Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[Matt_Fisher]

They are looking at the US MK47 also, better FCS and the receiver is stronger and will last longer (that's what they tell me).

I don't think that Mk47 has the high angle tripod that the HK/Rheinmetall GMG CASW submission though, limiting its long range semi-indirect fire capability though, however I could be wrong.

 

[421 EME]

Here is the Program Overview from NAVSEA on the MK47 GMG: http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Lambr.pdf

More info on the MK47: http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/GDMk47.html

Info on the HK GMG: http://www.bellum.nu/armoury/HKGMG.html

I do know that these are 2 of the GMG's that the CF is looking into. If they have made a decision on which one we are getting, I haven't heard anything.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A good description of how the 'Grenade Machine Gun' can be useful:

British soldier awarded the Military Cross for fighting off 150 Taliban
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3511901.ece

Military Cross for hero of ambush
A BRITISH soldier who almost single-handedly took on 150 Taliban after he and his 50-man convoy were ambushed in Afghanistan has been awarded the Military Cross.

Fusilier Damien Hields used his grenade machinegun to destroy seven Taliban positions before his ambushers realised he was their main threat. After peppering his vehicle with bullets, they hit the 24-year-old soldier. He had to be dragged off for treatment by his driver after he tried to continue fighting.

“Fusilier Hields showed extraordinary courage under intense fire,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Huw James, his commanding officer. “I was astonished at the state of his vehicle. There were so many holes in it, it was like a teabag. The Taliban did everything in their power to neutralise [him] and Fusilier Hields was having none of it. His actions allowed his patrol to come out of the ambush in which they were outnumbered by three or four to one and probably saved a lot of lives.”

Hields was awarded not only the Military Cross, the third highest award for gallantry, but also the Nato Meritorious Service Medal for his actions, which were part of a Nato operation.

However, he will not be allowed to wear the Nato award because army rules do not permit soldiers to wear non-British medals - an anomaly that has upset his commanding officer. “We think he has earned this decoration for gallantry and that it is only right that he should be allowed to wear it,” James said.

Hields was one of 28 Military Crosses announced last week. There were also five Conspicuous Gallantry Crosses, the second highest award after the Victoria Cross.

From Denby in north Wales, he joined the army at 16 and is married with a four-year-old son. Last summer he was posted with the 1st Battalion, the Royal Welsh to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. One mission, 100 miles north in Uruzgan province, was to help Dutch troops disrupt the movement of Taliban fighters and drugs smugglers.

They were on their way back to Kandahar on June 3, driving south in a valley, when the Taliban attacked. One of the Land Rovers hit a landmine and was flipped upside down by the blast. “There were Taliban dug in all around and they started hitting us with AK47s and mortars. We could not see where they were at first.”

Hields followed the trail of RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades coming towards him and started firing grenades one at a time, trying to home in. “Then I switched to automatic fire,” he said. A grenade machine gun has a box with 32 grenade rounds. “I emptied a box onto that position and you could see all the dust and smoke flying about where they hit.

“After that no fire came back from that position and I moved on to the next one. One or two rounds until I got onto the target, and switch to automatic and empty the box.”

Realising that Hields was the main threat to them, the remaining Taliban fighters homed in on him with their RPG7s, Dushka heavy machineguns and Kalash-nikov rifles. Hields was undaunted and continued firing.

“I got through six boxes in about 15 minutes and we were winning the fight,” he said. “They started it. We were going to finish it.”

One of the Taliban rounds finally hit home as he was bending down to reload. “I felt a sharp punch in the kidneys on my right side,” he said. “It knocked me into the bottom of the [Land-Rover]. I looked down and saw a hole in my body armour and a bit of blood.”

Hields was dragged out of the Taliban fire and back about 20 yards where Lance-Corporal Carley Williams, the female medic attached to the troops, had dashed through enemy fire to set up a first aid position.

“The lads were screaming at me to get into cover,” said Williams, 23, from Llanelli. They saw one round actually pass between my legs.” She was awarded the Joint Commanders’ Commendation for her bravery.

Hields said: “It turned out the bullet had smashed a rib and gone out of me again without touching any internal organs which was very lucky. It was just a flesh wound really.”

He and the other wounded were evacuated by helicopter. After treatment and recuperation, Hields was back taking part in operations in Afghanistan in July. “Obviously I’m extremely proud but I’ve got friends still recovering from injuries and it’s them I’m more worried about.”

