"Trading Saber for Stealth" or "Are We a One Trick Pony?"

[Kirkhill]

Recceguy = Sense?

KevinB = Act?

Both = Cavalry

Neither = Heavy.

Sounds like a reasonable recipe for "controlling" open ground - as opposed to "complex" terrain.

Add some heavier kit (like ATGMs on the LAVIIIs and some sort of mobile indirect fire support - missiles, mortars, helos - tanks would be nice as well) as funds and the govmint permits.

One element is responsible for gathering info.  The other element, along with the arty and inf is a tool for command to act based on that info.

What am I missing?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

The two proposed "dismounts" would not be infantrymen who would clear buildings, attack positions or hold ground.  They would be there to provide a dismounted recce capability to the Patrol.  Instead of the gunner or commander getting out to check out complex terrain and danger areas the scouts would dismount.  In a stability/counter-insurgency operation the scouts would give an enhanced capability to interact with the local population.  The scout task is well within the sphere of the Armoured Corps.

The scouts in the Coyote issue is separate from the Cavalry fighting for information issue.  I am proposing dismounted scouts to enhance the recce capability (Sense).  Fighting for information would require AT and infanty resources added to the Sqn.  The scouts would give the Coyote Troop or Patrol an improved Act capacity in convoy escort scenarios, I suppose, but I would see this as the limit of their Act piece.

The Coyote with surv gear and two scouts gives a better all-round Recce system to the tactical commander.  Heck, we could employ a similar concept in the G-Wagon, albeit with four guys.  Put on a roof-mounted FLIR or RWS and have two guys running the vehicle and two ready to dismount and sneak around.

Referring back to the title of the thread, stealth and fighting for information are techniques available to the commander tasked with finding information about the enemy.  Both have advantages and both are more suited for different situations.  If you have lots of time then stealthy should be the prefered option.  When time is short then you need to take risks or else your combat forces will advance blind.  The ability to do either should not necessarliy be mutually exclusive, although I suppose there are always design compromises.  To me, the point of the article is that the doctrine focused on stealth to the exclusion of fighting for information, based on peacetime exercises.  The result was a "one trick pony" that faced severe limitations when called upon during the real thing.  Even if you are not fighting for information, your recce troops should be able to survive a bad moment.  That being said, you should have the ability to conduct stealthy reconnaissance as well. 

I am one of those heretics who see the Coyote as a recce vehicle.  I want scouts to enhance the recce piece, not the fighting piece.  The scouts would be there for stealthy recce.  I want the combination of TOW/MGS/Tanks, infantry platoons and fire support assets with the Recce troops to make a Cavalry force that fights for information and denies the same to the enemy.

Cheers,

2B

 

[George Wallace]

Some good points coming up.  Tom the way we did things and due to cut backs have not been able to continue.  Recceguy is correct, in that we don't yet have any change of doctrine, so we still do Recce by Stealth.  Kev, good ideas, but I guess both Corps are still hashing many of the bugs out.  2 Bravo has brought us back into perspective.  Shame he thinks the Coyote is a "Recce" veh... ;D

We do our Recce by Stealth.  Our Doctrine hasn't changed yet.  The Coyote is a marvellous Surveillance Vehicle, but I don't like to think of it as a Recce Vehicle.  It is too large.  It's turret is too far back.  It is noisier than a LAV III.  ETC., etc. 

I am inclined to think that the two Surv Op/Scouts in the back are a benefit.  It gives more flexibility in the Drills and also more expertise in the OP.  My only concern is the amount of room available for an extra crewman in an already crammed space.  Being 'old school' I didn't like to be constantly hopping out of the turret for Blind Corners which only the Driver could see around and my GIB was buried under kit for the move.......GIBs have the task.

Well time for this old Recce Dog to go for his morning Run....

 

[KevinB]

I ended up changing my aurgument half way thru -- I was arguing for a Cav formation orbat.  I still beleive that arm'd recce and inf recce should exist seperately. 

However I would suggest that th CF must deterime what its aim is before we go forward.

CAV will work to replace the MECH INF and ARMOURED RECCE/SURV SQN's that currently deloy to Afghan type missions. 


