Informing the Army’s Future Structure

[KevinB]

I don’t know that the possible tasks and failings of our largest military vehicle purchase in decades is that much of a derail in a discussion on army restructure. What a TAPV can and can’t do is a concept that has to be central to that surely?

Well it sort of sums up a lot of the CA restructuring.

 

[Underway]

I don’t know that the possible tasks and failings of our largest military vehicle purchase in decades is that much of a derail in a discussion on army restructure. What a TAPV can and can’t do is a concept that has to be central to that surely?

Agreed. Its not like Army Reorg doesn't derail all the other threads around here. Take that Reorg Thread you get sidetracked too!

So I'm thinking that simple might be best for a "reorg". Get rid of the light battalions and use the pers freed up to make the mech one's whole.

 

[Infanteer]

So I'm thinking that simple might be best for a "reorg". Get rid of the light battalions and use the pers freed up to make the mech one's whole.

The year 2001 just entered the chat.

 

[markppcli]

The year 2001 just entered the chat.

It’s not as though that wasn’t a stated COA for Force 2025.

 

[GR66]

Let's be honest...a decision...ANY decision that is matched with the resources to properly apply the change would be a great improvement over what we have now.

A LAV/Leopard-based Armoured Brigade with programs established to provide the missing CS and CSS capabilities (ATGMs, SHORAD, SP Howitzers, etc.)? An improvement.

A Light Brigade Air Mobile/Arctic Response Brigade with light vehicles and air-transportable CS/CSS enablers and expanded vertical/strategic lift capabilities? An improvement.

A LAV-based Security Force Assistance Brigade plus a properly manned and equipped Artillery Brigade and Mobility Enhancement Brigade? An improvement.

There are a multitude of useful roles that a well trained, organized and equipped military can fulfil that are useful both in peacetime and in wartime. The key is having them well trained, organized and equipped to fulfil their stated purpose (and I'd include in that properly integrated to work with our allied nations).

Just make a decision and make it work.

 

[Kirkhill]

Let's be honest...a decision...ANY decision that is matched with the resources to properly apply the change would be a great improvement over what we have now.

A LAV/Leopard-based Armoured Brigade with programs established to provide the missing CS and CSS capabilities (ATGMs, SHORAD, SP Howitzers, etc.)? An improvement.

A Light Brigade Air Mobile/Arctic Response Brigade with light vehicles and air-transportable CS/CSS enablers and expanded vertical/strategic lift capabilities? An improvement.

A LAV-based Security Force Assistance Brigade plus a properly manned and equipped Artillery Brigade and Mobility Enhancement Brigade? An improvement.

There are a multitude of useful roles that a well trained, organized and equipped military can fulfil that are useful both in peacetime and in wartime. The key is having them well trained, organized and equipped to fulfil their stated purpose (and I'd include in that properly integrated to work with our allied nations).

Just make a decision and make it work.

The problem seems to be that no matter what decision is made it will pissoff somebody who will scream and turn blue.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am regularly accused of derailing. I plead guilty.

In large part I find this is because a small change in technology can have a big impact on structure.

In the same way that I find Saab's dual purpose Anti Tank Anti Air sight for cannons to be worthy of exploration I am intrigued by a new sight offering for SAAB products. Something that would seem to be applicable to the Canadian environment and needs.

Sights on the future

While we normally supply the Carl-Gustaf M4 with a choice of either integrated metal sights (iron sights) or a red-dot sight, some users require even higher levels of control, accuracy and flexibility. To enable this, Saab collaborates with a limited number of leading manufacturers who produce...

www.saab.com

 

[markppcli]

Been trialled, no idea where it went. Per the report 3 RCR was getting 1st round hits at 1000m. Which effectively doubles its range.

 

[Kirkhill]

Been trialled, no idea where it went. Per the report 3 RCR was getting 1st round hits at 1000m. Which effectively doubles its range.

