MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)

[ags281]

but speed is propbably one of the most important aspects of war.... In my opinion we should go along with having a wheeled force.

Speed is very useful for some things. But not for all things. I have no problem with wheeled vehicles. They can be extremely useful at tasks such as recce, where avoiding a fight is the idea, or at getting in and out fast. However, when you're talking about a real life decent fight, strapping the biggest gun in the world to a jeep will still only get you a blown-up jeep with a big gun on it at the end of the day.

Whoever is making these decisions is forgetting that in the real world ENEMIES FIRE BACK. Not only can an MGS not take a hit like a real tank, but it will be confined to roads in most places, making it predictable. Predictable = dead. We might as well do away with green and paint a fluorescent bull's eye on them instead.

Wheeled vehicles definately have a role to play in our forces. Pretending to be tanks is not one of them, and will get people - either our troops, the people we are supposed to be protecting, or both -   killed if we ever try to use them as tanks. Should we have a wheeled force? Absolutely. Should we have a 100% all-wheel-and-only-wheel force? Absolutely not.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The MGS can provide valuable service.  Think flank security, rear are security, DFSV tasks with Recce elements, and so on.  They can replace tanks in some roles, but they cannot replace tanks in all roles.

A mix of tanks and MGS would relieve the tanks of some of their tasks, and that is a good thing.  Tanks are expensive to operate and maintain, and having to pull them out of the front line for rear area security duties may not make a lot of sense.  The same as placing MGS in the front line doesn't make a lot of sense!

 

[ags281]

Well said Lance

 

[Infanteer]

I remember reading a good statement that a wheeled force offers an armed force superb operational mobility that tracked vehicles cannot provide - The LAR dash north to Tikrit from Baghdad comes to mind.

 

[Kirkhill]

Horses for courses.

 

[Yard Ape]

Yard Ape and Here Comes the Gun

The concept mockup seems to include the Hydra-70 modules and a pair of Hellfires.  

That may be what the picture shows, but threre is no telling what the final procuct will use.  We may find it includes LOSAT, and I've heard a lot of talk of non-line of sight munitions (but will that happen now that the US is killing thier program?).

 

[Kirkhill]

Right enough Yard Ape.

It seems to be something of a notional concept at this time.  Somebody thinking that they can turn a land platform into as versatile a platform as a CF-18 or an AH-1.  Something that you can mount any current weapon onto and upgrade it with whatever comes along.

Something of a logisticians wet dream maybe?

 

[a_majoor]

On of the various computer studies described in the ADTB had a notional MMEV mounting an "electro-thermal cannon", giving it the ability to fire high velocity rounds for direct fire engagements, but also lower velocity rounds in "howitzer" like engagements as a form of SP artillery. (Presumably using less current).

If we want an "all singing and dancing" MMEV, ditch the missile route and go for a gun solution. A very simple and effective MMEV for the first generation would be a direct fire platform with a fairly decent on board ammunition supply. Modify the gun mount and cradle for high angle fire, and supply both high velocity "tank" rounds and low velocity "smart" rounds. The low velocity rounds can use a "stub" casing that fits the breech of the gun, without the full propelling charge of a high velocity round.

"Smart" rounds have been around for a while, with the 155mm "copperhead" laser sensing round introduced in the 1980's, and the 120mm STRIX infared seeking mortar round in Swedish service today. The UK also experimented with the 81mm "Merlin" mortar round, which used a form of on board radar. If we really want missiles, the LAHAT through tube missile can be fired from a gun for 8km direct engagements, and 13 km indirect engagements.

CASR also posted an interesting gun concept, using the cast off 155 barrels from the M-109 as a starting point. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm

IF we want to go the MMEV route, go all the way and replace SP artillery, Anti-Armour systems and direct fire artillery with one gun armed vehicle. Distribution of ammunition determines the role that particular vehicle will perform (direct or indirect fire), sorting out lots of logistical issues (although creating a few new ones). The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over.

 

[McG]

If we want an "all singing and dancing" MMEV, ditch the missile route and go for a gun solution. A very simple and effective MMEV for the first generation would be a direct fire platform with a fairly decent on board ammunition supply. Modify the gun mount and cradle for high angle fire, and supply both high velocity "tank" rounds and low velocity "smart" rounds.   ....

The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over.

Would an MMEV gun system still be able to function in a AD role?   As we strip away all our other AD capabilities, I feel that an MMEV evolved from ADATS would allow us to retain some level of AD capability.