IF we are serious about other things - We need real armoured forces - (not everyone as a half asses recce sqn)

 

[Spartan]

But isn't this sort of a outlook on bigger problems in the CF- trying to sort out a role in ANY operations that we are partaking in without the doctrine and training shift to accomadate this? Isn't this also being displayed in Ops purchases - we'll take what we need / can get and shoehorn it into (future) usefulness? To me, as a citizen and very limited time in, it seems to me very hard to prepare for something if a) you don't have the equipment to become at least vaguely familiar with how it ticks inhouse, how are you going to use it to its maximum potential over on ops? b) that without a clear plan or objective for the Army, and grander CF this type of "turf" struggles will only increase as each "turf" wants to remain in the game, and not be subjected to doing something different.

 

[a_majoor]

Al Majoor: An ISTAR Bn is a sneaky way for all of the geeks to try and secure command appointments.  It is a career engine, not an operational one.  A Div Recce Regt has the flex to accomodate the new assets, and the iron to ensure the non-manoeuvrist pocket protector crowd don't get the funny idea they have the stones to actually run things.

Regular readers will know I believe ISTAR is a process, not a unit. Despite my firm opposition  :, the "senior management" is still moving forward with ISTAR units, hence my suggesting surveillance vehicles be grouped under that banner. Modified RG-31s would make great surveillance platforms. "Recce Coyotes" with turret mounted weapons, enhanced FCS or LRSS sights and a few dismountable patrolmen fit in with the more traditional recce squadron model.

Thinking back to DG-41's AAR, one possible solution seemed to be trading a G-wagon patrol for a Coyote patrol to enhance overwatch and firepower. If we could trade the G-wagons for a "Ferret-21" that seems to be a workable solution. Oddly enough, the 6 "Mud Recce" + 2 Coyote model reminded me of the old Soviet model (with a bit of rejigging). The six "Mud Recce" vehicles grouped in three car patrols would then have a Coyote each to provide overwatch (the leading march parties consisted of 3 X BRDM backed by a T-64/T-72 tank. Three leading march parties worked out to a company of BRDMs and a platoon of tanks). While I don't think this is what DG-41 had ion mind, it is something to consider.

Referring back to the title of the thread, stealth and fighting for information are techniques available to the commander tasked with finding information about the enemy.  Both have advantages and both are more suited for different situations.  If you have lots of time then stealthy should be the prefered option.  When time is short then you need to take risks or else your combat forces will advance blind.  The ability to do either should not necessarliy be mutually exclusive, although I suppose there are always design compromises.  To me, the point of the article is that the doctrine focused on stealth to the exclusion of fighting for information, based on peacetime exercises.  The result was a "one trick pony" that faced severe limitations when called upon during the real thing.  Even if you are not fighting for information, your recce troops should be able to survive a bad moment.  That being said, you should have the ability to conduct stealthy reconnaissance as well. 

Here here!

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Given the places we are going these days the three car patrol mentioned above may well be worthwhile.

My thoughts here are necessarily based on branch protectionism.  I just think that recce vehs (regardless of capbadge) should have some form of dismounted capability without hindering the ability of the vehicle to conduct operations.  It dovetails nicely (in my opinion) with Armoured Recce Troops with Coyotes.  The Recce Sqns always had a dismounted scouting capability, we'd just be building it in up front with the patrols.

In the "war of the snakes", recce elements mounted in AFVs but having a small integral dismounted scout element would give the commander a very versatile tool.  It could still set-up OPs with a variety of long-range sensors while able to provide for its own security.  The scouts could be employed by the Patrol to interact with the populace while maintaining the fully-capable presence of the AFVs.  They could conduct limited combat operations and would be able to escort vulnerable convoys.  They would be able to conduct all of this with an economical employment of manpower, making sure that the commander had sufficient troops to conduct direct operations.