From the description, that it "clips on" to the AT4 as well, and seems to follow the same targeting as the NLAW it strikes me as a useful piece of kit for the section. Was it any use as a standalone observation device?

 

[markppcli]

From the description, that it "clips on" to the AT4 as well, and seems to follow the same targeting as the NLAW it strikes me as a useful piece of kit for the section. Was it any use as a standalone observation device?

Not really the same. It just gives you an aim point from my understanding.

We already have thermals down to section level, so I don’t know what extra used it’d see as a stano option.

 

[Infanteer]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547260588530728962

I'm just going to leave this here....

 

[FJAG]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1547260588530728962

I'm just going to leave this here....

I must admit I never cared much for the Boxer or its modular concept. While there is a potential to swap out modules, how often would that happen in practice? Possibly a few times if a high value module has a chassis damaged but I expect at that point the module will have deformities that would prevent a simple in-the-field swap out. Manufacture of separate chassis and modules is no simpler than a complete LAV and probably more expensive and the module structure most probably robs the interior of valuable space. IMHO its a toss up between the Boxer and the LAV series for the medium role while the Lynx better fit the ABCT IFV slot.

But with a choice between a wheeled and a tracked chassis with interchangeable modules the game has changed substantially. The tracked chassis can be better configured for the heavier armoured and heavier powertrain role for an IFV while the wheeled chassis remains a lighter more air transportable version. The commonality of the modules from one fleet to the other presents a great advantage in training and maintenance.

General Dynamics leaves me a little confused between the ASCOD, the AJAX series and now the tracked Stryker. I think they are missing the boat if they aren't looking at a future series of modules that are interchangeable as between a tracked or wheeled chassis.

Just a thought.

 

[McG]

All those variants have been fielded or prototyped on LAV.

 

[FJAG]

All those variants have been fielded or prototyped on LAV.

But not as modules, to the best of my knowledge.

Imagine for example an air defence module, or an ATGM module, or a radar module, or a gun module which could be set up at a school without a chassis and used as a training aid for crews regardless of whether they go to a heavy or medium brigade.

 

[Underway]

I must admit I never cared much for the Boxer or its modular concept. While there is a potential to swap out modules, how often would that happen in practice? Possibly a few times if a high value module has a chassis damaged but I expect at that point the module will have deformities that would prevent a simple in-the-field swap out. Manufacture of separate chassis and modules is no simpler than a complete LAV and probably more expensive and the module structure most probably robs the interior of valuable space.

I agree with your modular concept criticism. There is a place for specialized vehicles and a place for modular vehicles. And there is a place for a specialized vehicle to have "modules" on it to swap out equipment.

IMHO its a toss up between the Boxer and the LAV series for the medium role while the Lynx better fit the ABCT IFV slot.

LAV 6 and Boxer are in the same weight class. I think the LAV protection/firepower/mobility triangle is better balanced than Boxer which leans more on the armor side of the house but loses out in mobility.

But with a choice between a wheeled and a tracked chassis with interchangeable modules the game has changed substantially. The tracked chassis can be better configured for the heavier armoured and heavier powertrain role for an IFV while the wheeled chassis remains a lighter more air transportable version. The commonality of the modules from one fleet to the other presents a great advantage in training and maintenance.

General Dynamics leaves me a little confused between the ASCOD, the AJAX series and now the tracked Stryker. I think they are missing the boat if they aren't looking at a future series of modules that are interchangeable as between a tracked or wheeled chassis.

Just a thought.

The ASCOD and AJAX are basically the same family. You can put the tracked Stryker in a different grouping though. It makes sense though. Tracked Stryker was designed to replace the M113. ASCOD is a tracked IFV.

 

[Skysix]

LAV 6 and Boxer are in the same weight class. I think the LAV protection/firepower/mobility triangle is better balanced than Boxer which leans more on the armor side of the house but loses out on mobility

I think we need now to re-evaluate armor. What level vs mobility is needed for what.

