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

Infantry Vehicles

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
12,750
Points
1,260
Very terrain dependent. I did battle runs in Shilo with Leo1s. Shilo is flat-ass prairie without plowed fields and the like but even M113s had trouble keeping up. Marders floated right along side.


Again, when the Marders came out with the Milan adapted to the turret they changed tactics a tad and you found ATGM equipped Marders going out as flank guards. I never saw them use missiles with the assaulting group - that's what the tanks were there for. Even after the main assaults, grenadiers would consolidate on or beyond the objectives and set up defenses with dismounted Milans while the Marders concentrated guarding the flanks.

Shilo was somewhat scripted but still, this was in the time of the 9 month draftee and the exercise was the culmination of what they had learned.

All that said. The weapon systems today are much more sophisticated and I can see ATGMs these days being used more like WW2 anti-tank guns were during the assault to leapfrog forward with assaulting infantry and tanks to set up overwatch positions. This is one of the reasons I tend to like keeping heavier anti-armour weapons out of the rifle platoons and in supporting anti-armour detachments. It's two tasks happening simultaneously and its better to have two elements each of which has to concentrate on only one task at a time.

🍻
I’ve attended some Bradley/Abrams CAB events, as well as seen the Scouts run their Bradley’s, both CONUS and in Iraq.
TOW is used in overwatch or upon securing and objective.
Similar to what TOW Platoon did in the TUA’s etc.

However we also had the Dragon and now Javelin at the Pl/Squad level.
Dragon was a giant cluster maybe not as bad as the Eryx was, but it wasn’t a really effective system.

Javelin and UA Javelin systems give the gunner and higher the ability to target and fire and forget - in an IFV that brings about two aspects 1) a very effective even mobile AT system (arguably better than a Tank in term of effectiveness and engagement range 2) a concern that some commanders and subunits will use IFV’s for direct engagement in a vehicle that doesn’t have the armor of an actual tank.

I however prefer to have and not need in an IFV, and so I would recommend them on future IFV systems - and I suspect that future IFV’s will get even heavier with crew protection being emphasized even more.
If you have a 70+ t tank, there really aren’t any bigger issues with having a 70t HIFV as your limited to bridges and routes for the tanks.

This division is where I see a potential for LAV’s and lighter TAPC’s as follow on forces for the ultra heavy spearhead.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,151
Points
1,160
So what is the ground pressure difference between a LAV 3 and 6?
Here's a RAND study looking at wheeled vs tracked vehicles for the Australian LAND 400 Project. Tons of info and study details related to wheeled vs tracked vehicles (and includes a section on the Canadian CCV competition).

This table (from page 24 of the report) shows the different ground pressures of a variety of tracked and wheeled vehicles of various weights:

Table 2.2 Observed Ground Pressures for Different Vehicles

Tracked

CV90 IFV 23 tons 8.3 psi
M2A3 32 tons 11.6 psi
BMP1/3 15/20.6 tons 8.5/8.7 psi
Warrior 30.8 tons 9.2 psi
M1A1/M1A2 65–70 tons 13.8–15 psi

Wheeled
Stryker 20–23 tons 29 psi
Patria 20–32 tons 34 psi
Boxer 25–30 tons 33 psi
Piranha 20–28 tons 16–30 psi
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
So what is the ground pressure difference between a LAV 3 and 6?


LAV 6.0
The armoured vehicle is equipped with 395/85 R20

Apparently that means that each tire supports a load of 11000 lbs when inflated to 115 psi (7.8 bar) when running at 55 mph on highways.

8x 11,000 lbs = 88,000 lbs or 40 tonnes GVWR is 28.6 tonnes or 70% of the rating.

1674788210144.png

Ground pressure of the Leopard 2 is 11.8 psi

 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
462
Points
730
325/85 R16 = 325 mm section (face) width
395/85 R20 = 395 mm section width
That equals appx 21% greater area
LAV 3 = 16,900 kgs
LAV 6 = 28,600 kgs
That equals appx 69% heavier.
Tire inflation pressure is roughly equivalent to ground pressure I.e. 30 psi tire will exert roughly 30 psi to the ground. The heavier weight to tire width ratio will require the LAV 6 to run higher tire pressures.
Lower tire pressures allow for better traction in off road situations. I am unaware if either LAV models have central tire inflation. If not they likely inflate them pretty high so they can handle 100 km/hr road speed without overheating.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
I’ve attended some Bradley/Abrams CAB events, as well as seen the Scouts run their Bradley’s, both CONUS and in Iraq.
TOW is used in overwatch or upon securing and objective.
Similar to what TOW Platoon did in the TUA’s etc.

However we also had the Dragon and now Javelin at the Pl/Squad level.
Dragon was a giant cluster maybe not as bad as the Eryx was, but it wasn’t a really effective system.

Javelin and UA Javelin systems give the gunner and higher the ability to target and fire and forget - in an IFV that brings about two aspects 1) a very effective even mobile AT system (arguably better than a Tank in term of effectiveness and engagement range 2) a concern that some commanders and subunits will use IFV’s for direct engagement in a vehicle that doesn’t have the armor of an actual tank.

I however prefer to have and not need in an IFV, and so I would recommend them on future IFV systems - and I suspect that future IFV’s will get even heavier with crew protection being emphasized even more.
If you have a 70+ t tank, there really aren’t any bigger issues with having a 70t HIFV as your limited to bridges and routes for the tanks.