Cheers,

2B

 

[a_majoor]

2Bravo, my impression from your posts is that the Coyote with the surveillance system should also carry dismountable patrolmen, but perhaps I am misreading you here? My preference would be to have the "Recce Coyote" more like a USMC LAV-25, without a surveillance system but with a few dismounts. If the CC needs to see something, the turret mounted FCS would be his tool of choice, with his patrolmen available for complex terrain (both physical and human). The only enhancement I could see for a fast moving Recce vehicle would be the LRSS, which is comparable to a "Periscope" that can be quickly popped up for a look then retracted when not needed.

My question to you is should the surveillance capability be integral to the Recce Squadron, held separately (ie a surveillance troop in the squadron or surveillance squadron in the Regiment), or offloaded entirely into some other outfit like the putative ISTAR Bn?

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Yup.  I would like to have the surveillance system and two scouts in each Coyote (crew of five and the surveillance suite).  There may be a smaller OCS and surv suite coming down the pipe which would facilitate this (be hard to do right now unless you had hobbits).  The surveillance gear would be used for static OPs.  The turret optics and scouts would be employed during RAPZ recce stuff as you suggest.  This would make each Patrol/Troop and Sqn very flexible.

I'm not opposed to ISTAR units as long as their focus is on providing a robust ISTAR CC function to their supported headquarters.

Matt,

I like your progression idea in that one of the scouts would be a relatively senior guy.  I figure at least one of the scouts in the Patrol should be a MCpl or a very senior PLQ qual Cpl.  I wouldn't like to see four brand new Tprs as the scouts.  As drivers they are under pretty close supervision.  As scouts they should be very switched on.

Running with this a little further, DP1 Armour could include a "patrol" package (two weeks to a month) to impart the baseline skills.  The new arrival at the Regt would come with Coyote Driver and a basic understanding of the scout role.  Some might go in as drivers, the others as junior Scouts.  He'd take surv op at the first opportunity.  There could then be a PCF "Scout" course given at the Regiment that would give the soldier more complete skills and make him the "senior" scout in the vehicle.

Sorry, I'll come back to reality here.

2B

 

[Matt_Fisher]

2Bravo,

The question I have is that within a 2 vehicle patrol, why do you need to have two vehicles with the surv. capability?  Is this not redundant?  Or is redundancy the point, so that if one vehicle's surv. equipment goes down, you've got a backup?  Otherwise, I'd say have the sr. vehicle equipped with surv. capability and 2 dismounts and the jr. vehicle being 'naked' but having a 4 man dismount team in the back.

 

[George Wallace]

Matt

Not doing "Mud Recce" with the Mark One Eyeball being the built-in redundancy of the Recce Patrols, now with the more High Tech Coyote, you need the High Tech redundancancy.  Two vehicles with Suites, as we all know Technology has a nasty habit of breaking down at the wrong time.  Also, there are times when the use of the Mast is more advantageous and times when the Ground Mount are more advantageous.  Flexibility. 

Both Suites will not normally be in operation in an OP, so if one goes down it is a simple matter of switching over to the other.  No need to leave the OP and have another Patrol come in to replace you.

2 Bravo

You said something about the Scouts that sent shivers up my spine.  I would not want any patrol leaving my OP to go and mingle with any local populace.  It would give away any security and secrecy of the OP and OP Base.

I would also prefer that the Scouts be trained first as Surv Ops then progress through the Crew stations to Comd.  Just for the redundancy of having a functioning Surv Op at all times.  I would hate to be caught in a position where my Surv Op/Scout was lost on a patrol and have the remaining Scouts unable to take his place.  Plus, in the OP Base, there is a greater requirement to have functional Surv Ops to do shifts, as opposed to any Crewman able to do Radio or Security Watches.  I think we may have to place more emphasis on training everyone in the Surv Op role to maintain effective OPs.

a_majoor

I am more inclined to go with smaller vehicles for the "Mud Recce" role than any LAV.  Ours is a 'Stealth' role, not a 'Fight for Info' role, and to increase an Armd Recce Troop to the size and numbers of about a half Company is getting right out of hand.  Seven Cars of 21 to 30 pers should suffice.  Throwing sections into the backs of Coyotes is going to be a waste of manpower for the amounts of time they will be employed.  We are stepping into Mech Inf territory if we do.  The only way we should do this is to bring back an Assault Troop and their Equipment the Engr LAV.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Matt,

As George pointed out, having two suites (one mast and one remote) gives the Patrol commander the flexibility to select the right tool for the job while also having some redundancy.