Protection against arty shrapnel, 12.7/.50 and IEDs is one level. Against 30mm another. HEAT from tanks and roadside mines yet another. Protection against top attack and NLAW etc not very practicle any more. Drones and SMART artillery are game changers.

What is the purpose of the protection? Absolute so an invulnerable chassis can get its payload to 'x'? Or limited so it can withstand random battlefield dangers.

The protection-mobility tradeoff has shifted substantially over the past decade to the point where unarmored dune buggies are proving effective at one end of the spectrum yet top of the line tanks are vulnerable to a squaddie with a man portable missile at a distance beyond the normal protection circle of dismounts.

Or maybe I am just reading too much into what the Ukraine battlefield is showing us.

 

[Underway]

I think we need now to re-evaluate armor. What level vs mobility is needed for what.

Protection against arty shrapnel, 12.7/.50 and IEDs is one level. Against 30mm another. HEAT from tanks and roadside mines yet another. Protection against top attack and NLAW etc not very practicle any more. Drones and SMART artillery are game changers.

What is the purpose of the protection? Absolute so an invulnerable chassis can get its payload to 'x'? Or limited so it can withstand random battlefield dangers.

The protection-mobility tradeoff has shifted substantially over the past decade to the point where unarmored dune buggies are proving effective at one end of the spectrum yet top of the line tanks are vulnerable to a squaddie with a man portable missile at a distance beyond the normal protection circle of dismounts.

Or maybe I am just reading too much into what the Ukraine battlefield is showing us.

We have to be careful with the media's narrow focus of what Ukraine is showing us. If we took the data at the start of the war we would have thought that ATGM was king. But now we see that artillery likely still is.

There are minefields all over Ukraine now. I've seen videos of four tanks in a row hitting mines. With train tracks being damaged all over the place just driving the troops to the defensive line on roads while being protected from shell fragments in the process is a useful capability.

Also, a vehicle destroyed by whatever weapon doesn't invalidate the capability that the vehicle provides. LAVs were never designed to deal with AT systems, only small arms, fragments and mines.

 

[FJAG]

The ASCOD and AJAX are basically the same family. You can put the tracked Stryker in a different grouping though. It makes sense though. Tracked Stryker was designed to replace the M113. ASCOD is a tracked IFV.

It's an interesting question as to whether a given manufacturer needs separate vehicles which all function around the same weight class (give or take a few tonnes here or there) or whether it should turn its production into a common line. I'm starting to like the idea of common modules (maybe with some bolt on armour upgrade capability) which can be "slid into" either a single universal heavy tracked chassis or a single universal medium wheeled chassis. The trouble for GD is that they already have different legacy vehicles in fairly wide usage and turning back the clock will be difficult. They may need to leap a generation.

I think we need now to re-evaluate armor. What level vs mobility is needed for what.

The holy trinity of protection, mobility and firepower have been in a constant tension and been reevaluated continuously since Little Willie was unveiled in 1915. It always has been and will be a trade off that will draw some people one way and others another. I think @Underway has it right - before we jump we need to be cautious and wait to see if the empirical data supports the Twitter analyses.

 

[Kirkhill]

We have to be careful with the media's narrow focus of what Ukraine is showing us. If we took the data at the start of the war we would have thought that ATGM was king. But now we see that artillery likely still is.

But what is artillery? Is it the Russians pounding cities and empty fields with tonnes of hand-bombed HE?

Or is it the Ukrainians observing and correcting every round and using all the precision guided munitions they can lay their hands on?

I could argue that the Ukranians have swapped man-portable PGMs for artillery launched PGMs.

There are minefields all over Ukraine now. I've seen videos of four tanks in a row hitting mines. With train tracks being damaged all over the place just driving the troops to the defensive line on roads while being protected from shell fragments in the process is a useful capability.

Also, a vehicle destroyed by whatever weapon doesn't invalidate the capability that the vehicle provides. LAVs were never designed to deal with AT systems, only small arms, fragments and mines.

 

[Kirkhill]

Curiously the only ones that have been ordered are the armoured boxes.