MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[vonGarvin]

Heretical thought: CV 90/120 would not just be a gun tank, but have the elevation mechanism and gun cradle modified for high angle fire so it would be the MMEV. In the direct fire role, it would be loaded with high velocity "tank" rounds and through tube missiles. In the support role, it can fire 120mm rounds based on 120 mm mortar rounds (HE, Smoke, Illum, STRIX smart rounds) and through tube missiles like the LAHAT (anti tank engagements at a 13 km range). I recognize the 120mm cannon is designed for a high velocity round, but a 120mm low/medium velocity round can be fired using a "stub"   casing which fills the breech, but does not have the propellant load of an anti-tank round.

The problem is akin to trying to fix several problems with one solution.  If you want a vehicle system to be a direct fire system, then you have to ask what kind of effect do you wish?  Will it be for anti armour?  Anti personnel?  etc etc.
Also, lets not forget minimum range.  A TOW, for example, is virtually useless in a close in environment (say as found in Port au Prince or Kabul).  "Legacy" systems such as the M72 start to look good for short range, Behind "armour" effects (say Tommy the Terrorist is hiding in a building and you want to hit him, the M72 or even the ages old .50 cal look pretty good).
So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.

 

[vonGarvin]

Let's clarify something about "MMEV"
"Multi-Mission".  The thing is capable of doing several things, eg: direct fire, indirect fire, Anti-Air, etc.
"Effects".  This is a new word to (sort of) replace "firepower".  There are effects at the target end.  Could be destructive.  Could be psychological.
"Vehicle" (or Veh-HI-cle). 
Think of the AVGP family as being the basis for a pseudo Multi Mission Vehicle (no effects here).  The Grizzly, Husky and Cougar all have virtually identical hulls.  Put a 1 metre turret on it, call it a grizzly.  Put a scorpion turret on another, call it a cougar, etc.  Now, imagine a chassis from which you can pull out and replace the turret.  The fire control system is the same on it whether it is in the AD role, AT role, AP role, Surveillance role, whatever.  THAT, gentlemen, is an MMEV.  So, if we could, at will and within a short period of time, could pull out the 1 metre turret from a grizzly and replace it with a scorpion turret, that would have been a MMEV.  The ADATS is still ADATS.  Being called a MMEV?  Maybe, but that doesn't make it right.
Now, let us smoke..... :evil:

 

[Zipper]

Also, lets not forget minimum range.   A TOW, for example, is virtually useless in a close in environment (say as found in Port au Prince or Kabul).  

Thats a good point. Considering we seem to be backing away from the whole idea of "war" (aka. Cold war) and heading towards this concept of "limited engagements/peacemaking/aid agency protection" that frequently is in close terrain (and thus our choice of vehicles), it makes me wonder why we need a weapon that is only useful at long range with ideal sight lines (I know why we need it). Its almost like we're paying lip service to a capability of fighting a war while going further down the road to constabulary.

But then it is politics isn't it?

Isn't the foreign affairs review out this next week? The defense review shouldn't be far behind.

 

[ArmyRick]

Zipper, stick to what you know about 76mm pop guns. TOW is an old but still very effective weapon system. TOW has minimum range 150m and is great to use as an overwatch vehicle. Also its new range is 4 KM (TOW aero).

 

[Zipper]

Sounds good. I guess I'm not questioning TOW so much as how it is going to be used.

So I'll ask you then...

...How much confidence do you have in not only the new vehicles (MMEV, DFS, etc...)? But the new Strat formation?

Yes you'll have to work with what you get, and you'll do a bang up job I have no doubt. But...

 

[ArmyRick]

MMEV? Won't see it for a while, no problem.
Strat formation ? It makes some sense. I don't agree with putting all the DFS assetts in one regt but thats what they are doing. From talking to friends who have been on the more recent tours in A-stan, we in the infantry should really focus on CQB, instintive shooting, use of door charges, etc, etc.

As long as we do the level of Ops we are doing, I aint sweatin the heavy wpns not always being there.

 

[Zipper]

Ah Rick. Always a good Infantry soldier.

I guess as a past tanker, I sweat the big stuff to much. Well, bigger then a 76.

And while I am looking at any change in the military as something good, and any new equipment like a kid in a candy store, the changes that are proposed and happening for some reason just don't seem to sit right.

Its like an itch you can't scratch.

Oh well, like my feelings really mean jack anyway.

Soldier on!

 

[a_majoor]

The max/min range question is answered with a gun tank like the CV 90120T, since firing a 120mm HEAT-MP (High Explosive Anti Tank-Multi Purpose) round gives you an effective minimum range of 0m, while a LAHAT through tube missile fired semi-indirect has a "reach out and touch someone" range of 13km.