George,

Reading back I went from discusing the employment of the scouts in OPs to mobile operations without changing gears in the same paragraph.  My bad.

For an OP (covert, overt or otherwise), the scouts would not be out talking with locals (unless the locals come to you).  They'd be worked into the OP routine.  That being said, much of our doctrine seems to based on remaining covert for protection.  Fine when dealing with Motor Rifle Regiments but not always achievable in today's operations (the locals can find you, they live there).  The extra two soldiers in the patrol would give more local security.

I see the main role of the scouts when the Patrol is conducting mobile operations (conventional warfighting or otherwise).  If the Patrol is tasked to check out a village then the four man dismounted patrol can get out and talk with the locals without compromising the capabilities of the vehicles.  If the patrol is conducting RAPZ in a more conventional heavy metal warfighting scenario then the scouts will be dismounting in the low ground and checking out danger areas before the Coyotes move through.  I'm shamelessly stealing ideas from the US and others here!

That being said, there could be situations where we use the mast optics to check out a target and then covertly send in the scouts to further define the situation.  Instead of this being an ad-hoc team put together at the gate they'd be a cohesive patrol with common SOPs.

I'm with you on the Surv Op training piece and the more people trained the better.  Perhaps we have a shorter surv op course that gives each crewman the ability to operate the optics and trouble shoot without getting into the intricacies of setup?

Cheers,

2B

 

[DG-41]

Ours is a 'Stealth' role, not a 'Fight for Info' role, and to increase an Armd Recce Troop to the size and numbers of about a half Company is getting right out of hand.  Seven Cars of 21 to 30 pers should suffice.  Throwing sections into the backs of Coyotes is going to be a waste of manpower for the amounts of time they will be employed.

George, I agree with your conclusion, but not the premise.

In the Cold War days, Recce had to be 100% stealth becasue to do anything otherwise would be suicide. The bad guys had bigger and badder weapon systems than we did, they pushed them forward onto their recce assets, and they had massive amounts of artillery. Even if you bumped a tiny lil' Soviet motorcycle patrol, they had an Army's worth of indirect fire to dump on your head. To seek any kind of engagement was to court disaster.

But now that we are playing the "bundle of snakes" game, those conditions no longer hold. Our weapon systems should be at worst case equal to the bad guys, and they certainly don't have arty or fast air to dump on us - hell, we might not have arty of our own (have any of our tubes in Afganistan ever fired in anger? I don't know)

So we're moving to a world where recce could, and in some cases probably should, do a little fighting for information. If I'm held up by the "lone dude with the RPG" contact, I'm not going to hold up the entire advance or lose a patrol piqueting him - I'll send a patrol to bypass on first contact, yes (in case he turns out to be more than just the lone gunman) but if, on developing the contact he proves to be small enough for me to handle, and it is within my ROE to engage him, then I will.

It should be pointed out that my goal in engaging isn't just killing him. If he can be captured, or if the *video detachment filming him* (per insergant SOP these days) can be captured, then that's potentially a wealth of information to pass back to higher. Grab him, bag him, pass him off to 49C, and get on with the advance.

But I'm not willing to too heavily compromise endurance, vehicle signature, and especially SPEED to do so. One JAFFO is good, two is better, but three is probably too many and four is way too much.

I like 8 cars with 2 dismounts each. I too prefer a Coyote-alike, but a mixed troop with a couple of Coyotes and the rest GWagon or RG-31 is fine too.

DG
It's also easier to say that when we're talking Coyote than when we talk GWagon

 

[TCBF]

"RAPZ in a more conventional heavy metal warfighting scenario then the scouts will be dismounting in the low ground and checking out danger areas before the Coyotes move through.  I'm shamelessly stealing ideas from the US and others here!"

In ye olde days, we did this all the time with Lynx.  During a 'held-up' drill, the rear Lynx often bumped the lead Lynx and the rear observer jumped on the lead which then pushed fwd to the obst dsmt point.  The lead cc and the 2nd observer recce'd the obstacle, the first observer slid behind the fifty.  This gave us two vehs which could still move, shoot, and communicate, and two dismounts who could support each other.

