Infantry Vehicles

[KevinB]

Tanks and crews working in practiced coordination with each other and using the Mark1 Eyeball to identify targets and assess the situation, in real time, are hard to beat. It takes a well equipped and dedicated enemy to take that kind of attack on.

We can take the ground, but only the infantry can hold it.

Having a battle on the monitor, like you're playing World of Tanks, is still a bit of a ways off.

Well I’d substitute FCS for Mk1 eyeball….

 

[KevinB]

I dont have faith in experimental items.

I simply want to experiment.

A lifetime of years wasted because of people saying you cant do that it will never work.

Only to discover that it did and it does.

Experimenting is fantastic, but you also need to keep the desires and expectations to a realistic level.

To me a lot of your commentary is coming off an overly (unreasonable IMHO) high expectation of the capabilities of experimental prototypes.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Well I’d substitute FCS for Mk1 eyeball….

Of course. Just a well worn phrase.

 

[Kirkhill]

Experimenting is fantastic, but you also need to keep the desires and expectations to a realistic level.

To me a lot of your commentary is coming off an overly (unreasonable IMHO) high expectation of the capabilities of experimental prototypes.

And I am watching other armies fielding kit that the US Army is dragging its feet on. If I suffer from high expectations the opposite end of the Bell curve is low expectations - or being stuck in the mud and reluctant to innovate.

 

[Brad Sallows]

To be fair, drones are remotely operated and presumably could be hacked.

Someone has to be willing to spend the time and money to prove, or fail trying, the use of new stuff. Tanks were new, once upon a time, and I'm sure had knee-jerk detractors.

 

[GK .Dundas]

And I am watching other armies fieldio Sheridng kit that the US Army is dragging its feet on. If I suffer from high expectations the opposite end of the Bell curve is low expectations - or being stuck in the mud and reluctant to innovate.

To be fair to the US Army it had it's experimental moment in the during the sixties and seventies. For some odd reason the failures are remembered more easily than the successes. .For example the M 551 Sheridan AARV .
The Sheridan had two faults it was too light for it main armament and the technology behind it was twenty - thirty years ahead of its time.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21

Amazon’s SEC filing reveals a whopping expenditure of $42.74 billion in the fiscal 2020 (11.1% of net sales) on ‘technology and content’

Alphabet spent $27.57 billion on R&D, which is equivalent to 15.1% of its revenue of $182.57 billion during the fiscal 2020.

maintaining the overall allocation at 13% over the years. During the fiscal 2020, the company reported an R&D expenditure of $19.27 billion (Microsoft's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30). During the first nine months of the current fiscal (till Match 2021), its R&D allocation had reached $15.03 billion.

These companies are gambling more on trial and error than the entire CAF budget.

Such a pot is not a luxury. It is a necessity and both the Government and the CAF are failing themselves and Canadians by taking a narrow, parsimonious view of accountability for funds.

Some wastage is necessary.

 

[KevinB]

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/which-companies-spend-the-most-in-research-and-development-rd-2021-06-21

These companies are gambling more on trial and error than the entire CAF budget.

Such a pot is not a luxury. It is a necessity and both the Government and the CAF are failing themselves and Canadians by taking a narrow, parsimonious view of accountability for funds.

Some wastage is necessary.

Wastage is the CAF's moniker...

Developmental Programs isn't waste - but the cost should be a shared event with industry.

Down here we have many ways Industry can submit concepts to the Military, either to get funding, or exposure for existing systems.

 

[Dana381]

To be fair, drones are remotely operated and presumably could be hacked.

Someone has to be willing to spend the time and money to prove, or fail trying, the use of new stuff. Tanks were new, once upon a time, and I'm sure had knee-jerk detractors.

You are right, drones can be hacked but as they typically hang out at 40,000 ft it would be much harder (in my mechanic mind) to hack them than a UGV which someone could sneak up on and get within a few meters of.

I'm not saying UGV's are a bad idea, just that these things need to be planned for.

 

[KevinB]

You are right, drones can be hacked but as they typically hang out at 40,000 ft it would be much harder (in my mechanic mind) to hack them than a UGV which someone could sneak up on and get within a few meters of.

I'm not saying UGV's are a bad idea, just that these things need to be planned for.