The MGS may not be a suitable platform for a lot of reasons, but if we wave a magic wand and imagine all the engineering deficiencies have been solved you would have a weapons platform which could address a wide range of targets and scenarios simply by changing the ammunition load, from 105mm HE shells for bunker busting to through tube missiles for "sniping" at tanks and other hard targets. (A Leopard C-2 is an even better platform for this, but..... ) Gun based MMEVs also can switch to a higher rate of fire with shells if the situation requires.

 

[vonGarvin]

The MGS main deficiencies vis a vis the Leo are threefold (IMHO).
Firepower:  Sure, it's a 105mm, but the firepower just ain't there.  It holds what, 18 rounds?  Leo is 54 (or so I'm lead to believe).  Also, with the muzzle brake on the MGS, nobody, and I mean NOBODY better be near the thing when it fires (Can anyone say collateral damage?)  Sure the Leo hurts when you're near it, but the MGS is nuts.
Mobility:  In some situations, the MGS would be better.  Take an anti tank mine strike: MGS could, in theory, just drive away on the remaining wheels.  Might be enough to get out of a spot of trouble.  It's also much MUCH faster on roads and good, hard, solid ground.  But in Gagetown on a muddy day?  Gimme a Leo!!!!!!
Protection:  'nuff said.
But my main thing is that no one single platform can do "it all".  No matter who says what, we have no idea what the next war will be like.  Some say that tanks are a cold war anachronism on the evening news.  Right after that, we see a "wave of steel" rolling on to Baghdad, 10 km wide and 20 km deep.  So, which is it?  I don't know that answer, but no one single platform will do it all. 
This is what kills me about the infantry (as just one example).  Five years ago the infantry battalion was capable of fighting on its own for a limited time.  It could deal with tanks (Anti Armour Platoon).  It could deal with obstacles (Pioneer Platoon).  It could find the enemy (Recce Platoon) and it could hit targets on the other side of mountains (Mortar Platoon).  Sure, the longest range weapon was only 5.6 km (C70A2 81mm HE round), but heck, that's alright.  Now the longest range weapon in ANY infantry battalion is the 60mm mortar!!! (2.8 km).
Perhaps the infantry battalion of old as part of a brigade with the other "plug and play" assets would provide the flexibility for "whatever happens next".  Or, perhaps instead of doing what we did (eliminate skill sets within corps of the combat arms), we should have slashed the third battalions.  Sure, fewer battalions, same number of soldiers, and heck, battalions never went on deployments, they were always ad hoc.  3RCR in Kabul was actually 1 and 3 RCR.  At least the skill sets of other infantry skills (anti armour, mortars, etc) would still be intact.
So, instead of MMEV, why not a MMEU (Multi Mission Effect Unit)?
Just food for thought....


Now, let us smoke :evil:

 

[McG]

So, instead of MMEV, why not a MMEU (Multi Mission Effect Unit)?

Don't confuse our force generation structure with how we will fight.  There will be all arms groupings with MMEV, TUA, MGS, UAV, mortars, infantry, engineers, etc.  The MMEV will always be a part of a a "MMEU" (as you've called it).  The MMEV will never be the alternative to all arms groupings.

 

[vonGarvin]

Don't confuse our force generation structure with how we will fight.   There will be all arms groupings with MMEV, TUA, MGS, UAV, mortars, infantry, engineers, etc.   The MMEV will always be a part of a a "MMEU" (as you've called it).   The MMEV will never be the alternative to all arms groupings.

There were no MMEV, TUA, MGS or mortars in ATHENA (at least when I was there).  Maybe that's the problem, we generate our forces one way, and then employ them in a different way.  "Train as you would fight" as somebody somewhere once said.

 

[McG]

we generate our forces one way, and then employ them in a different way.   "Train as you would fight" as somebody somewhere once said.

Indeed, and worthy of its own thread.

 

[Wizard of OZ]

So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.

Problem is we have people buying this equipment looking only at dollar value and not at capability.  Sure like anything we but forward three or four "wish list items"  but as things stand now the deceisons are made mostly by men who have never used or will never need to rely on this equipment.  And like a swiss army knife they see the more funcitons that one vehicle/man/equipment can fill the better even if it is not good at any but can be used at them all.

MOO

 

[a_majoor]

So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.

Problem is we have people buying this equipment looking only at dollar value and not at capability.   Sure like anything we but forward three or four "wish list items"   but as things stand now the deceisons are made mostly by men who have never used or will never need to rely on this equipment.   And like a swiss army knife they see the more funcitons that one vehicle/man/equipment can fill the better even if it is not good at any but can be used at them all.