This division is where I see a potential for LAV’s and lighter TAPC’s as follow on forces for the ultra heavy spearhead.


From what I can gather the key to a good ATGM, an ATGM effective at penetrating armo(u)r, is the diameter of shaped charge employed in the HEAT warhead. The second key element is range and the third is mass. Range affects employment. Mass affects logistics and platforms. And finally there is cost.

APKWS - 70 mm - (5 km, 15 kg, $22,000)
Martlet - 76 mm - (8 km, 13 kg,

NLAW - 150 mm - (1 km, 12.5 kg, $40,000)
Javelin - 142 mm - (4.75 km, 16 kg, $217,000)
TOW - 152 mm - (3.75 km, 23 kg, $94.000)

Hellfire - 180 mm - (11 km, 49 kg, $150,000)
Longbow - 180 mm - (8 km, 49 kg
JAGM - 180 mm - (8 km, 49 kg, $325,000)
Brimstone - 180 mm - (12 km, 50 kg, $130,000)
Brimstone 2 - 180 mm - (40 km, 53 kg
Brimstone 3 - 180 mm - (80 km,
Sea SPEAR - 180 mm - (8 km, 50 kg
SPEAR 3 - 180 mm - ( , 100 kg

Hero-120 - - (40 km, 12.5 kg,
Switchblade 600 - - (40 km, 15 kg
Spike NLOS - 170 mm - (50 km, 70 kg

180 mm seems to be the high end for the western ATGM market - but those missiles cost $100,000 to $500,000 apiece and weigh about 50 kg. Generally speaking they are in the 10 km range but are being developed beyond that.

NLAW, Javelin and TOW will all kill about the same size tank with the Javelin having the longest reach but also the heftiest price tag, roughly the same price class as the 180mm missiles.

Those prices explain the rationale for the APKWS and Martlet missiles - when you are plinking trucks, guns and boats, and UAVs - and don't want to waste a quarter million dollars - you can kill 10 light targets with them for the price of a single Javelin or Hellfire/Brimstone.


Brimstone Platforms


MBDA-Brimstone-UK-Long-Precision-Fires-892x595.jpg
Supacat-MBDA-Brimstone-HMT-Overwatch-892x595.jpg
Mission-MAster-XT-Brimstone-831x1000.jpg
THeMIS-MBDA-Brimstone-892x669.jpg


Streetfighter-Brimstone-892x500.jpg
ajax-brimstone-overwatch-variant-892x502.jpg


ottokar-Polish-Brimstone-concept-892x631.png
brimstone-missile-truck-ukraine.jpg

Sea-Spear-Brimstone-Ukraine.jpg
RBS_17_06.jpg


It strikes me that anything over 50 kg is an Ordnance system - suitable for the RCAC, Arty, the RCN and the RCAF.
Infantry (or light forces generally) need something in the 15 kg or lower range to genuinely qualify as Man Portable.

The question then becomes

Brimstone on a Themis or on a Pedestal - is that an infantry job or a light arty job?

Brimstone on a LAV? - Arty, Infantry or RCAC?

Spike NLOS seems to be clearly Arty based on range and weight but how about the Hero-120 and the Switchblade 600?

Javelin looks to be both an infantry and an RCAC weapon but perhaps the RCAC would prefer the Brimstone?

Would a Themis UGV or a MIssion Master - mounting 20 to 30 70mm APKWS be an infantry support or an Arty system to complement Arty Brimstones?


Let the capbadge wars continue....
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
Roshel's Senatorr has popped up on the British Forces Net radar.


In the comments there was at least one reference to the vehicle as a possible contender for our LUV programme.

Some concern expressed over the level of armour but... given the parentage of the Senator .... there are solutions.



Bolt on Modular armour and V-Hulls available.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
12,750
Points
1,260
From what I can gather the key to a good ATGM, an ATGM effective at penetrating armo(u)r, is the diameter of shaped charge employed in the HEAT warhead. The second key element is range and the third is mass. Range affects employment. Mass affects logistics and platforms. And finally there is cost.
None of which matters if it doesn’t hit…

Also Javelin and some of the other systems have attack options - frontal or top attack.
Top attack generally allows for a bigger bang as you don’t need to blow through as much armor to get to the tasty parts.
APKWS - 70 mm - (5 km, 15 kg, $22,000)
Martlet - 76 mm - (8 km, 13 kg,

NLAW - 150 mm - (1 km, 12.5 kg, $40,000)
Javelin - 142 mm - (4.75 km, 16 kg, $217,000)
TOW - 152 mm - (3.75 km, 23 kg, $94.000)

Hellfire - 180 mm - (11 km, 49 kg, $150,000)
Longbow - 180 mm - (8 km, 49 kg
Same missile. Different variation, but the range is no different in actuality.
JAGM - 180 mm - (8 km, 49 kg, $325,000)
Brimstone - 180 mm - (12 km, 50 kg, $130,000)
Brimstone 2 - 180 mm - (40 km, 53 kg
Brimstone 3 - 180 mm - (80 km,
Sea SPEAR - 180 mm - (8 km, 50 kg
SPEAR 3 - 180 mm - ( , 100 kg

Hero-120 - - (40 km, 12.5 kg,
Switchblade 600 - - (40 km, 15 kg
Spike NLOS - 170 mm - (50 km, 70 kg

180 mm seems to be the high end for the western ATGM market - but those missiles cost $100,000 to $500,000 apiece and weigh about 50 kg. Generally speaking they are in the 10 km range but are being developed beyond that.

