Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

I’d rather see those 2 guys per platoon in a dedicated platoon with its own logistic supports.

Who’s supporting them? A dispersed AD Platoon that is made up of two man Dets attached to a Platoon/Troop…

Have and not need vs need and not have is great when your doing DA or limited duration missions out of a fob. It’s much harder to sustain when your in a conventional setting and all those “haves” are taking up space in your logistical train.

They are going to take up space regardless.
Regardless of who’s truck/track/helicopter etc it is in.

 

[markppcli]

Who’s supporting them? A dispersed AD Platoon that is made up of two man Dets attached to a Platoon/Troop…

Well I’d imagine you work it like a mortar or atgm platoons with some internal logistics.

They are going to take up space regardless.
Regardless of who’s truck/track/helicopter etc it is in.

I mean I guess, but an AD regiment has its own logistics. An arms room for every section eats the Bns logistics uo.

 

[FJAG]

Who’s supporting them? A dispersed AD Platoon that is made up of two man Dets attached to a Platoon/Troop…


They are going to take up space regardless.
Regardless of who’s truck/track/helicopter etc it is in.

You know my view that they be part of an AD troop. Back in the 70's, the Blowpipe dets each had their own 5/4 ton and comms gear and I presume the same was true for the later Javelin dets.

That said, I have no big issue with each rifle platoon having its own Stinger det - hell it saves the arty PYs for bigger systems. But I still want to see those infantry or armour dets with either a radio or digital device that's on an AD command and control net and which gives out early warning and fire control status data.

 

[Kirkhill]

You know my view that they be part of an AD troop. Back in the 70's, the Blowpipe dets each had their own 5/4 ton and comms gear and I presume the same was true for the later Javelin dets.

That said, I have no big issue with each rifle platoon having its own Stinger det - hell it saves the arty PYs for bigger systems. But I still want to see those infantry or armour dets with either a radio or digital device that's on an AD command and control net and which gives out early warning and fire control status data.

We now have our initial look at a demonstration of a Stinger short-range heat-seeking surface-to-air missile fired from a portable launcher originally designed for the Javelin anti-tank missile. In tests, the combination of Javelin launcher and Stinger missile has been used to destroy an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) target, although, ultimately, the system will be able to take on a range of air and ground threats, providing improved engagement capabilities for the Stinger.

The March 2021 testing milestone took place at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and involved soldiers from the Mississippi National Guard. The test also made use of a simulated Lockheed Martin AN/MPQ-64 Sentinel battlefield radar, while the UAV target was tracked using Northrop Grumman’s Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control, or FAAD C2, architecture. FAAD C2 is designed to integrate short-range air defense (SHORAD), counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar (C-RAM), and counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS) systems, from initial detection of a threat through to interception.

According to Raytheon, compared with the original Javelin launcher, the LWCLU can acquire targets at twice the sight range at night and three times the range during the day, regardless of weather conditions.

Furthermore, since the launcher can be used against targets in the air and on the ground, it removes the requirement for troops to carry separate Stinger and Javelin launchers, at least in some scenarios:
“Because LWCLU can defeat both land and aerial threats, it’s easier for soldiers to use in complex environments,” said Tom Laliberty, vice president of Land Warfare & Air Defense, a business area of Raytheon Missiles & Defense, in a company statement last year. “It reduces the burden of carrying additional gear.”

The LWCLU, in contrast, offers an infrared optic as standard, providing superior capabilities in terms of spotting and then tracking targets at increased range and at night.
As for the infrared optics, this is something that has been noted as badly lacking from the majority of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) initially used by Ukraine against Russian airpower. According to a recent report from the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) think tank, the Russian Aerospace Forces switched to night attacks in March this year at least partly in response to Ukrainian MANPADS operators lacking night-vision goggles or other optics.