 

[vonGarvin]

Good on the Fusilier!

Now, is this a AGL, or a CASW?  The difference has been pointed out several times, so is this post even germane to the discussion?

 

[Kirkhill]

Likewise WRT the Fusilier AND the L/Cpl.

WRT the Weapon in question:

The GMG (Grenade Machine Gun) was used on Automatic - according to the Fusiliers own testimony.  ERGO we can safely say the device Automatically Launches Grenades and consequently is an Automatic Grenade Launcher or an AGL.

No for the tricky bit.

The Fusilier used the weapon to Neutralize or Destroy, not Suppress (enemy remained Suppressed even after the Fusilier ceased firing), 6 enemy Positions, or Point Targets.  However those Point Targets were within his Area of Operations and his Area of Interest. But the Fusilier was acting as part of a 50 man entity which could be an understrength Company or equally a reinforced Platoon.

So your choices are now Company Area Suppression (Permanent) Weapon, Company Point Neutralization Weapon, Company Point Destruction Weapon, or equally Platoon AS(P)W, PlPNW, PlPDW.

One might equally speculate that since it was handled by a lone Fusilier it is a Fusilier Point Destruction Weapon.

Any way you look at it, it is 6 targets successfully engaged by 6x32 rounds in 15 mins by one Fusilier and one Pl/Coy extricated successfully. 

Nice piece of kit.

 

[KevinB]

I think the role of the weapon in the above -- is in keeping with how most of us who have some experience and/or intelligence would see it employed for the most part in the Canadian system -- part of a vehicle EIS.

Thus my accronym would be CAKK (Covoy Ass-Kicking Kit)  ;D 

 

[vonGarvin]

I think the role of the weapon in the above -- is in keeping with how most of us who have some experience and/or intelligence would see it employed for the most part in the Canadian system -- part of a vehicle EIS.

Thus my accronym would be CAKK (Covoy Ass-Kicking Kit)   ;D   

I hate to say it, but +1.  Some mounts could include an RWS on the venerable TLAV, RG 31 or other systems, vice the all singing, all dancing version proposed.

 

[rambo123]

Tahe Close Area Suppression Weapon is new to the Canadian Military but it has been around for a long time in other Nato Armies, but calling the CASW a replacement to the very valuable platoon 60 mm mortar is not a good idea, from what I have read on the CASW it is going to be a direct fire weapon which means you have to see your target to shoot at it. From using the 60 mm mortar myself in the bipod role with the C-2 sight unit, all you need is a bearing and elevation to drop some mean S**t on you enemy before they see you both weapons have a place in the new way they are doing this in the forces, both weapons should stay because they both have an important job to do. Do not do what they did with the .50 cal taking it completely out of the infantry then deciding oh my god we made a mistake and then bringing it back in and having to train new gunners

 

[McG]

from what I have read on the CASW it is going to be a direct fire weapon which means you have to see your target to shoot at it.

So, what you are saying is that you've not read this thread because it has come up a few times that the CASW will be both direct & indirect (one of the things setting it apart from most AGL/GMG).

 

[Arius]

In the last few weeks I had the chance to shoot one of the current AGL with the Vingmate FCS.  We can say that the Vingmate was almost custom built on the CASW required specs.  The shooting was with practice rounds and it was hard to figure out the impacts beyond 1200m because of the tracer burnout and the deep snow that would absorb the marker dust.  The accuracy was impressive even with a M3 pintle mount on a vehicle – About the worst situation.  My personal impression is that anything out to 600m would be more likely killed than suppressed with the first burst - No ranging shots needed thanks to the FCS.  Beyond that the weapon still hits the area but it is the gunner’s job to be steady and lase accurately.  Reverse slope targets are easy as you just lase the top of the ridge then aim a meter above.  The trajectory arc of the round almost nullifies the concept of dead ground in normal rolling terrain.  I was pleasantly surprised by the stability of the 40mm HV at long range.  Even with serious crosswinds the deviation is way less than expected.  Indirect may be more precise than anticipated.

At night, you can either use II/IR or use your NVGs with a standard laser designator aligned with the FCS.  You walk the beam to the target, lase and bring it back on target.  Great for maintaining situational awareness and will probably be the preferred way of doing it if pinpoint accuracy is not needed.  There will be an uncooled IR capability on the CASW and their staff will attend STANO trials that are being conducted next months.