NLAW, Javelin and TOW will all kill about the same size tank with the Javelin having the longest reach but also the heftiest price tag, roughly the same price class as the 180mm missiles.
But also fire and forget. Tracking a target through flight that probably isn’t too keen on you is a major life impediment.

Those prices explain the rationale for the APKWS and Martlet missiles - when you are plinking trucks, guns and boats, and UAVs - and don't want to waste a quarter million dollars - you can kill 10 light targets with them for the price of a single Javelin or Hellfire/Brimstone.
You put way too much faith in the accuracy of those.
Brimstone Platforms


MBDA-Brimstone-UK-Long-Precision-Fires-892x595.jpg
Supacat-MBDA-Brimstone-HMT-Overwatch-892x595.jpg
Mission-MAster-XT-Brimstone-831x1000.jpg
THeMIS-MBDA-Brimstone-892x669.jpg


Streetfighter-Brimstone-892x500.jpg
ajax-brimstone-overwatch-variant-892x502.jpg


ottokar-Polish-Brimstone-concept-892x631.png
brimstone-missile-truck-ukraine.jpg

Sea-Spear-Brimstone-Ukraine.jpg
RBS_17_06.jpg


It strikes me that anything over 50 kg is an Ordnance system - suitable for the RCAC, Arty, the RCN and the RCAF.
Infantry (or light forces generally) need something in the 15 kg or lower range to genuinely qualify as Man Portable.

The question then becomes

Brimstone on a Themis or on a Pedestal - is that an infantry job or a light arty job?

Brimstone on a LAV? - Arty, Infantry or RCAC?

Spike NLOS seems to be clearly Arty based on range and weight but how about the Hero-120 and the Switchblade 600?
You’re seriously overthinking it.
Ranges are expanding.

The LocMart Upgraded Spike NLOS is planned as a Cav system down here.
Javelin looks to be both an infantry and an RCAC weapon but perhaps the RCAC would prefer the Brimstone?
Why does there need to be a cap badge division.
Would a Themis UGV or a MIssion Master - mounting 20 to 30 70mm APKWS be an infantry support or an Arty system to complement Arty Brimstones?
Still not sure why you’d think Brimstone would be Arty?
Additionally not sure why you’d consider a bunch of those options.
Javelin—> Spike NLOS—> PrSM
Let the capbadge wars continue....
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
Why does there need to be a cap badge division.
Because there will be a squabble - this is Canada.


Still not sure why you’d think Brimstone would be Arty?

Because a 50 kg missile seems to be a bit much to be humpable.

I did say that the Brimstone series should be Ordnance to be employed by the RCAC, the Arty (RRCA), the RCAF and the RCN - in other words any mob that doesn't have to walk to work. It is still light enough to be mounted on a light vehicle that could accompany light infantry.

Maybe @FJAG wants to consider a Lt Arty Battery with an AD Troop, and AT Troop, a couple of Mortar Troops, a LAM Troop and a FSCC that could accompany a Lt Infantry Bn.


Additionally not sure why you’d consider a bunch of those options.
Javelin—> Spike NLOS—> PrSM

Because "sole source" doesn't seem to fly well up here. Also overlapping platforms, overlapping range bands, overlapping capabilities.

Damnear every new capability falls into the realm of missiles and projectiles, or Arty.

FJAG should have fun deciding which jobs he wants to tackle with his 1500 gunners.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
7,315
Points
1,040
Maybe @FJAG wants to consider a Lt Arty Battery with an AD Troop, and AT Troop, a couple of Mortar Troops, a LAM Troop and a FSCC that could accompany a Lt Infantry Bn.
Effectively under the current Army philosophy that's pretty much how we do it. You take an FSCC command and coord element and add on troops to suit the operation. Effectively we can deploy 105mm or 155mm towed gun troops (with or without mortars), STA troops, and, hopefully soon again, AD troops. I class missiles by their use. If the target is seen by the missile operator and fired generally directly (even if with a small UAV) then I consider it an infantry or armour weapon. If on the other hand the missiles are tied to a launcher system in the rear that is called up by forward observers (and again using their UAVs) and needs coordination either for airspace or friendly deconfliction then it should be considered an arty resource.

FJAG should have fun deciding which jobs he wants to tackle with his 1500 gunners.
There are 2,000 RegF PYs (of which 500 are elsewhere than the three regiments) - BUT - there are also 2,000 reservists. That gets me back to my old bugbear - only a few gunlines, STA batteries, mortar lines, missile launchers need to be manned by the RegF. There is considerable room to involve reservists with the weapon systems that are not needed day-to-day during peacetime if properly organized, trained and led. All three of those conditions are within the Army's control.

🍻
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
12,750
Points
1,260
Because there will be a squabble - this is Canada.
Not really.
We have totally jumped out of the Infantry Vehicle discussion here.

Javelin: Dismounted and IFV usage.
So it doesn’t necessarily need to be Inf, I’d say Inf, CAV, Cbt Eng, And even convoy security folks need that capability.

Spike NLOS: I see these as a Bde CAV and Bde Fire Support Squadron assets.

Arty would have deep strike missiles - PrSM for the Rocket units (you still need to find those)

Because a 50 kg missile seems to be a bit much to be humpable.
No disagreement, I’m just not seeing the need for a Bde missile past 40km (the LocMart upgraded seeker Spike NLOS has a slightly longer effective range.