The same launcher can also be networked, including under FAAD C2, allowing the operator to receive data-linked targeting information from a host of off-board sensors, including those operated by different branches of the military. While it’s unclear exactly which third-party sources would generally be available to an LWCLU/Stinger combination, the fact that this is even available as an option is a significant advance over the basic Stinger. Even without additional targeting input, the LWCLU targeting system is far more advanced, including a digital compass and a datalink to a soldier’s tactical radio.

The Army Is Now Firing Stinger Missiles From A Javelin Launcher

Firing Stingers from a Javelin launcher could be especially useful for engaging aircraft, drones, and missiles at night and in bad weather.

www.thedrive.com

So, to be clear one black box, the Javelin LWCLU, can let the owner see farther, by day and night, calculate a bearing, transmit it to the net, receive cueing data via FAAD C2 from various military branches, and with the right Ukrainian app, from civilian phones, locate and track the target at long range and then engage the target with either a Javelin variant or a Stinger variant.

If you issue the LWCLUs like the Yanks, one per section, then the threat environment will determine how many Stingers and how many Javelins will be carried by the CQ.

You will a have a fully netted Man Portable ADATs (Air Defence Anti-Tank) system.

 

[KevinB]

The Army Is Now Firing Stinger Missiles From A Javelin Launcher

Firing Stingers from a Javelin launcher could be especially useful for engaging aircraft, drones, and missiles at night and in bad weather.

www.thedrive.com

So, to be clear one black box, the Javelin LWCLU, can let the owner see farther, by day and night, calculate a bearing, transmit it to the net, receive cueing data via FAAD C2 from various military branches, and with the right Ukrainian app, from civilian phones, locate and track the target at long range and then engage the target with either a Javelin variant or a Stinger variant.

If you issue the LWCLUs like the Yanks, one per section, then the threat environment will determine how many Stingers and how many Javelins will be carried by the CQ.

You will a have a fully netted Man Portable ADATs (Air Defence Anti-Tank) system.

Just to be clear only the AD DET are on the ADAM down here, and only they get Stingers.
Everyone else with a Javelin LWCLU gets Javelins — that way the air weapons release state is controlled by ADAM (for that Bde’s AD Dets) and not every one can be blasting MANPADS.

The Ukrainian solutions work for their limited Air efforts. They wouldn’t work for a NATO Air situation, as that Det being required to be point AD is viewed as in extremis, not the day to day routine.

 

[ueo]

And it presupposes air superiority.... which alot of people tend to forget.

How about landing strips etc to sp the air element. I know no reqt for abn ops but follow on forces must go/land some where reasonably close.

 

[ueo]

Airmobile isn’t as weather dependent as people perceive. It’s mostly equipment and risk dependent as one can fly in a lot of conditions that some militaries (or elements thereof) won’t fly.

Also there are GPS guided steerable cargo delivery systems that can be HAHO’s in almost any situation, that will land within 5m of your desired spot in significantly challenging weather conditions.

Back in the 80’s and earliest of the 90’s (probably earlier too) the CAR would jump in with ‘old school’ CT-1 chutes and tent groups into the Arctic — and delivery methods are exponentially better now.

FWIW I’ve never seen anyone (even on the JSOC side) jump a Stinger or Javelin on their person - generally the Mk48, M240 and Mk22 are about the largest items jumped individually either on a free fall or static line rig. Heavier items are cargo, jumped on pallets or bundles.

Ask about the "Round Lake Masacure", just for interest and context.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Well, the US has the ability to "buy it and try it" instead of just talking about what might work best.

 

[KevinB]

Ask about the "Round Lake Masacure", just for interest and context.

I have a cottage on Round Lake, I am familiar…

 

[Kirkhill]

Dubbed “Streetfighter” and “Megatron”, the upgraded Challenger 2 will feel more like a computer simulation for the drivers, with 360-degree views and X-ray vision.

Both will be fitted with anti-tank Brimstone missile systems, and crews will be able to maintain full visibility even with hatches closed, thanks to special helmets kitted out with Israeli-made IronVision See-Through' Head-Mounted Display technology.