I like the 8 car Tp, five men to a car concept.  Faster drills, delayed exhaustion, and good staying power if you take casualties. The removal of gear to accomadate a scout is not required - a simple Coyote reno is. 

The reasons given above in other posts for why we need Recce/Surv assets in one vehicle are good.  We do need ONE 24 hr vehicle - not two 12 hour ones.  The veh must be capable of accomplishing all Recce/Surv tasks including RAS, guard and other economy of force operations.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

What I find difficult to understand is why the surveillance suite should be on a recce vehicle at all? It takes a long time to set up or dismount, and is better suited for static OP duties than anything else. I have been saying that the turret FCS or a periscope like LRSS should suffice for taking a longer view of things (i.e. when you are doing overwatch, or establishing a temporary OP), but allows the crew to observe on the move, set up and tear down a lot quicker, and even pull pole under fire without loosing anything.

The surveillance suite is a wonderful tool, but I see it being established in such a way as to support other operations, including "cuing" recce elements to investigate contacts that are being picked up by the Surveillance systems. We can picture a pair of RG-31s mounting masts doing a leapfrog operation behind the advancing recce screen in a traditional "heavy metal" scenario, and their large size and interior volumes would allow the RG-31 Surv to stay on station in an OP for an extended period of time (and carry extra operators/local security) in lower levels of "Full Spectrum ops", while the recce can still cue on them to establish spot VCPs or perform other tasks.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I don't see it as a problem at all, although I'd love to have a system with quicker setup and teardown.  Alll recce elements should be able to conduct static OPs.  Sometimes your driving through a town to find out if the inhabitants like you.  Other times your watching a compound for three days.  Your Recce assets should be able to do both.

I do not get hung up on surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition and reconnaissance at the tactical recce levell.  Recce vehicles and organizations have always done all three.  A Lynx Patrol could conduct reconnaissance.  It could conduct surveillance (in an OP as part of a screen).  It could also conduct target acquisition (calling in fire support in any situation).  The same could said for virtually any vehicle employed in a recce role if it has mobility, optics of some kind (even just binos) and radios.  I see Recce Sqn as the baseline or backbone for the collection part of the ISTAR process.  On top of this we can then add the more specialized systems that give us increased capabilities in specific areas, cued, perhaps, by the Recce Sqn general purpose elements.

When we talk about ISTAR, there are different levels of "dedication" or specialization.  Systems tend to have a forte but many are general purpose.  A target acquisition radar conducts TA very well but the other functions not so well.  To me, scouts (using a different term than recce to avoid confusion for a moment) must be able to do it all.

The Coyote does indeed perform surveillance well due to its surveillance suite.  The surv gear, however, is just another set of tools for the Patrol commander to employ.  The vehicle also conducts reconnaissance well due to its firepower, protection, mobility, comms and optics (although some will debate this).  Add two dismout scouts and it does reconnaissance even better.  We therefore have a Recce vehicle that is flexible.

Cheers,

2B

 

[TCBF]

a_majoor , you make good technical points, but,  the culture of what we do and the dynamics of how we do it is reflected in our economy of force orgs (Recce Sqn).  We cannot over specialize our vehs or our people, because, invariably, the same guys who do the Zone Recce are left in the best posn to put in the Surv Screen or a Guard.  That's just they way an operation flows.  If we tried to penny packet our specialties, we would need three times as many people in twice as many vehicles.

The best example of this was taking an AT capability away from the Mtd Recce Ptl.  "We have Tanks for that" they said. "We will give you tanks just in time" they said.  Suuuuurrre...  a freindly tank is like a cop.  There is never one around when you need him.

Tom

 

[a_majoor]

Based on the discussions and arguments played out on the "Trading Sabre for Stealth" and "Our (maybe) new Recce Vehicle" threads, I have come up with a sketch of a new recce vehicle. The Coyote has been suggested as the baseline vehicle, with a modified surveillance suite to provide room for an extra patrolman, and for the here and now, it is probably all we will be getting. This is an attempt to do better with a clean sheet of paper and current technology.