Div Arty and higher gets PrSM for HIMARS systems as needed.
I did say that the Brimstone series should be Ordnance to be employed by the RCAC, the Arty (RRCA), the RCAF and the RCN - in other words any mob that doesn't have to walk to work. It is still light enough to be mounted on a light vehicle that could accompany light infantry.
You start to over complicated when you look immediately to add to RCAF and RCN.

Maybe @FJAG wants to consider a Lt Arty Battery with an AD Troop, and AT Troop, a couple of Mortar Troops, a LAM Troop and a FSCC that could accompany a Lt Infantry Bn.
Mortars are Infantry, so if you look at a 120mm Mortar for Inf, there needs to be rethinking of FSCC levels.

AT shouldn’t be Arty full stop.
Get away from the old direct fire AT gun concept.

AD: MANPADS needs to be all arms options, linked to a Bde ADAM Cell, but you don’t need to be a bird gunner.
I would prefer to keep the Bird Gunners to be for beyond point defense systems.
LMRAD missile systems and gun systems that are vehicle and container based and the C2 for the air war would be where I would focus Bird Gunners - even if it’s a MSHORAD setup on an Ultra Light vehicle for Light Forces.

Because "sole source" doesn't seem to fly well up here. Also overlapping platforms, overlapping range bands, overlapping capabilities.
You have a 6km system with Javelin.

You can add Hellfire/Hellfire Longbow but next gen Javelin offers the Longbow NLOS linkage, so other than RCAF usage on MALE and a potential AH system the Hellfire options don’t really provide a significant gain, as we have seen concern already on serving members that 6km is already worrying for them for Bn level engagement.

Damnear every new capability falls into the realm of missiles and projectiles, or Arty.
Because you look at it from a more historical range band lens.

FJAG should have fun deciding which jobs he wants to tackle with his 1500 gunners.
I think Ukraine has shown that Canada’s divestment of AD and other Arty systems was exceptionally foolish.
There need to be a lot more than 1,500 Reg Force PY’s for AD.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
7,315
Points
1,040
Mortars are Infantry, so if you look at a 120mm Mortar for Inf, there needs to be rethinking of FSCC levels.
I would have agreed with you in the past. The FSCC was a mortar platoon asset. Every battalion had one by definition if not in actual fact. That left armoured regiments without one unless an arty BC was assigned to them.

The Army Transformation process required the RegF artillery to provide 9 FSCCs and 27 FOO/JTAC fully-equipped teams for the Army. These are intended to be grafted on to whatever battlegroup-sized unit and company-sized manoeuvre elements we deploy. Additionally there are three each formation-level Fire support cells, airspace coordination cells and STA cells which are available to assign to a bde or bde-level Task Force headquarters if required.

The FSCCs and FOO/JTACs teams are enough to meet the SSE requirements. The formation level assets could fall short if the number of SSE contemplated missions each needed one. So far they haven't.

As long as we stay with this building block army with its current organization and employment philosophy, we're good to go. If that philosophy changes, then we'll have to reconsider things. There is further depth in dismounted FOOs in the reserve force but not so much for FSCCs.

But you're right - we've strayed quite a way from infantry vehicles now other than to say that as weapon systems become ever more sophisticated and are able to be launched from far away from the front lines, a robust fire support coordination centre must be present with every manoeuvre unit with networked observer/operators with every sub-unit as a minimum. Currently the equipment for that is in the arty's LAV OPV.

🍻
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
Not really.
We have totally jumped out of the Infantry Vehicle discussion here.

No we haven't. A vehicle is simply a means of moving assets from point A to B.

What assets does the Infantry require to do its job?
What is the Infantry's job?
Where will it do it?
Where is it based?
How fast does it need to get to where it is needed?
What relationship does it have with other organizations, military and non-military, who are equipped with their own assets?
Who's co-ordinating the various activities and to what end?

The US has entrenched answers for all of those questions - largely driven by a massive sunk investment in assets.

Canada flutters in the breeze.

Javelin: Dismounted and IFV usage.
So it doesn’t necessarily need to be Inf, I’d say Inf, CAV, Cbt Eng, And even convoy security folks need that capability.

To what range?

Javelin buys you 3 km dismounted and 5 km mounted with no rotorcraft certification, no fixed wing and no naval application.

Hellfire/Brimstone I/JAGM buys you 8 km from a tripod, fixed rack, light vehicles, trucks, AFVs, rotorcraft, and naval applications with fixed wing launchers giving you a 20 km range. And all launchers can be manned, unmanned, optionally manned or remotely manned.
Brimstone 2, from the same launchers, buys you a 40 km (static launch) range to 60 km (high speed dynamic launch)
Brimstone 3/SPEAR 3/Land Precision Strike buys you an 80 to 130 km range but because it twice the weight of the earlier missiles (100 kg vs 50 kg) the lighter launch platforms are eliminated (the Ground Launch System requires a Sky Sabre, HIMARS or MRLS launcher).
Targeting of the Hellfire and Brimstone can be a laser designator on the launch vehicle, an off-axis third party designator, or autonomous MMW radar in fire and forget mode. It can be launched individually or in salvos and swarms are anticipated by 2028.

So who is going to use what missile, in what mode from what platform?


Spike NLOS: I see these as a Bde CAV and Bde Fire Support Squadron assets.