This argument can cut in several different ways. The "Swiss army knife" model allows for some cleaner integration, since the Force Generators and Force employment models will be very similar. With the "troika", do you have a separate squadron for the MGS, TOW and MMEV? How about mixed troops, will they need separate troop sergeants to deal with the technical issues surrounding the different platforms? When you start mixing and matching sets of fire support vehicles in a combat team, who is going to sort out the different logistical requirments? (as an aside, I once saw a cartoon with the title "Before the invention of the Swiss Army Knife." The soldier in the picture was festooned with lanyards to hold all the various items....).

The advantage of the troika is that each vehicle can be tailored to meet a specific threat environment. Linear battles may occur in the future, so an ADATS based MMEV will shine then, while a gun based MGS is better at digging out opponents holed up in bunkers.

Since we have very limited resources, having one gun based MMEV platform makes the most sense to me, since we reduce the logistics and training burden, and streamline the organizational issues as well.

 

[vonGarvin]

This argument can cut in several different ways. The "Swiss army knife" model allows for some cleaner integration, since the Force Generators and Force employment models will be very similar. With the "troika", do you have a separate squadron for the MGS, TOW and MMEV? How about mixed troops, will they need separate troop sergeants to deal with the technical issues surrounding the different platforms? When you start mixing and matching sets of fire support vehicles in a combat team, who is going to sort out the different logistical requirments? (as an aside, I once saw a cartoon with the title "Before the invention of the Swiss Army Knife." The soldier in the picture was festooned with lanyards to hold all the various items....).

The advantage of the troika is that each vehicle can be tailored to meet a specific threat environment. Linear battles may occur in the future, so an ADATS based MMEV will shine then, while a gun based MGS is better at digging out opponents holed up in bunkers.

Since we have very limited resources, having one gun based MMEV platform makes the most sense to me, since we reduce the logistics and training burden, and streamline the organizational issues as well.

There is merit to having a single platform, that's for sure, but we must be careful to avoid a weapon that is jack of all, master of none.  The beauty of the old Combat Team was its flexibility.  Each subunit had its own echelon, and granted it was a huge organisation (similar in size to a Motor Rifle Battalion of the now-defunct Group of Soviet Forces Germany).
An MMEV with modular plug in/pull out systems is one proposal for a future combat vehicle.  Sorta like the CV-90, but imagine you bring it into a shop and drive out with a different variant after minimal change over.  Sort of like how they change the power pack on a LAV.  A few hours (if that) and you have a brand new engine.  Imagine swapping a 25mm turret for a 120mm Smoothbore, of course, depending on need.  Having "one weapon do it all" is a bit problematic, and perhaps a few years down the road in realistic terms.

 

[McG]

Would you be more comfortable calling the "super-ADATS" a "multi-mission effects system"?

I see where you are going with the MMEV comments.   Would the Boxer meet your definition of MMEV?

 

[vonGarvin]

Would you be more comfortable calling the "super-ADATS" a "multi-mission effects system"?

I see where you are going with the MMEV comments.   Would the Boxer meet your definition of MMEV?

The Boxer, as the image seems to illustrate, would indeed be "it".  Now, I don't know if a MMEV is what we need, but if we do, then something like that image would seem to fit the bill as opposed to a single platform designed to "do it all".

 

[McG]

The problem with switching out the entire back end is that you now required an expanded logistics capability to move the msn specific compartments to where they are needed in the battle (or you require the MMEV to leave battle to be reconfigured in some CSS station).  With a multi-mission effects system (vehicle mounted or not) you only need bring forward the new ammo type that is required.

 

[SSL]

I would have to argue with the idea that the people who are defining the requirements have never used nor will ever have to rely on the capabilities that are envisioned for the MMEV.  In fact the PD has 18 years of experience with the ADATS system, which is in effect a MMEV system due to its inherent GBAD, AT, STA and ESM capabilties.

So, let's not try to find a single solution "Wunderwaffe" for several problems.

Problem is we have people buying this equipment looking only at dollar value and not at capability.   Sure like anything we but forward three or four "wish list items"   but as things stand now the deceisons are made mostly by men who have never used or will never need to rely on this equipment.   And like a swiss army knife they see the more funcitons that one vehicle/man/equipment can fill the better even if it is not good at any but can be used at them all.

MOO

 

[Hawker]

Orelikon gets the contract:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1766

Sounds like the CF are going to get some more German kit


http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1396&action=pd