The majority of the UAS these days are below 1k AGL. Those are the ones that are most susceptible to EW etc. the same sort of bubble as the UGV’s

 

[Kirkhill]

Tanks and crews working in practiced coordination with each other and using the Mark1 Eyeball to identify targets and assess the situation, in real time, are hard to beat. It takes a well equipped and dedicated enemy to take that kind of attack on.

We can take the ground, but only the infantry can hold it.

And infantry can only hold it if it has the tools to do it. Those tools these days are, apparently, drones, ATGMs, shovels, mines and the guns to cover the obstacles.

Not all of those guns need to be on tracks. Not all of those guns need to be attached to vehicles that carry passengers. Not all of those guns need to be manned.

Having a battle on the monitor, like you're playing World of Tanks, is still a bit of a ways off.

It is indeed a bit of a ways off. But there are not many weapons systems out there these days that do not have monitors and more and more of them are talking to each other.

Also A Bradley crew is much harder to turn against its owners than a UGV which can be hacked.

Unmanned does not mean unattended. It means separation between the operator and the system to increase the operator's chances of survival.



This was from 1985 or thereabouts. A Swiss gunner firing an Oerlikon by means of a monitor. There is nothing to stop that monitor being moved back into a trench with overhead protection and connected by coax cable or fibre-optics to the gun.




Equally there is nothing stopping applying those M230/XM914 RWS turrets to the Themis UGV, as has been done for the Thai army and supplying them to the Weapons/Heavy/Support Company of a motorized light infantry battalion.

Specifications
Mass	1,630 kg (3,590 lb)
Length	240 cm (94 in)
Width	200 cm (79 in)
Height	115 cm (45 in)
Main armament	LMG, HMG, 40mm AGL, 30mm autocannon, ATGM, loitering munition launcher (Combat variant)
Engine	Electric engine, diesel generator
Payload capacity	1,200 kg (2,600 lb)
Drive	Tracked
Ground clearance	60 cm (24 in)
Operational range	1.5 km (0.93 mi)
Maximum speed	20 km/h (12 mph)

The intent is not to have them running around the field independently. The intent is to have them move into and out of cover, into and out of battery and jockey between firing positions without exposing the gunner to enemy fire.

The Themis UGV with full Payload would weigh 2.8 tonnes. A Ford F250 could easily haul a pair of them on a beaver-tail trailer. A Cormorant or a Cyclone could both lift one externally and might be able to transport one internally. A Chinook could lift a pair of them. A Herc could drop them on JPADs.

This would make your light infantry more effective permitting them to secure more ground with fewer people AND freeing up LAVs and Bradleys for manoeuvre. They could be kept further to the rear for use en masse with the Leos.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Current state of play. I think unmanned vehicles doing tasks like minefield breaching, mining, ammo supply and even extracting wounded is going to be the majority of the work they do.

 

[Kirkhill]

Which is not going to happen. Because the Bradley does the fire power while providing protected mobility. The need for protected mobility isn’t going away. Having two vehicles to achieve that effect is only ever going to increase cost.

There are insufficient numbers of expensive Bradleys and LAVs. It is a waste of dollars to use them to hold an extended line when they are best employed in depth and massed for strikes and counter-strikes.

I agree that there will be a need for protection and mobility. I happen to believe that those functions can be separated by a cable. I also disagree on the increasing cost. How many MRZRs can you buy for the price of a Bradley?

The Kongsberg C-UAS RWS with the XM914 was sold to the USMC at 94 MUSD for 200 or roughly 500,000 CAD apiece. That is roughly the price of a single Javelin CLU with one missile.

Unit cost	US$216,717 (G-model missile only, FY2021)[6] US$240,000 (missile only, export cost, FY2019)[7] US$249,700 (Lightweight CLU only, FY2021)[6]

Kongsberg Wins $94 Million Contract For Counter-UAS System - Defense Daily

The Marine Corps awarded Norway’s Kongsberg a contract worth up to $94 million to deliver the remote weapon systems (RWS) for the Marine Air Defense

www.defensedaily.com

Please provide an example where rifle companies, and Bns were not longer I the line in favour of MG Bn.