LOSAT and FOG-M are potentially as destabilizing as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnaught was to the capital fleets of the world in the early part of the last century.

LOSAT is still line of sight and its range is considerably shorter than ADATS   of FOGM.   However, it does promise greater lethality to armour than current missiles.   I think this has potential to replace TOW in our envisioned system of systems.   I do not think it enters into the equation as an MMEV alternative (and while the option would exist to arm an MMEV with a LOSAT type missile, this would push a long range asset very far forward).

The Non-line of Sight (NLOS) characteristics of the FOGM is what I typically hear of when the MMEV concept comes up.   I believe that this and traditional ADATS missiles are the way to go.   I like ADATS because it is dual role, and even in the direct fire role it has greater reach than most anti-armour systems.  Ideally, there would be options available in guidance of NLOS missiles.   Target designators mounted on Coyote surveillance masts, target designators carried in infantry sections and platoons, and GPS are all options.

Mounting short-range line-of-sight weapons on the MMEV would be foolish and lead to its quick destruction in battle.

So, we are still left with a â Å“three headed monsterâ ? but with LOSAT and a ADATS/NLOS MMEV we would have a much more capable monster.

 

[a_majoor]

So many factors:

A gun armed MMEV can have some AD ability with the right weapon and mount, like the Israeli rapid fire 60mm, or the ARES 75. A larger calibre weapon might use a through tube missile or a "shotgun" type round. Since AD involves looking up, I would issue the MMEV chassis to AD units along with AD ammunition, rather than try to have Armoured crewmen trying to do that and fight the ground battle at the same time.

LOSAT is potentially destabilising because it can "snap shoot", unlike other missiles with their long engagement times. The US Army had also demonstrated a LOSAT armed Hummer which could pick up four separate targets then volley fire all four LOSATS. This parallel engagement capability can destroy multiple targets faster than a tank with its serial engagement capability. Future LOSAT type missiles will have improved range, less bulk, greater manoeuvrability etc.

Ideally, there would be options available in guidance of NLOS missiles.  Target designators mounted on Coyote surveillance masts, target designators carried in infantry sections and platoons, and GPS are all options.

To make best use of these systems, consider a USMC LAV coy. One platoon is up front scouting, while the remaining infantry are one bound behind. One bound back is the LAV-TOW platoon, followed by the LAV mortar platoon. The Coy commander is up front with the Infantry, while the 2I/C trails the mortar platoon in the "C Cubed", a bison like command and control post. The future Canadian LAV combat team might look the same, with a gun or DF missile armed MMEV where the TOW platoon is, and a mortar or FOG-M platoon one bound behind them. Other variations are possible.

 

[McG]

We seem to agree on where we would find the NLOS missile systems, however I still see this as being a part of the MMEV package.  I think we both see LOSAT where TOW is now, possibly with a cannon based DFSV that employs smart munitions.

Maybe our only difference is the vehicle we choose to call MMEV?

 

[a_majoor]

We seem to agree on where we would find the NLOS missile systems, however I still see this as being a part of the MMEV package. I think we both see LOSAT where TOW is now, possibly with a cannon based DFSV that employs smart munitions.

Maybe our only difference is the vehicle we choose to call MMEV?

The real reason we can find areas to disagree is there is no "real" definition of the MMEV, so we are  projecting our desires onto a faintly sketched in canvas.

One big issue that I am thinking about is logistics. It seems much simpler to a mere Infantryman like myself to supply the right kind of ammo for the job, rather than trying to find the right vehicle (as well as parts and ammo). A here and now analogy is the venerable "Carl G". I can use HEAT-RAP against armoured targets, or HEDP (High Explosive-Dual Purpose) rounds to defeat bunkers, breach walls or even take out APC's and the like in an emergency. A gun MMEV solution seems the simpler and more effective way of doing business.

 

[Kirkhill]

Given that all systems are trying to do a number of different things these days is there merit to looking at TUA/DFSV/MMEV/Arty systems just as Short/Medium/Long Range Fire Support Vehicles that may be mounted on Light/Medium/Heavy platforms? All of them could/would mount combinations of weapons systems that could be adjusted to meet different battlefield requirements.

Ground based versions of Fixed Air and Helos.  Attach necessary impedimenta for each mission.

 

[a_majoor]

Given that all systems are trying to do a number of different things these days is there merit to looking at TUA/DFSV/MMEV/Arty systems just as Short/Medium/Long Range Fire Support Vehicles that may be mounted on Light/Medium/Heavy platforms? All of them could/would mount combinations of weapons systems that could be adjusted to meet different battlefield requirements.