The parameters for this vehicle are derived from the need to perform in full spectrum operations, including high speed advance; surveillance and OP operations; the ability to resist limited attacks or at least protect the crew from the effects of the same; having a self protection capability; being able to carry some dismounts and being self contained for at least 72 hr. Some other parameters that were suggested included having the crew seated to maximize visibility when doing corner drills etc. without having to dismount, and having the vehicle small enough to operate in a stealthy manner.

To maximise interior space, a compact powerpack is housed in the rear of the vehicle, offset in the manner of the Achzarit in order to provide for a rear hatch. If the "clamshell" hatch of the Achzarit were adopted, this would allow the vehicle to have a lower roof line and profile than otherwise possible. The crew commander and driver are seated side-by-side in the front, under conventional hatches, using episcopes arranged to provide maximum visibility when hatches down. The gunner is behind the driver, manning the OWS, which mounts a 25mm cannon and coaxial machinegun. The FCS provides day/night and thermal imaging, and can be considered the "on the move" surveillance system. Both the gunner and crew commander have access to the optics through a situational awareness screen.

In the hull behind the gunner is the container for the stowed surveillance mast. At a guess, I would suggest this can be about ½ the size of the present system, and packaged so the mast can be raised and lowered without prior preparation after stopping the vehicle and opening the roof hatch. The surveillance operator's station is beside the gunner and behind the crew commander, with a jump seat for the patrolman behind that. The feed from the surveillance mast is available to both the surveillance operator and the crew commander as well. The patrolman has an "air sentry" hatch, as well as episcopes to provide visibility to the sides and rear when buttoned up.

For low ground pressure and to maximize cross-country mobility, the vehicle is an 8X8 chassis, with a hydraulic "active" suspension. This provides a stable platform for the crew and systems, and also gives the driver the ability to "kneel down" in order to lower the vehicle height (or "stand up" if extra ground clearance is needed). Tight turns could either be performed with an all wheel steering system like the SPz "Luch", or more simply by having the ability to skid or "pivot steer" like an Argo ATV.

Stores for 72 hours of operation are carried in containers in the interior and exterior sponsons, with the exterior stowage boxes providing a secondary function of being "stand off" armour plating to detonate RPGs. It seems reasonable to expect overall protection against 14.5mm AP with modern composite materials, and the bottom will be shaped to deflect mine strikes. Further protection is through ergonomic seating and five point harness systems to keep the crewmembers fully supported in case of accident or enemy action.

If everything were as small as possible and packed together quite tightly, the vehicle would be about the size of the first generation AVGP, providing some "mud recce" ability, although not as much as might be desired. A production run to equip all the Regular units and Reserve recce sub units would provide the economy of scale for reasonable unit costs, as well as providing the critical mass of equipment and experience to develop and refine doctrine and TTPs. Further small economies would be obtained by using the hull for recce CPs and RRBs, which would mostly be a matter of removing the surveillance mast and applying the space for extra communications gear.

The rear engine configuration would support a DFS variant if desired, but attempts to create a family of vehicles would require a reworking with the engine in the front, a raised roofline and a larger hatch or ramp in the rear. This isn't as far fetched as it might sound, the Marder IFV not only shared components with the Leopard Tank, but the basic hull was also reworked to place the engine in the rear to create the JPz Kannone 90mm assault gun and the JPz Raket ATGM platform. It mostly depends on what "we" want and how much effort "we" are willing to expend on a project like this.

 

[George Wallace]

Just a quick retort this late night... The JPz Kannone 90mm assault gun and the JPz Raket ATGM platform were not reconfigurations of the Marder..... they were seperate designs and upgrades from much older vehicles.

 

[TCBF]

Both right, I think.  The Marder family did include the JPz 2 family, with SS11, then HOT, then TOW.  Previous to that - 58 -62, the Ge purchase of the Swiss HS 30 SPz Lang and the French Hotchkiss Spz`Kurz (or "Chockblock") contributed the HS0 as a JPz 1 hull, with SS11.

But, I could be wrong.

Tom