In order for this system to work, an array of electro-optical and infrared cameras are positioned around the hull of each tank.

In addition, an iPad -type tablet will be mounted on the rear to allow infantry to communicate with the tank’s crew if radio communications fail.

Justin Crump, of Sibylline strategic risk group, who is also a reservist tank commander, said: “It’s important to note that none of this is Challenger 3 - this is simply a Challenger 2 upgrade.

“We don’t know what the mix will be, but it is likely that the Streetfighter is being prepared for somewhere like Estonia, while the Megatron will be held back for operations in other theatres. The point is we just don't know what will be asked of us.”

He added: “On paper, these are good developments if they work efficiently. The addition of Brimstone would allow tanks to fire over the ridge of a hill, for instance.

“I do worry about information overload inside the turret, however, and whether one platform is being asked to perform too many tasks. - but we do trials for a reason.”

Army unveils two deadly new tanks with X-Ray vision

War gamers would feel at home in the Army's latest hi-tech tanks.

www.express.co.uk

So, better to put the Brimstones on the Tanks (RCAC owners)?

Or on the AFVs carrying the infantry following in trail of the tanks (RCIC owners)?

Or on a separate stand-alone vehicle (RRCA owners)?

RBSL unveils Brimstone-equipped Boxer vehicle

RBSL, in co-operation with MBDA, have completed the system design concepts and physical integration activities of Boxer Overwatch in response to British Army’s need for a Mounted Close Combat…

www.defencetoday.com

 

[IKnowNothing]

So, better to put the Brimstones on the Tanks (RCAC owners)?

Or on the AFVs carrying the infantry following in trail of the tanks (RCIC owners)?



Or on a separate stand-alone vehicle (RRCA owners)?

How about option 4: standalone vehicle, RCAC and RCIC owners, Cav Regiment/Inf Battalion AT Platoon

 

[markppcli]

View attachment 75037


So, better to put the Brimstones on the Tanks (RCAC owners)?

Or on the AFVs carrying the infantry following in trail of the tanks (RCIC owners)?

Or on a separate stand-alone vehicle (RRCA owners)?

View attachment 75039

RBSL unveils Brimstone-equipped Boxer vehicle

RBSL, in co-operation with MBDA, have completed the system design concepts and physical integration activities of Boxer Overwatch in response to British Army’s need for a Mounted Close Combat…

www.defencetoday.com

I like stand alone and RCIC, I worry about adding systems in systems on systems for crews to deal with. Everyone has a given amou t of cognitive load they can handle and when they are responsible for continuous multi tasking you begin ti stress that.

Stand alone vehicles: Great can take on that anti tank role, cover gaps, flank security, awesome. Carry a shit tone of reloads and be small.

IFV / APC : in extremis coverage, provide AT fire if required. Ideally same system as the dismounts are carrying for commonality, but bearing mind reloads eat internal space and exterior carriage is sub optimal.

Tanks: your taking away from their primary purpose / ammo carriage, with questionable return.

 

[KevinB]

I like stand alone and RCIC, I worry about adding systems in systems on systems for crews to deal with. Everyone has a given amou t of cognitive load they can handle and when they are responsible for continuous multi tasking you begin ti stress that.

Stand alone vehicles: Great can take on that anti tank role, cover gaps, flank security, awesome. Carry a shit tone of reloads and be small.

IFV / APC : in extremis coverage, provide AT fire if required. Ideally same system as the dismounts are carrying for commonality, but bearing mind reloads eat internal space and exterior carriage is sub optimal.

Tanks: your taking away from their primary purpose / ammo carriage, with questionable return.

The Bradley concept is a good example I think of what can be both a Cav, Inf, and stand alone AT system.

Replace the TOW with Javelin or JAGM, and you have a stand off Anti Armor (and anti structure) System, and update the cannon to a 30-50mm system and it has anti-person/light vehicle capabilities too.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Replace the TOW with Javelin or JAGM, and you have a stand off Anti Armor (and anti structure) System, and update the cannon to a 30-50mm system and it has anti-person/light vehicle capabilities too.