Spike NLOS is operating in the 25 to 32 km range band with rumours of 50 km in the works.
How does that compare with the Switchblade 600 and the Hero 120 Loitering Attack Munitions for range, cost and flexibility?
Spike NLOS is a weapon that can see. LAMs are observers that can kill.
Who is doing what?
What it the Area of Interest of the employer?
How would other services and branches employ the same weapon?
Are they cheap enough to buy in mass quantities and not have to worry about training budgets and losses?


Arty would have deep strike missiles - PrSM for the Rocket units (you still need to find those)

The Deep Strike Missles, the PrSMs require any of the following launchers: M270 MRLS, M141 HIMARS, M239 Chunmoo or the Norwegian Sea Can launcher.

Any of those launchers can launch

  • 20 K33 131 mm unguided rockets, previously used on the K136 Kooryong, with a range of 36 km (22 mi) (40 total).
  • Six KM26A2 230 mm rockets which are based on the M26 227 mm unguided DPICM rocket used in M270 MLRS vehicles operated by the South Korean Army, with a range of 45 km (28 mi) (12 total).
  • Six 239 mm guided rockets with either high explosive penetration warheads, or cluster bombs with hundreds of bomblets, designed for the K239 Chunmoo with a range of 80 km (50 mi) (12 total).[6]
  • M30 rockets carrying 404 DPICM M101 submunitions. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). 3,936 produced between 2004 and 2009, production ceased in favor of the M30A1.[52] The remaining M30 rockets has been converted at US Army to M31 (Unitary warhead) variant.[14][43]
  • M30A1 rockets with Alternative Warhead (AW). Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). GMLRS rocket that replaces the M30's submunitions with approximately 182,000 pre-formed tungsten fragments for area effects without unexploded ordnance.[54] Entered production in 2015.[52][43]
  • M30A2 rockets with Alternative Warhead (AW). Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Improved M30A1 with Insensitive Munition Propulsion System (IMPS). Only M30 variant in production since 2019.[55]
  • M31 rockets with 200 pounds (91 kg) high-explosive unitary warhead. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Entered production in 2005. The warhead is produced by General Dynamics and contains 51 pounds of PBX-109 high explosive in a steel blast-fragmentation case.[56]
  • M31A1 rockets with 200 pounds (91 kg) high-explosive unitary warhead. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Improved M31 with new multi-mode fuze that added airburst to the M31's fuze point detonation and delay.[57]
  • M31A2 rockets with 200 pounds (91 kg) high-explosive unitary warhead. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Improved M31A1 with Insensitive Munition Propulsion System (IMPS). Only M31 variant in production since 2019.[55]
  • M32 SMArt German GMLRS variant produced by Diehl Defence carrying 4 SMArt anti-tank submunitions and a new flight software. Developed for MARS II but has not been ordered yet and therefore not in service as of 2019.[58]
  • ER GMLRS rockets with extended range of up to 150 km (93 mi).[59] Rockets use a slightly increased rocket motor size, a newly designed hull, and tail-driven guidance, while still containing six per pod. It will come in unitary and AW variants.[60] The first successful test flight of a ER GMLRS occurred in March 2021.[61] In early 2021, Lockheed Martin anticipated putting the ER into its production line in the fiscal year 2023 contract award and was planning to produce the new rockets at its Camden facility.[21] In 2022 Finland became the first foreign customer to order ER GMLRS.[62]
  • M39 (ATACMS BLOCK I) missile with inertial guidance. The missile carries 950 M74 Anti-personnel and Anti‑materiel (APAM) bomblets. Range: 25–165 kilometres (16–103 mi). 1,650 M39 were produced between 1990 and 1997, when production ceased in favor of the M39A1. During Desert Storm 32 M39 were fired at Iraqi targets and during Operation Iraqi Freedom a further 379 M39 were fired.[52][43] The remaining M39 missiles are being updated since 2017 to M57E1 missiles.[63][64] The M39 is the only ATACMS variant which can be fired by all M270 and M142 variants.[65]
  • M39A1 (ATACMS BLOCK IA) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries 300 M74 Anti-personnel and Anti‑materiel (APAM) bomblets. Range: 20–300 kilometres (12–186 mi). 610 M39A1 were produced between 1997 and 2003. During Operation Iraqi Freedom 74 M39A1 were fired at Iraqi targets.[52][43] The remaining M39A1 missiles are being updated since 2017 to M57E1 missiles.[63][64] The M39A1 and all subsequently introduced ATACMS missiles can only be used with the M270A1 (or variants thereof) and the M142.[66]
  • M48 (ATACMS Quick Reaction Unitary (QRU) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries the 500 pounds (230 kg) WDU-18/B penetrating high explosive blast fragmentation warhead of the US Navy's Harpoon anti-ship missile. Range: 70–300 kilometres (43–186 mi). 176 M48 were produced between 2001 and 2004, when production ceased in favor of the M57. During Operation Iraqi Freedom 16 M48 were fired at Iraqi targets a further 42 M48 were fired during Operation Enduring Freedom.[52][43] The remaining M48 missiles remain in the US Army and US Marine Corps' arsenal.
  • M57 (ATACMS TACMS 2000) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries the same WDU-18/B warhead as the M48. Range: 70–300 kilometres (43–186 mi). 513 M57 were produced between 2004 and 2013.[52][43]
  • M57E1 (ATACMS Modification (MOD) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The M57E1 is the designation for upgraded M39 and M39A1 with re-grained motor, updated navigation and guidance software and hardware, and a WDU-18/B unitary warhead instead of the M74 APAM bomblets. The M57E1 ATACMS MOD also includes a proximity sensor for airburst detonation.[63] Production commenced in 2017 with an initial order for 220 upgraded M57E1.[52][43] The program is slated to end in 2024 with the introduction of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), which will replace the ATACMS missiles in the US arsenal.
  • The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is a new series of GPS-guided missiles, which will begin to replace ATACMS missiles from 2024. PrSM carries a newly designed area-effects warhead and has a range of 60–499 kilometres (37–310 mi). PrSM missiles can be launched from the M270A2 and the M142, with rockets pods containing 2 missiles. As of 2022 the PrSM is in low rate initial production with 110 missiles being delivered to the US military over the year. PrSM will enter operational service in 2023.[67][52][68]
  • Boeing and Saab Group conducted three successful GLSDB tests in February 2015. The system utilizes an existing weapon paired with a stockpiled rocket motor, while maintaining the loadout on a rocket artillery system. Unlike traditional artillery weapons, the GLSDB offers 360-degree coverage for high and low angles of attack, flying around terrain to hit targets on the back of mountains, or circling back around to a target behind the launch vehicle. The GLSDB has a range of 93 mi (150 km), or can hit targets 43 mi (70 km) behind the launch vehicle.[4][5][6] In a 2017 demonstration, the GLSDB engaged a moving target at a distance of 62 mi (100 km). The SDB and rocket motor separated at altitude and the bomb used a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker to track and engage the target.[7] A 2019 test extended this range to 81 mi (130 km) against a target at sea.[8]
  • Due to the decision to recapitalise the M270 fleet and increase their numbers in line with Integrated Review 2021 outcomes, there are no plans to procure High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). The recapitalised M270 MLRS platform will fire: Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS); Extended Range GMLRS (ERG); the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM); and the Land Precision Strike (LPS) missile.
  • The Land Precision Strike (LPS) Project is developing momentum fast; it will be fired from the upgraded MLRS to leverage investment in that platform, achieve efficiencies, and deliver the vision of ‘One Launcher, Many Payloads’. This will be a transformational capability from 2028 to counter mobile, fleeting, armoured, and high value threats out to at least 80km.