No indirect shoot but the module for it is integrated.  Trials for indirect are coming within a few months.  I also attended a demo shoot for the airburst round.  What was special about it was the fact that it was a radio programmable round.  No muzzle coils or contacts in the chamber.  The transmitter sits on a rail and is linked to the FCS and the firing solution is transmitted to the round as it exits the muzzle.  I’m wary of too much technology but it works fine and cannot be jammed or reprogrammed in flight.  Think of it as a Mk285 but programmed in flight instead of in the chamber.

Good feeling overall.  Easy to learn and use.  2 boxes and any soldier can be proficient with it.  The technology feels mature and it is guaranteed that we will be getting the top of the line.  I’m curious to see what the AB round cost will be.     

For those who are wondering, there are possibly three contenders for the CASW and no choice has been made.  We probably won’t know until Jan 09 after all the bidding process.  CASW has been endorsed by the Projet Management Board early this month and is going for the Treasury Board in May – The final step before industry is asked to submit their bids.

Cheers

 

[a_majoor]

I am guessing the finalists will be the heavyweight AGL's fitted with high angle tripods and a miniature FCS.

As noted by most of the supporters of the 60mm light mortar, this is far to bulky for Infantry soldiers to use easily in a dismounted role. I also have seen little discussion on terminal effects, for example will a burst of 40mm smoke rounds launched from the CASW have a greater, lesser or equal effect as, say, 3X60mm smoke fired from the company light mortars? How about illumination?

While this may seem like nit-picking, I am a bit uncomfortable with a weapon that realistically can only be used on a RWS or vehicle mount. There will be lots of situations, not only in COIN but in conventional operations where the soldiers need portable firepower. If the weapon is comparable in size and weight to a GPMG (which is possible, I cited 3 examples in an earlier post), then it will have much more utility. If the ammunition has equal or greater terminal effect than a comparable 60mm round, then the amount of ammunition needed is also brought to manageable proportions.

I think you will find a lot more acceptance if the portability issue is addressed.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A portable CASW is called an M203

Please let us keep our 60mm mister, pleeeeeeezzzeeeee  ;D

 

[McG]

I think you will find a lot more acceptance if the portability issue is addressed.

I agree.  In fact, neither side has done a particularly good job in convincing me of their weapon's portability.  At a certain point, ammunition in fact makes the 60 mm mortar heavier.  The CASW side has done a very good job of arguing this, but not on selling the idea that the ammo required is at or above this level.  The counter for the mortar is that the 60 mm projectile can be carried individually, and so they can be spread around in order to make the 60 mm a more manageable load .... but not a single mortar guy has attempted to define how many projectiles are required.  Do you need sooo many that even spread around they become a burden ... and how much can this load be dispersed & still available to the tube when needed (does no good to have a dozen projectiles carried in a rifle section if the sections are engaged while the mortar is 800 m away)? 

I also have seen little discussion on terminal effects,

But terminal effects have been one of the leading arguments in favour of CASW.  We've read that a CASW will destroy 2 x platoons at a total weight of 30% under a 60 mm mortar (comparison repeated here).  We've been told the CASW has a 600% improvement in suppression.  We've even been presented with evidence that should the FCS fail, the AGL underneath can continue to hand out more destruction than other weapons from our current inventory (even with those other weapons considered at an aggregate level). 

Right now, the disconnect seems to be in linking weight with requirement.  Maybe the effects required are such that the ammo carried is less than the point where the CASW starts to become the lighter total weight option, or maybe it is the other way around.  What is the capability (encompassing engagement methods, ranges, targets types, and numbers of engagements) required?  (In answering this, lets avoid the disingenuous argument that S = suppression & nothing greater.  If destruction is required then it is part of the requirement).  Following that, you have to answer what can meet the requirement using either system (number of mortar vs CASW, Total weight of Ammo by system, number of pers to achieve effect, etc).  Without getting to this point, there will be no real discussion & people will only continue to dig in on which ever side of the issue they find the greatest emotional attachment. 

 

[KevinB]

The issue is also that shoud the fancy dancy FCS fail (and it will) then you have a Direct Fire Machinegun with exploding (or not, since the FCS programs many of them) rounds.

  The Mortar and the CASW are different weapons, with sometime complementary roles and sometimes seperate.

I would like to see the CASW claims for many of it munitions combat trialed - prior to use selling our soul for this system of systems  -- cause I see it failing miserably.

 

[Infanteer]

I still think its funny that we are fighting over the two.  If this military could get 4 C-17's in less than 5 years, I see no reason why we can't have a AGL and a light mortar for the infantry; both are things I think all can agree we both need and want.