Ground based versions of Fixed Air and Helos. Attach necessary impedimenta for each mission.

Exactly so! Since we are going to a medium platform by default, then we need a flexible weapons system(s) to cover the short/medium/long range fire support missions. A Gun-LAV is one possible solution, which I think might be flexible enough to meet many of these goals, but I can also see missile carriers as well. If we want to go the missile route, then a DF missile system like LOSAT is needed to cover the point targets and "snap shooting" needs, while FOG-M type missiles can cover the medium/long range needs.

Guns or fast missiles are a must simply because I can't wait ten minutes for a FOG-M launched 60 km away to arrive. That sort of weapon is designed for the defense or deliberate assault. Various hybrid solutions can and should also be examined. I made a speculative post on Combat team of tomorrow where the MMEV troop would be one bound behind the Infantry with a mix of LOSAT and FOG-M, while a mortar platoon operates another bound behind, but is only loaded out for area support (HE, Smk, Illum), leaving the point targets to the MMEV. Substitute "Gun" for LOSAT/FOG-M and we arrive at a similar solution.

The MMEV, or Fire Support Vehicle (since our speculations have really changed the LAV/ADATS idea) is not, and should never be considered, a tank substitute. If it is flexible, capable of fire on the move and has at least the same cross country mobility as the rest of the LAV family, then we can start to reorient the Army's mech formations into a "Cavalry" type organization, capable of performing patrolling, flanking, screening and economy of force tasks. Digging people out of prepared positions and urban strong points may end up being the task of dismounted Infantry in the style of Ortona or battling through the Netherlands, rather than "thunder runs" to disrupt and demoralize the enemy. As long as we are stuck with the "troika" and the sort of thinking behind that idea, we will be a defense only formation, and probably not welcomed on coallition or PSO type operations which require more.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree with you and others on the need for a gun in the short range role.  Nothing seems to beat the gun for accuracy and speed of response in the Direct Fire role in the 1- 5 km range.  As well as the ability to get off multiple observed rounds and adjust rapidly.

I would question point a direct fire missile like the 5km LOSAT/CKEM or even the 4km TOW on the same platform as the 10-15km EFOGM though.  To me it makes more sense to group the EFOGM type of missile with 120mm mortars or 105mm guns (current generation).  They all operate out to 15 km or so and the EFOGM gives both a precision kill capability to the Arty as well as a real time recce/taget verification capability as the gunner can see the target he is hitting.

Similarly the notion of marrying the Polyphem 60km Fibre Optic Missile with the MRLS/GMRLS or even Long Range 155mm/Naval Gunfire makes sense.

I take it as a given that all arms will be operating various UAVs.

The question is what to do with direct fire missiles and a related question is what about missiles like the Hellfire/Brimstone that can be used in both Direct Fire Fire&Forget mode as well as Designated and Self Targeting modes.

I would suggest that the Gun/CKEM-LOSAT-TOW combination is the Short range 1-5 km vehicle mounted solution, thickened by Javelin/ALAAWS man-portable systems.

The next layer of cover would be 105mm C3s /120mm AMOS-type mortars /EFOGM at 10-15 km.

The next bound back is the 105mm Denel - 155mm / Brimstone / MRLS at 30-40 km

Behind that is Naval Gunfire / Polyphem / GMRLS at 60-70 km.

The 8 km Hellfire presents me with a bit of a problem because its range is intermediate between my short range band and my medium range band.  Also it is capable of both direct and indirect fire. So who to use it?

I am going to suggest that we have a good basis for both fighting and understanding the short-range battle.  That is the infantry/armoured model that is virtually unchanged since the introduction of the SS-11 into the Canadian mechanized brigade group.  It is the direct-fire, close combat fight.  And I will stipulate right here, right now, that when lots of metal is flying around the battlefield and you have no place to hide a lot of solid metal between me and all that flying metal would be a comforting thing.  Tracks can carry a greater weight of protective metal than wheels. Tracks, protective metal, a gun - sounds like a tank. 

Thing is, infanteers trying to get to the same place the tank is shooting at would probably like the same amount of metal surrounding them that surrounds the tankers.  That protection is more important to them and their ability to conduct operations than a gun/gun crew/ammunition taking up space.  I am a real fan of the Elgins converted RAMS for an APC.  It supplied the infantry with the exact same protection and mobility as the tanks it accompanied.  It had no other role other than to transport troops.