Do we want to get into the systems we can put into a sea can (ie everything that you can fit into a Mk41 VLS, plus the MRLS/HIMARS family, plus JSMs, plus unmanned drones (Makis and Valkyries)? Or the fact that the Brits are looking at their CAMM/CAMM-ER Sky Sabre Vehicles launching Brimstone missiles, along with the M270s, just the same way their Stormers are launching both Starstreak HVM AD missiles and Martlett multi-mission missiles (Both of which are guided by the operators by preference to the Fire and Forget missiles preferred by the US).

No disagreement, I’m just not seeing the need for a Bde missile past 40km (the LocMart upgraded seeker Spike NLOS has a slightly longer effective range.


3 km companies in the defence.
20 km brigades
20 to 50 km exploitation runs in Kharkiv by motorized infantry and light cavalry.

And if Canada aspires to lead a Multi National Division, with out offering up too much blood then it must offer up treasure and fill in the support roles - I suggest that that would mean supplying something like a British Deep Strike Recce Brigade or a USMC Littoral Regiment where the emphasis is in supplying coverage. We should be looking at supplying support brigades to add to allied divisional and corps assets.


Div Arty and higher gets PrSM for HIMARS systems as needed.
Agreed

You start to over complicated when you look immediately to add to RCAF and RCN.

No. Because they already have solutions the army can use and they and the army are too small not to consider engaging with each other.

Mortars are Infantry, so if you look at a 120mm Mortar for Inf, there needs to be rethinking of FSCC levels.

The skills necessary for employing mortars effectively are not common to those of the rifleman. They are common to the gunner's trade.
The argument that the infantry needs mortars because the guns may not be there when needed indicates a problem in the relationship between the guns and the rifles that needs to be fixed. A similar problem was the position of the FOO. One of the advantages of the Battery supplying the FOOs was it gave the Battery a direct, personal stake, someone they messed with was at risk, in the fate of the Battalion they were supporting.


AT shouldn’t be Arty full stop.
Get away from the old direct fire AT gun concept.

So what do you do with weapons that can precisely eliminate a squadron (yours or ours) of tanks from 100 km that can be delivered from a truck, a boat, a UAS, a helicopter or a prop or a jet?

When you organize around the platform then task co-ordination becomes hard. When you organize around task then platform coordination becomes hard.

AD: MANPADS needs to be all arms options, linked to a Bde ADAM Cell, but you don’t need to be a bird gunner.
I would prefer to keep the Bird Gunners to be for beyond point defense systems.
LMRAD missile systems and gun systems that are vehicle and container based and the C2 for the air war would be where I would focus Bird Gunners - even if it’s a MSHORAD setup on an Ultra Light vehicle for Light Forces.

Fair. I would suggest a similar organization for Anti-Tank forces.

You have a 6km system with Javelin.
Excellent - a demonstrated continuation of a trend

Dispersion, dilution and engagement at increasing ranges.

You can add Hellfire/Hellfire Longbow but next gen Javelin offers the Longbow NLOS linkage, so other than RCAF usage on MALE and a potential AH system the Hellfire options don’t really provide a significant gain, as we have seen concern already on serving members that 6km is already worrying for them for Bn level engagement.