That's one thing that's been niggling at me, why is the A4 still 25mm/twin TOW? No appetite to re-turret? weight/size limitations?

Edit- with a blank cheque (no need to free load off the US) what's the case for the A4 over the CV9035NL MLU?

 

[Kirkhill]

I like stand alone and RCIC, I worry about adding systems in systems on systems for crews to deal with. Everyone has a given amou t of cognitive load they can handle and when they are responsible for continuous multi tasking you begin ti stress that.

Stand alone vehicles: Great can take on that anti tank role, cover gaps, flank security, awesome. Carry a shit tone of reloads and be small.

IFV / APC : in extremis coverage, provide AT fire if required. Ideally same system as the dismounts are carrying for commonality, but bearing mind reloads eat internal space and exterior carriage is sub optimal.

Tanks: your taking away from their primary purpose / ammo carriage, with questionable return.

So the tank continues as a gun carrier - rapid fire, close combat, line of sight

The infantry gets an infantry carrier - carrying troops with infantry weapons to fight the close combat battle on foot

The infantry carrier can also be used to carry dismountable support weapons to fight the stand off battle

The artillery gets an armoured pickup truck optimized to carry a range of stand off weapons systems.

All vehicles get a light calibre, high angle, rapid slew, RWS with lots of rounds for local defence against personnel and aerial threeats (uavs and missiles)

Something along those lines?

Is the 25mm manned turret still the optimal solution or does the production emphasis need to swing to accommodate a couple more vehicle types in the Platoon/Coy?

 

[KevinB]

That's one thing that's been niggling at me, why is the A4 still 25mm/twin TOW? No appetite to re-turret? weight/size limitations?

A4 is just an improvement on the theme - more power for network requirements.
Javelin and Hellfire models have been made, but as I understand it, the hope had been that OMFV would come on line sooner than later - and no major platform upgrades to the Bradley will be required.
Based on OMFV timeline, I expect an A5 Bradley with a 40-50mm gun and JAGM will come on line in the FY24.

Edit- with a blank cheque (no need to free load off the US) what's the case for the A4 over the CV9035NL MLU?

Blank Check I think the CV90 MkIV platform would be the way to roll

So the tank continues as a gun carrier - rapid fire, close combat, line of sight

The infantry gets an infantry carrier - carrying troops with infantry weapons to fight the close combat battle on foot

The infantry carrier can also be used to carry dismountable support weapons to fight the stand off battle

Tracking

The artillery gets an armoured pickup truck optimized to carry a range of stand off weapons systems.

Lost me totally, as I see HIMARS and M1299/M109A7 being the logical CMBG Arty assets.

All vehicles get a light calibre, high angle, rapid slew, RWS with lots of rounds for local defence against personnel and aerial threeats (uavs and missiles)

Losing me again.
I do see RWS needs, but I don't see them on all vehicles - and I still believe the ADA needs to control the Anti Air State - and responses.
So I would have some vehicles setup for AAD, as part of the Bde+ Air Plan and networked with the Canadian equivalent of the ADAM Cell (sorry I've been a long time and I flushed most of my CA organization knowledge)

Something along those lines?

Is the 25mm manned turret still the optimal solution or does the production emphasis need to swing to accommodate a couple more vehicle types in the Platoon/Coy?

The 25mm is definitely no longer the optimal solution, I think 35-50mm is the way most NATO countries are going for an IFV, with a NLOS ATGM. Keep in mind the ATGM can also be used for anti-structure/fortification usage (even if an expensive option - it's cheaper than wasted lives).

 

[ArmyRick]

A4 is just an improvement on the theme - more power for network requirements.
Javelin and Hellfire models have been made, but as I understand it, the hope had been that OMFV would come on line sooner than later - and no major platform upgrades to the Bradley will be required.
Based on OMFV timeline, I expect an A5 Bradley with a 40-50mm gun and JAGM will come on line in the FY24.