In 1914 the infantry battalions had 2 Vickers or Colt MGs and 1000 rifles. By 1918 the battalions had 2 Lewis guns per platoon, 8 per company and 32 per battalion. The battalions had lost their Vickers and they were brigaded within the MG Corps and controlled centrally - a company for every brigade in the line. Prior to the brigading the Vickers followed their battalions into reserve so the Brigadier lost the use of those guns. When the guns were brigaded they stayed in the line and the crews were rotated.

The guns were supported by the battalions that rotated in and out of the line but, as noted, the firepower of the battalion changed with rifles being swapped for Lewis guns. The battalion didn't need as many soldiers in the line to supply the same defensive fire power. The line could be manned by the Vickers of the MG Corps and the Lewis Guns of the infantry.

Gordon Corrigan "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" pp 88-89.

"The usual procedure in defence was for an infantry battalion to man the firing line and the support line....The proportion of the men in the firing line varied; sometimes two companies would be in the firing line and two in the support trenches, at other times three might be in the firing line. As the war went on it became increasingly the practice (on both sides) for the firing line to be lightly held, so as to avoid casualties from sporadic shelling and sniping." (emphasis added)

I am not saying that the rifles were withdrawn and replaced with MGs. I am saying that some rifles were replaced with MGs and the lines could be thinned out as a result.

No one is saying no UGV, we’re saying “not only UGV”.

And neither am I.

Can’t move them when jammed

So if your LAV's Bushmaster is jammed your LAV is immobilized? If the weapon on a UGV stops why not withdraw the UGV to cover to run your IAs and Stoppages there? That is why I am proposing at least two UGVs per team and preferably three so that guns can be withdrawn to cover for servicing and reloading while maintaining the engagement.

No you wanted a means to ge through the approach while protected

No I wanted to stop the other chap coming through the approach while you are exploiting another approach while protected by your LAV.

Slainte.

 

[KevinB]

@Kirkhill we just gave Croatia 98 Bradley’s, as we have 1,400 some odd extra M2A2

Insufficient? Maybe for cheapskate freeloader countries like Canada…

Your Missile $ are not valid for comparison as your taking an export cost versus a DoD acquisition for the UGV’s. DoD cost on the missiles and launcher are a fair bit lower.

 

[Kirkhill]

Current state of play. I think unmanned vehicles doing tasks like minefield breaching, mining, ammo supply and even extracting wounded is going to be the majority of the work they do.

 

[Kirkhill]

@Kirkhill we just gave Croatia 98 Bradley’s, as we have 1,400 some odd extra M2A2

Insufficient? Maybe for cheapskate freeloader countries like Canada…

Your Missile $ are not valid for comparison as your taking an export cost versus a DoD acquisition for the UGV’s. DoD cost on the missiles and launcher are a fair bit lower.

The shoulder-fired Raytheon/Lockheed Martin system can strike a target 2,500 meters (8,202 feet) away. It costs $178,000, including the launching system and the missile, which alone costs around $78,000.

US Approves $125 Million UK Javelin Missile Request

The US State Department has approved a Javelin missile sale to the UK government worth an estimated $125 million.

www.thedefensepost.com

I will stipulate that the US plays favourites and sells at whatever price it likes - just like any other used car salesman.

MSRP. MSRP (+). MSRP (-). Free under the appropriate marketing plan with the right coupon.


Canada never seems to have the right coupon.

Reality seems to be that we are always paying over the odds and that even the export prices are too low.

....


Having said that I note that most of your infantry does not have Bradleys. You have Bradleys with no infantry and infantry with no Bradleys.


You want to get rid of thoes M2A2s? I'm sure that T2B and MarkPPCLI would be only too happy to take them off your hands.

 

[Kirkhill]

A fuller description of capabilities.

 

[markppcli]

There are insufficient numbers of expensive Bradleys and LAVs. It is a waste of dollars to use them to hold an extended line when they are best employed in depth and massed for strikes and counter-strikes.

I agree that there will be a need for protection and mobility. I happen to believe that those functions can be separated by a cable. I also disagree on the increasing cost. How many MRZRs can you buy for the price of a Bradley?

You can’t. That’s a silly line of thinking. The protection is provided by a vehicle that keeps you safe from shell fragments, mg fire, ect. An MRZR has a place, it’s not a replacement for IFVs and APCs.