If we are going to have 70 tonne tanks then supply the infantry with 70 tonne armoured trucks on tracks.

I stipulate all of the above. But lets move on from there.

It seems to me that it is in the area of fire support that the CF is most deficient.  Not just in terms of number of tubes but in terms of types of ammunition for the tubes, in terms of types of launchers, in terms of types of platforms (man-portable, towed, wheeled, tracked, naval, helo, fast air), in terms of experience working with them and in terms of a comprehensive doctrine that encompasses not just what is currently available and what is "on the drawing-boards".  The Canadian artillery doesn't seem to have changed much in practice since WWII and maybe even WWI.  My sense is that the Arty is perceived solely as a method of dumping large quantities of HE over large areas and creating large holes in the ground.  From where I sit it is actually in terms of fire support, Arty's principal function, that the Revolution in Military Affairs has its most effect.  Perversely this increasing effectiveness is seen in decreasing numbers of gunners and airmen as one gun/one aircraft is capable of doing more with one round than ever before, with fewer operators, fewer maintainers and fewer truck drivers.

But it seems that few of the combat arms types here, both Arty and Inf/Armd are looking at how Future Arty can be exploited and how it might shape the battlefield in the future.  I believe, at least in the CF, that is because of lack of exposure to Arty in training and lack of attention to that most war-like of arms.  If you don't think the Government likes tanks because of their war-like aura what must it think of the Guns and DPICMs and Flechettes, not to mention Gas and Nukes?  The Government has only reluctantly supplied WWII capabilities in this field.

I believe that Arty, and the Air Force, can do a lot more in terms of offering fire support than most folks here seem to credit.  I believe that those capabilities that are being exploited by the Yanks and the Brits, amongst others are the reason that they are comfortable reducing - not eliminating - the numbers of tanks that they field.  Effectively they feel that Arty can make the battlefield a safer place for Own Forces to operate. 

Because of increased ranges and increased precision it also means that one battery can supply fire support over a much larger area.  I believe that wheels are better suited than tracks to dominate large areas due to speed and low wear and tear.  This is especially true in relatively low intensity environments like the current situation in Iraq.  The pattern of employment of the Stryker Battalions seems to support that view.  They are effective in Mosul on standing patrols and they have been rapidly redeployed to Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and back numerous times, relocating hundreds of kilometers a night.

LAVs and improved arty support will give the CF a significant set of deployable capabilities that are useful nationally and to our allies.

As an aside, if gunners were viewed as infanteers that serve guns and included in the combat arms mix rather than being relegated to combat support, it would give the CF another 3 or 4 deployable units.

To conclude, I am not saying we should do without tanks.  I would like you to have tanks, and for that matter heavy, tracked APCs.  We can debate from here to kingdom come how many tanks are needed and/or are affordable.  That's a separate discussion.  I am saying that LAVs, with an appropriate RANGE of fire support capabilities mounted on various platforms including MMEVs can safely cover many tasks that previously require a tank crew to stand in an open field and slug it out toe-to-toe with an opposing tank, relying on their skills and those of the engineering that designed and built their tank at least cost.

Can we all at least agree that at least this maxim is outdated?  "The best anti-tank weapon is another tank".

 

[a_majoor]

A heavy assault battlegroup would be nice for "nutcracker" operations, with a MERKAVA type gun tank, and either a MERKAVA derivative hull for the assault carrier and CEV, or an ACHZARIT to serve the same purpose. The IDF likes this just fine, since they have the ability to shrug off most small arms fire and bring heavy firepower right up to the target whenever needed. Perhaps a heavy assault group thread should be started for that discussion. Given the "medium" bias of our purchases and plans, we will need to stipulate the Canadian Army will not perform as the "nutcracker" in a coalition (and hope like hell it doesn't come to that in a Canadian only operation).

The 8 km Hellfire presents me with a bit of a problem because its range is intermediate between my short range band and my medium range band.   Also it is capable of both direct and indirect fire. So who to use it?