I would suggest that the problem then is the C2/3/4/5/I structures need to be revisited to take into account a larger portion of the force operating in dispersed mode.

Because you look at it from a more historical range band lens.

No. I absolutely do not. I reference range bands and historical structures and ask if the historical structures are compatible with modern range requirements.

I think Ukraine has shown that Canada’s divestment of AD and other Arty systems was exceptionally foolish.
There need to be a lot more than 1,500 Reg Force PY’s for AD.

Agreed and agreed.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,151
Points
1,160
The US has entrenched answers for all of those questions - largely driven by a massive sunk investment in assets.

Canada flutters in the breeze.
Does it not make sense to take advantage of the US's massive sunk investments and wherever possible piggybacking off their platforms? There may be better individual systems out there, but for a country with a limited defence budget like Canada the loss of a certain amount of quality can be made up by the sheer quantity available from the US. Most of your arguments call for both extensive use of expensive precision strike systems as well as large volumes of cheaper, less "exquisite" systems. Great in theory, but I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that Canada is highly unlikely to procure enough of either for a high intensity conflict. Better to tie ourselves into the one and only country that DOES maintain enough stocks to fight a war than to go our own way and run out early in the fight.
Do we want to get into the systems we can put into a sea can (ie everything that you can fit into a Mk41 VLS, plus the MRLS/HIMARS family, plus JSMs, plus unmanned drones (Makis and Valkyries)? Or the fact that the Brits are looking at their CAMM/CAMM-ER Sky Sabre Vehicles launching Brimstone missiles, along with the M270s, just the same way their Stormers are launching both Starstreak HVM AD missiles and Martlett multi-mission missiles (Both of which are guided by the operators by preference to the Fire and Forget missiles preferred by the US).
Big fan of containerized systems. But see above for which munitions I'd choose to focus on. Possible exception being the CAMM since the RCN is going to be using them...IF we procure enough. If however we're slugging away in Latvia and our limited supplies of CAMM are sitting in Halifax/Esquimalt reserved for the CSC's then better to use whatever the US Army is using and shipping in large quantities to the front.
And if Canada aspires to lead a Multi National Division, with out offering up too much blood then it must offer up treasure and fill in the support roles - I suggest that that would mean supplying something like a British Deep Strike Recce Brigade or a USMC Littoral Regiment where the emphasis is in supplying coverage. We should be looking at supplying support brigades to add to allied divisional and corps assets.
I'm a big fan of adjusting the balance of our forces more towards strike/fires assets from the current emphasis on close combat assets (such that they are in the current Canadian Army). The nations we might be called upon to help defend can fairly rapidly call up significant numbers of troops to fill out their infantry numbers, but growing their Artillery and AD capabilities is more difficult and as Ukraine has shown these assets are among the most valuable to have.
So what do you do with weapons that can precisely eliminate a squadron (yours or ours) of tanks from 100 km that can be delivered from a truck, a boat, a UAS, a helicopter or a prop or a jet?

When you organize around the platform then task co-ordination becomes hard. When you organize around task then platform coordination becomes hard.

Fair. I would suggest a similar organization for Anti-Tank forces.
You talk about 100km range precision weapons as being Anti-Tank weapons. Yes they can destroy a tank at extreme range, but they can equally hit a fuel truck, a radar, a command post, a bunker or trench, a munitions depot, a pontoon bridge, etc. Sounds like artillery rather than an anti-tank platoon to me.
Dispersion, dilution and engagement at increasing ranges.

I would suggest that the problem then is the C2/3/4/5/I structures need to be revisited to take into account a larger portion of the force operating in dispersed mode.
I totally agree that dispersion and increased engagement ranges will require a complete reassessment of how armies operate. Recce, communications, intel, targeting, logistics, span of command, etc.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
Does it not make sense to take advantage of the US's massive sunk investments and wherever possible piggybacking off their platforms? There may be better individual systems out there, but for a country with a limited defence budget like Canada the loss of a certain amount of quality can be made up by the sheer quantity available from the US. Most of your arguments call for both extensive use of expensive precision strike systems as well as large volumes of cheaper, less "exquisite" systems. Great in theory, but I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that Canada is highly unlikely to procure enough of either for a high intensity conflict. Better to tie ourselves into the one and only country that DOES maintain enough stocks to fight a war than to go our own way and run out early in the fight.

I agree with you 100%. I think you will find that, with the exception of the Sky Sabre and Chunmoo systems, everything else comes from a US Catalogue. Even the 180mm Family of Missiles (Hellfire/Longbow/Brimstones/SPEARS/JAGMs) are all US offspring with technologies among them interchangeable. The GLSDB system is a Boeing/Saab/Nammo mix and Saab and Nammo are both producing systems in use in the US forces (M72, AT4, CG84). The Maki and Valkyrie UAVs are both Kratos derivatives of an in-service target drone.


Big fan of containerized systems. But see above for which munitions I'd choose to focus on. Possible exception being the CAMM since the RCN is going to be using them...IF we procure enough. If however we're slugging away in Latvia and our limited supplies of CAMM are sitting in Halifax/Esquimalt reserved for the CSC's then better to use whatever the US Army is using and shipping in large quantities to the front.