Blank Check I think the CV90 MkIV platform would be the way to roll



Tracking

Lost me totally, as I see HIMARS and M1299/M109A7 being the logical CMBG Arty assets.


Losing me again.
I do see RWS needs, but I don't see them on all vehicles - and I still believe the ADA needs to control the Anti Air State - and responses.
So I would have some vehicles setup for AAD, as part of the Bde+ Air Plan and networked with the Canadian equivalent of the ADAM Cell (sorry I've been a long time and I flushed most of my CA organization knowledge)

The 25mm is definitely no longer the optimal solution, I think 35-50mm is the way most NATO countries are going for an IFV, with a NLOS ATGM. Keep in mind the ATGM can also be used for anti-structure/fortification usage (even if an expensive option - it's cheaper than wasted lives).

Do you ever get the feeling the Yanks go too much for "dream machine" in their technology development? In the pursuit of near pefection, they see one project after another being cancelled (IMO).
Look at FCS Manned ground vehicles, then the IFV bradley replacement that got tossed after that. Then the first what was supposed to be the selection for I believe OMFV a year ago was down to the KF41 and it was cancelled.

I know its funny hearing a Canadian telling the yanks "to accept the 70% good enough solution" and stop pursuing the 99% perfection idea.

I think if they purchase an excellent system that has multiple future upgrade options is the way to go for OMFV.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Do you ever get the feeling the Yanks go too much for "dream machine" in their technology development? In the pursuit of near pefection, they see one project after another being cancelled (IMO).
Look at FCS Manned ground vehicles, then the IFV bradley replacement that got tossed after that. Then the first what was supposed to be the selection for I believe OMFV a year ago was down to the KF41 and it was cancelled.

I know its funny hearing a Canadian telling the yanks "to accept the 70% good enough solution" and stop pursuing the 99% perfection idea.

I think if they purchase an excellent system that has multiple future upgrade options is the way to go for OMFV.

That's how innovation really works.... 80% of the ideas never make it to fruition. And it's expensive.

 

[KevinB]

Do you ever get the feeling the Yanks go too much for "dream machine" in their technology development? In the pursuit of near pefection, they see one project after another being cancelled (IMO).
Look at FCS Manned ground vehicles, then the IFV bradley replacement that got tossed after that. Then the first what was supposed to be the selection for I believe OMFV a year ago was down to the KF41 and it was cancelled.

There are multifold issues at work;
Part of it is a willingness of the Project Offices, plus HASC and SASC to scrap programs when the result clearly isn't worth it, or has been overtaken by events, I wish more programs down here actually got the axe at times (NGSW and NGAR for example).
Part of it is HASC and SASC oversight calling the Army (etc) to be accountable when attempting to field giant POS's.

But culturally, there is a desire to remain at the bleeding edge of technology - and with that one needs to accept that some visions won't pan out.

I know its funny hearing a Canadian telling the yanks "to accept the 70% good enough solution" and stop pursuing the 99% perfection idea.

I think if they purchase an excellent system that has multiple future upgrade options is the way to go for OMFV.

Personally I think OMFV has been a bridge too far, and that realistically certain aspect of that should have been ironed out prior to embarking on a Bradley replacement -- as a result I think we are probably going to see 10-15 more years of Bradly service at least.
I think a better investment would have been in an Autonomous Combat Vehicle as a Remote Combat Scout/Support Vehicle for formation to work with the Bradleys - and Bradley upgrades to turret, etc that when and if the Autonomous Combat Vehicle is prime time, that then a big brother can be looked at.

That's how innovation really works.... 80% of the ideas never make it to fruition. And it's expensive.

Yeah lots of R&D Efforts never result in a specific product/program, but the results and innovation from those programs can be used in the future.
I also include learning from the really bad ideas that one shouldn't do that again (like the M14)

 

[Kirkhill]

That's how innovation really works.... 80% of the ideas never make it to fruition. And it's expensive.

Yup new systems from failed machines upgrade existing fleets.