 

[KevinB]

I still think its funny that we are fighting over the two.  If this military could get 4 C-17's in less than 5 years, I see no reason why we can't have a AGL and a light mortar for the infantry; both are things I think all can agree we both need and want.

I would sustitute funny - with extremely sad and unfortunate

 

[Arius]

The weight will be an issue for as long as we want to make it.  There has to be a big chunk of steel to absorb the kick of a 40mm HV that flies 2km downrange and we just can’t get around the physics of it no matter how much we wish steel to lighten.  There are light AGLs and the lightest is the LWAG from STK that comes at 50% of the weight for the gun itself.  The drop in accuracy and endurance prevents it from being a contender.  The requirement calls for the whole system plus an ammo box to be broken down into 3 loads of no more than 30kg so that it can be humped for short distances.  At the very worse, I assume that short distance means a few hundred meters from the vehicle to the overwatch/firing position.  The average infantryman is already grossly overloaded with just his normal combat load and plates and he won’t be carrying a CASW or anything else unless it is critical.  CASW will be at its best in a deliberate positioning or static scenario.

Is there going to be a need for a weapon that can deliver a 40mm HV and be truly man-portable?  Will there be a semi-auto 40mm HV gun at some point?  Something like what the Barret did for the .50 cal?  I don’t know.  There are talks to improve the range of the 40mm LV and get into the 40mm Med Velocity.  Checkout the the Mercury HEDP from MEI for more.  I predict that it is where we are going.  LV will go MV with launchers like the MGL-140 for weight and portability.  The HV and Heavy AGLs will remain in their own class.

The RWS with a possible 40mm is another matter entirely and is a totally different project from the CASW which only deals with the dismounted option.  Hopefully, the RWS will integrate the same gun and they will just reprogram the CASW firing tables in the RWS FCS but we’re not there yet.

I understand what Infidel is saying about having both the 60mm and the CASW and the C-17 example.  Here is the geeky side of it.  The problem is the difference between procurement and life-cycle management.  Buying is easy if you don’t have to maintain it.  You just find money in the current fiscal year budget and burn it without having to go through the normal steps of acquisition that would include long-term maintenance, training, ammo stocks, etc.  For the equipment that will be in inventory for the next 20 years, you need to go through the life-cycle hoops and that includes the dreaded National Procurement funding.  NP is the guaranteed recurring budget from year to year that deals with spare parts, ammo, refit, etc.  There is a cap on NP funding.  It doesn’t matter if you have $100M to spend on toys this year, you won’t get the toys if you cannot grab a slice of NP for long-term maintenance.  C17s and tanks are not really projects; They are political buys and they obey their own rules.  Bringing in the CASW meant that the NP offset had to come from somewhere within the army and the NP for the 60mm was the obvious target.  Can’t have both unless we prove that the 60mm is so essential that something else is worth axing on the NP side.  On the other hand, it is easy to UOR a cheap weapon like the 60mm for operations so I wouldn’t worry about troops running out of indirect fire options.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

If thats the case than I would be more worried about running out of troops to man the options.....

 

[MJP]

If thats the case than I would be more worried about running out of troops to man the options.....

But that is the exact opposite of what several people on here (myself included) have been saying for quite some time.  I rather have more options in my "toolbox" as leader than less.  Having the ability to tailor equipment for a mission or task is much more desirable than just making do with what you have.  I absolutely hate when we try and tie specific weapons or equipment to troops numbers, we don't have nor should we man all weapons systems just for the sake of manning them.  All they are from the LAV/Tank down to individual and crew served weapons are "Tools" that a commander can choose to use or not use. 

Arius thanks for the update.  I think the army/CF in general does a poor job of explaining options that are taken to soldiers.  All we see at the Bn is we are losing yet another weapon system with no rationale given.  Your explanations (and those from  a few other posters), highlight the why for us.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I absolutely hate when we try and tie specific weapons or equipment to troops numbers, we don't have nor should we man all weapons systems just for the sake of manning them.

Hey, I'm an old Gunner,...one can never have enough indirect.

More tools are always nice, except when they sit in the garage not being used for lack of available time.
Bitching about work-up times now?,... just add a few more weapons, that one see's a few time a year, and throw it into the mix.

Come on be real, if they do not add troops to go with a new system than something is being relegated.[ or at least the skill set diminished]