has any consideration been given to the fact that we are putting our Infantry "indirect fire" eggs into a very sophisticated basket. To achieve the results that the studies of your program lays out, the AGL requires a sophisticated fire-control system and programmable ammunition.
Back up is the reflex sight or flipping up the iron sight for direct fire. Airburst rounds are dependent on the laser and computer combo but will detonate as normal rounds if the computer fails. Indirect is just going into super-elevation and watching the fall of shot - The computer is for first shot accuracy and registering of target. I will mention that ballistic tables with fixed ranges/elevation should be included with the mount.
Having worked with all things sophisticated in the infantry (radios, sat phones, MNVGs, WES-gear, etc, etc) I can tell you that a safe maxim is "the more complicated a thing is, the more chances there are for it to break down when you really need it" or, more simply, Murphy's Law.
95% RAMD/14 days per weapon system is the minimum requirement. It is as reliable as it gets. Optics and computer have no moving parts. The actuator that keeps the sight on target is the only moving part outside the weapon. If all of those fail you can still go for reflex/iron sights. Murphy is most likely hiding in forgetting to change the batteries and its not a weapon issue.
As another person mentioned, the idea of tube, pin and trigger with simple bomb is pretty foolproof. The 60mm mortar has been much improved over the years - it's a bit unfair to compare it to the one we use today. That's like comparing a modern assault rifle to an Enfield - not even, as the 60mm is a mortar tube and the 40mm AGL is essentially a machine-gun.
Yes, no, maybe. The simplicity of the mortar tubes is beyond question. The effectiveness of mortars are dependent on accurate data bringing the rounds on target. The smaller the rounds, the more accuracy you need. Even a modern Soltam or Viktor will have an error area of 90x200m at 2000m on the first few rounds. Granted, things get better after bedding and MAPAM-type rounds would help but they would still lose out for the speed of suppression with line of sight under 2000m.
Why don't we consider a new 60mm mortar?
Because a modern option was considered and lost out against the CASW/CG84 combo. Why not consider a new 120mm mortar instead and sort out the doctrine for the infantry?
All in all, I remain unconvinced that "a modern AGL will serve us better in the long run" - I've looked at the presentations and the studies and there are big holes that lead to questions - questions that have been asked here. This whole thing reminds me of the Mobile Gun System/Main Battle Tank debate that plagued the Armoured Corps a few years back. The MGS had some value (The Americans employ them today), but was not a tank. We wasted time and money and did a nice pirouette and ended up with an MBT. Until I see these questions answered, I remain unconvinced that a jacked-up machine gun, while nice to have, can take over an indirect suppressive role from a mortar. Something else is at play here.
I would be less likely to support the CASW if we had solid data for the 60mm. Anecdotal evidence are ok as a starting point but they cannot be used to justify doctrine or spending. For each anecdote where we praise the 60mm you get the other one where a ranged 60mm failed to get that guy in the open and he ran away scratch free after 15 rounds around him. If we had smelted the little guy in the 70s I’m not sure we would miss it today. As for the very specific scenarios, where we would patrol the jungles of Burma 50km from a fire base and require mortar support, we can go and UOR something. I’m not crazy about the 60mm because I feel it’s underpowered. The very least I would lconsider would be a portable 81mm at company level with some PGM. I don’t think there is a anti-60 conspiracy. It just too hard to sell atm.
