• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Last edited:
KevinB said:
Was more thinking something like this -- the tracked Boxer is significantly lower to the ground than the wheeled version -- plus had better off road capability...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1536308619347632134

It isn't really a tank - but it gives Medium Forces some firepower.
It appears to be a decent Light Armored Recce type vehicle addition.
Click to expand...
Here it is the Tracked LAV. I'm sure GD would build you one in London.

1655139822197.png
 
KevinB said:
Was more thinking something like this -- the tracked Boxer is significantly lower to the ground than the wheeled version -- plus had better off road capability...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1536308619347632134

It isn't really a tank - but it gives Medium Forces some firepower.
It appears to be a decent Light Armored Recce type vehicle addition.
Click to expand...
But it's not made by GDLS!

Maybe the Griffin II (with the original 120mm Griffin I turret) and Griffin III IFV would be an option that could be built by GDLS in Canada?

Advantage of the Griffin would be commonality with the US using the Griffin II in their Mobile Protected Firepower program.

@Spencer100 beat me to the tracked Stryker option.

Edited to add: Problem with the Griffin III IFV though is that it only carries 6 x Dismounts which opens up a whole new debate in other threads!
 
Boxer and its modular system has suddenly become interesting. If the mission modules are interchangeable as between the two vehicles then it provides a great deal of training and employment commonality as between medium and heavy troops.

Leaves me with the question as to whether the powerpack is different and whether it can carry the additional armour to bring the Boxer more into an IFV category. The tracks certainly help with the cross country mobility issue.

Stryker/Tracked Stryker doesn't have the module feature but I expect it could be configured identically inside. I don't think much of modularity from the point of view of switching modules back and forth after acquisition (although there is some advantage to that for particulalry uncommon special purpose modules with a broken chassis) but I think it really helps in the manufacturing process if basic chassis and specialized modules could be worked on independently and then just mated as required.

🍻
 
GR66 said:
But it's not made by GDLS!

Maybe the Griffin II (with the original 120mm Griffin I turret) and Griffin III IFV would be an option that could be built by GDLS in Canada?

Advantage of the Griffin would be commonality with the US using the Griffin II in their Mobile Protected Firepower program.

@Spencer100 beat me to the tracked Stryker option.

Edited to add: Problem with the Griffin III IFV though is that it only carries 6 x Dismounts which opens up a whole new debate in other threads!
Click to expand...
I would solve the 6 dismount aspect by adding another vehicle or two to the Platoon ;)
The other question I am wrestling with is does a Mixed Platoon work? A portion APC with RWS - and a portion with a 2 man turret (assuming common chassis).

But in all reality - I see those tracked systems more as a Tank substitute for Medium Forces - and a partial option for Armored Recon.
 
The CV90

1655144291383.png
1573676411803-png.71358
 

Attachments

  • 1573676411803.png
    1573676411803.png
    2.9 MB · Views: 23
Since we're talking about transformation, here's some information about what works and what doesn't:



Losing from day one: Why even successful transformations fall short​


After 15 years of original McKinsey research on organizational transformations,1 the results from our latest McKinsey Global Survey confirm an enduring truth: the more transformation actions a company takes, the greater its chances for success.2 Yet success remains the exception, not the rule. While we’ve known for years that a comprehensive approach to organizational transformation is more conducive to lasting change, the average success rate has remained persistently low. Less than one-third of respondents—all of whom had been part of a transformation in the past five years—say their companies’ transformations have been successful at both improving organizational performance and sustaining those improvements over time.

But even companies with successful transformations don’t always capture the full financial benefits of these efforts. So we took a closer look at the different stages of a transformation’s life cycle to understand where value is lost and what companies can do to preserve it. According to our analysis, three core actions of a transformation are especially predictive of value capture—and the companies with successful transformations are more likely than the rest to pursue the specific tactics that support them.

Looking ahead​

In response to some of the challenges that the survey results revealed, here are a few steps that companies can take to support the success of their transformations:

  • Show—don’t tell—progress to the front line. When large companies embark on a transformation, there is a risk that frontline employees will see only the individual pain and not the aggregate gain. Communicating clearly and creatively in a way that stimulates dialogue around the transformation’s ambition and progress further increases the chances of success. Techniques such as regular surveys taking the organization’s cultural pulse, and progress parties celebrating a transformation’s milestones, can help create a foundation for real dialogue between senior leaders and the front line on the transformation and the potential changes to be made.
  • Involve HR as a strategic partner. Transformations have a significant impact on employees and therefore require active involvement from human resources. Yet respondents tend to perceive their HR leaders as less critical than other senior roles to the transformation’s outcome. For this view to change, the HR leader must set up his or her function to position itself strategically at the center of the transformation, rather than playing a transactional role. This will allow HR to make full use of its expertise and contribute to the transformation in important ways, such as moving people around the organization—in moderation. One way for HR to add value in a transformation is by taking a clean-sheet approach to the organization’s new, posttransformation design, then using strategic workforce-planning tactics (such as recruitment, talent development, and dismissal) to achieve that vision.
  • Engage employees through new channels. The survey results suggest that reaching the front line is a greater-than-average challenge at larger companies. But companies of all sizes can benefit from creative, more digital approaches to engaging employees in a transformation. The use of social media, change-management apps or games, and live-feedback tools should support and complement the movement of information from the top to the rest of the organization, rather than replace traditional methods. Such approaches can do so by making communication more tailored and personal to individual employees (for example, sending personalized push notifications if a milestone has been reached) and by providing more regular updates on the state of the transformation. Employees can also use these tools to explore and engage with the changes being made, on their own terms and with the ability to provide feedback. More advanced communication tools will be especially helpful in large companies that struggle to engage the front line and in companies with many different sites or locations.

www.mckinsey.com

Losing from day one: Why even successful transformations fall short

The newest research from McKinsey confirms that successful organizational transformations still rely on a holistic approach—and still remain elusive.
www.mckinsey.com www.mckinsey.com
 
dapaterson said:
McKinsey are bullshit artists of the highest order; they even make KPMG look good.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t it their proposals to streamline British defence organizations that contributed to a plane falling out of the Afghan skies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
Small Radio Networking and Clouds
Replies
15
Views
14K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Industrial Strategy - Capitalizing the Canadian Forces
2 3
Replies
47
Views
40K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Melding Russian, Chinese and American Strategy - Convergence and Peer Wars
Replies
0
Views
6K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
daftandbarmy
    • Like
Unpacking 5 Myths About Management
Replies
1
Views
12K
Bluebulldog
Bluebulldog
daftandbarmy
    • Like
The Management Myth
Replies
11
Views
14K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
Back
Top