The Kongsberg C-UAS RWS with the XM914 was sold to the USMC at 94 MUSD for 200 or roughly 500,000 CAD apiece. That is roughly the price of a single Javelin CLU with one missile.

Unit cost	US$216,717 (G-model missile only, FY2021)[6] US$240,000 (missile only, export cost, FY2019)[7] US$249,700 (Lightweight CLU only, FY2021)[6]

Kongsberg Wins $94 Million Contract For Counter-UAS System - Defense Daily

The Marine Corps awarded Norway’s Kongsberg a contract worth up to $94 million to deliver the remote weapon systems (RWS) for the Marine Air Defense

www.defensedaily.com

Your point?

In 1914 the infantry battalions had 2 Vickers or Colt MGs and 1000 rifles. By 1918 the battalions had 2 Lewis guns per platoon, 8 per company and 32 per battalion. The battalions had lost their Vickers and they were brigaded within the MG Corps and controlled centrally - a company for every brigade in the line. Prior to the brigading the Vickers followed their battalions into reserve so the Brigadier lost the use of those guns. When the guns were brigaded they stayed in the line and the crews were rotated.

The guns were supported by the battalions that rotated in and out of the line but, as noted, the firepower of the battalion changed with rifles being swapped for Lewis guns. The battalion didn't need as many soldiers in the line to supply the same defensive fire power. The line could be manned by the Vickers of the MG Corps and the Lewis Guns of the infantry.

Gordon Corrigan "Mud, Blood and Poppycock" pp 88-89.

No, poor example. What I was responding to was your implication that rifle battalions weren’t manning the line. There were less rifles, yes, but the same Bns were in that line. You’re cherry picking.

I am not saying that the rifles were withdrawn and replaced with MGs. I am saying that some rifles were replaced with MGs and the lines could be thinned out as a result.




And neither am I.


So if your LAV's Bushmaster is jammed your LAV is immobilized? If the weapon on a UGV stops why not withdraw the UGV to cover to run your IAs and Stoppages there? That is why I am proposing at least two UGVs per team and preferably three so that guns can be withdrawn to cover for servicing and reloading while maintaining the engagement.

Jammed in the EW sense.

But fine, who’s going to do the stoppage drill on the IGV since you’ve said the guys in a safe biker far away? Sounds like youll need crew close at hand, probably in protection of some kind.

No I wanted to stop the other chap coming through the approach while you are exploiting another approach while protected by your LAV.

Slainte.

Cheers

 

[Kirkhill]

You can’t. That’s a silly line of thinking. The protection is provided by a vehicle that keeps you safe from shell fragments, mg fire, ect. An MRZR has a place, it’s not a replacement for IFVs and APCs.

Is it still silly if I am sitting in a bunker with 6 feet of overhead and a set of FPV goggles and the RWS is mounted on the MRZR at the end of a tether?

My expectation of my job in that hole is to stay in that hole and prevent as many people and things from crossing the field I am covering as possible.

Your point?

My point was to counter the notion that more vehicles are necessarily more expensive than a single complex one. 2 Bradleys cost more than 1 Bradley without doubt. But how many Protector RS6s with XM914s and Themis or MRZR vehicles could I afford to buy for the price of a single Bradley? And what ratio of people to guns do I need in a static position? My guess is that I would use the entire Bradley section to supply a 24/7 watch indefinitely. 9 or 10 people standing 4 or 5 watches with two on watch during any one shift. But those two people could be controlling two or three guns while being fed info through their goggles.

No, poor example. What I was responding to was your implication that rifle battalions weren’t manning the line. There were less rifles, yes, but the same Bns were in that line. You’re cherry picking.

If I'm picking cherries you are being needlessly obtuse.

Jammed in the EW sense.

Hard to jam a tether.

But fine, who’s going to do the stoppage drill on the IGV since you’ve said the guys in a safe biker far away? Sounds like youll need crew close at hand, probably in protection of some kind.

Definition of far. For me far is 200 yards away on the reverse slope of a hill and well dug in.

Cheers

Slainte.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here's the operative image for my system.



The only difference is that the guns and missiles are of smaller calibre and can come when called.