This sort of weapon blurs the distinction between the traditional arms, my solution would be to have combined arms "Manoeuvre Battalions" with everyone wearing the same cap badge. Longer range missiles like FOG-M still have utility in the combat team solution I have described. The recce troop, or a platoon of mounted Infantry will be operating one or two bounds up from the main body, so if they run into trouble, the Fire Support Troop will be able to respond without a long delay, either with Hellfire/Brimstone missiles being guided in by the recce or lead Infantry platoon, or FOG-M flying overhead and missile operators dropping them on targets. With EFOG-M, the combat teams can do lateral support to flanking teams as well. At closer ranges, the MMEV's can input target data from many sources and volley fire their LOSAT type missiles, taking out multiple targets in a matter of seconds rather than engaging in a protracted slugfest, or playing hide and seek while trying to "snipe" targets. (This is not to say serial engagements are impossible, but if the circumstances permit, the "shock and awe" effect of several bunkers or AFV's being destroyed almost at once will certainly have a demoralizing effect on the enemy). A weapon combining the speed and kinetic energy attack of LOSAT with the range and versatility of Hellfire/Brimestone will be a real winner on the battlefield.

Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets. Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree with almost everything you say but.............

(and hope like heck it doesn't come to that in a Canadian only operation).

a fool's bet

At closer ranges, the MMEV's can input target data from many sources and volley fire their LOSAT type missiles, taking out multiple targets in a matter of seconds rather than engaging in a protracted slugfest, or playing hide and seek while trying to "snipe" targets.

That makes the LOSAT/CKEM.....type of system a natural for an Anti-Tank Tp/Pl used in the same way that the TUA is currently (Note- I always liked the Swingfire concept of being able to have the crew dismount and launch the missiles while having retired a discrete distance from "the blue touch paper")

Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets.

Here I have my greatest difficulty.  Real missiles, rockets and rounds will be required.  They will be launched from real tubes and racks.  They will require real platforms.  All of which will require real people.  Arty has the historical and contemporary corporate knowledge to effectively employ these systems.  Infantry and Armoured are going to have their hands full on the close-combat, short range direct fire battle.  Let the Arty handle what they do very well the indirect, long-range battle.  And the fact that one system can be used in two different roles by two different arms doesn't seem to me to be a problem.  Its a logistical  advantage.

Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.

I have doubts as well about using the LAV in direct assaults.  But I do think that with more and more effective artillery fire there will be more areas of the battlefield that the LAVs can roam without having to commit to a direct assault.  And in my mind that is ultimately what all of these discussions are about - how do you eliminate those obstacles that prevent people from getting out of their vehicles and putting their muddy size 12s on the ground and claiming it.

Cheers, 

 

[McG]

There is no reason that we should not look to integrating targeting & surviellance systems to allow an MMEV to employ NLOS missiles in a volley fire attack.   Once over the target area the missiles could be guided in by target designators or vehicle recognition capabilities of the missiles.

LOSAT need not hold a monopoly on the volley fire capability.

As far as the short/medium/long/very-long range spectrum, I see the following break down:

Very-short (0 - 1000 m):   Infantry manportable weapons
Short range (1000 - 4000 m):   LOSAT and DFSV (employing variety of advanced munitions)
Med range: (5000 -15000 m):   Mortar and MMEV missile platform (primarilly NLOS but also AD and "longer" range direct fire out to 10 km)
Long range + (15000 m +): Arty fires.

 

[Kirkhill]

Looks good to me McG, I think you're very right on the volley fire issue and on the surveillance and targeting.   Maybe the basic principle is that the firers should have the ability to see their target.   They could also continue to fire indirectly bu seeing as how the technology is available to let them see where there rounds are landing why not give it to them?

One slight quibble, if you extend your very short range out to 2000m you will also include the 60mm mortar and the Javelin (2500m).

 

[a_majoor]

Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets. Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.

I see I wasn't entirely clear. There would of course be "real" artillery with real gunners and real weapons systems. The more important role of Artillery will be resource management, for lack of a better term. Not only will shells or rockets or FOG-Ms be raining down on the enemy, but aircraft, helicopters, armed UAV's and the indirect fire assets of the combat team and battle group will also be there, ready to use. The "virtual artillery" would be able to use those assets, rather than their own dedicated platforms.

In the context of this thread, if a fire support troop is not in direct fire range of the target, the virtual artillery would be feeding target data to the MMEV so they could use FOG-M or guns in the indirect fire mode. Missile armed MMEVs would have the option of volley fire, and I am ashamed to admit I had not thought of this possibility, but now that McG has brought this up, I can see the "shock and awe" effect would be even greater ("where did that come from!"). The enemy would get another dose as the MMEVs closed to direct fire range and a volley of KE missiles slammed into the position at Mach 5, followed by dismounted Infantry.