Personally, I would like to see the MGS (or whatever system eventually replaces both it and our indirect system...) operated by the Direct Fire Support sub-unit integral to a Cbt Branch Unit. But, remember my caveat-the Cbt Branch article was predicated on several assumptions, one of which was that heavier combat systems have gone the way of the dodo for us. If we are actually going to structure and equip the separate Cbt Arms such that they can each bring something unique and powerful to the battlespace: fine. If not, then stop worrying about what branch does what and treat DF, IF, etc as skill sets to be taught to soldiers.
I still feel, as I have felt for quite a while before I ever thought of writing the article, that the forward march of technology is blurring the distinction between IF and DF and will eventually remove it, while bringing us systems similar to MLRS which has, I am told, a much lower training threshhold than tube gunnery (Yes-thanks--I do realize the difference between splattering a grid square and striking a target more precisely...). The later versions of MLRS have improved accuracy for individual projectiles: it is IMHO only a matter of time before there is a practical and affordable system on the market that does both IF and DF equally well. Remember, even a weapon system as simple as the GPMG can (and has been..) used in both direct and indirect roles, so the concept of dual purpose is a long established one.
Cheers