Or better to buy a system that can launch AIM 9s, AIM 120s, ESSMs, CAMMs, CAMM-ERs, IRIS-Ts, Aspides and Crotales, and maybe even JSM/NSMs - a la NASAMs system?


I'm a big fan of adjusting the balance of our forces more towards strike/fires assets from the current emphasis on close combat assets (such that they are in the current Canadian Army). The nations we might be called upon to help defend can fairly rapidly call up significant numbers of troops to fill out their infantry numbers, but growing their Artillery and AD capabilities is more difficult and as Ukraine has shown these assets are among the most valuable to have.

Agreed, again 100%


You talk about 100km range precision weapons as being Anti-Tank weapons. Yes they can destroy a tank at extreme range, but they can equally hit a fuel truck, a radar, a command post, a bunker or trench, a munitions depot, a pontoon bridge, etc. Sounds like artillery rather than an anti-tank platoon to me.

The point is that the 100 km precision weapon can also be a 2 km DF weapon - same 180 mm frame, same warhead, same guidance and seekers, different motors. Multiple launchers. Useable by multiple platforms in multiple branches and services.
Exactly like the 7.62mm round.

Do we organize around the 7.62mm round? Or do we use the 7.62mm round to perform specific tasks in specific situations?

I totally agree that dispersion and increased engagement ranges will require a complete reassessment of how armies operate. Recce, communications, intel, targeting, logistics, span of command, etc.

Again. Agreement.


I want to circle back to this statement

Most of your arguments call for both extensive use of expensive precision strike systems as well as large volumes of cheaper, less "exquisite" systems.

I offer this observation

Ukrainian defenders kill 850 Russians, destroy helicopter and 33 drones in last 24 hours​

IRYNA BALACHUK — FRIDAY, 27 JANUARY 2023, 08:27


850 Russians killed.

A Canadian LAV platoon, fully manned, has 28 dismounts.
850/28 = 30 platoons

By my understanding, with 3 regiments, 9 battalions, 27 companies we could field 81 platoons. I believe that the actual number of fieldable platoons is probably closer to 60 than 90.

In two to three days the entire Trained Effective Strength of rifles, with their 1 to 20 years of experience, would be exhausted.

The Russians are fighting a WW1 war based on mass quantities of rifles and artillery. They are generating WW1 levels of losses.

We need to do things differently. Even if we wanted to spend that kind of blood in support of government aims I doubt we could find it, buy it or conscript it. That leaves us with making the most of the treasure available to us and the bodies we have.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,899
Points
1,160
The skills necessary for employing mortars effectively are not common to those of the rifleman. They are common to the gunner's trade.

Here's a thought

  • the common skill of the rifleman is to put the enemy in their sights and engage with direct fire.
  • the common skill of the gunner is to engage the enemy with indirect fire.

So if a rifleman can draw a bead on the enemy and squeeze a trigger does it matter if the trigger is attached to a pistol, rifle, mg, UGL, CG84, single shot shoulder fired missile or a laser designator? The killer has eyes on the victim. Cavalry, by virtue of their vehicles, can engage with heavier direct fire weapons at longer ranges.

If a gunner or pilot launches rounds into a grid square that is a different animal, in my view.

But are we still left struggling over who owns the airspace and what is allowed to fly where and when?
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,151
Points
1,160
I agree with you 100%. I think you will find that, with the exception of the Sky Sabre and Chunmoo systems, everything else comes from a US Catalogue. Even the 180mm Family of Missiles (Hellfire/Longbow/Brimstones/SPEARS/JAGMs) are all US offspring with technologies among them interchangeable. The GLSDB system is a Boeing/Saab/Nammo mix and Saab and Nammo are both producing systems in use in the US forces (M72, AT4, CG84). The Maki and Valkyrie UAVs are both Kratos derivatives of an in-service target drone.
It's not just a question of where the technology comes from but also a question of where the technology IS. A given system/munition might be made by a US corporation but more important to me is whether the US Brigade fighting beside me uses that same system/munition. THAT is what allows me to tap directly into their resource pipeline in real time during a conflict.
Or better to buy a system that can launch AIM 9s, AIM 120s, ESSMs, CAMMs, CAMM-ERs, IRIS-Ts, Aspides and Crotales, and maybe even JSM/NSMs - a la NASAMs system?
Again, I'll agree that having a system that gives you multiple options of effects is a great thing and should be encouraged. That's why everything from tanks to howitzers to rocket systems have multiple warhead types available. At what point though is a good idea taken to the technical extreme and in effect reaches the point of diminishing returns. I'm sure you can come up with a swiss army knife container that can launch a different munition to be effective vs a quad-copter, a bayraktar, a kinzhal, an Mi-28, an SU-57, a speed boat, a bunker, an active radar, a frigate and a ballistic missile. But how do you supply, train and deploy such a unit? Sometimes a knife, a fork and a spoon are cheaper and more effective than a drawer full of sporks.
The point is that the 100 km precision weapon can also be a 2 km DF weapon - same 180 mm frame, same warhead, same guidance and seekers, different motors. Multiple launchers. Useable by multiple platforms in multiple branches and services.
Exactly like the 7.62mm round.

Do we organize around the 7.62mm round? Or do we use the 7.62mm round to perform specific tasks in specific situations?
Give those doing the 2km direct fire fight the best tools to do that job and those doing the 100km indirect fight the best tools to do that job. If the same individual tool happens to work for both then bonus.
I offer this observation

850 Russians killed.

A Canadian LAV platoon, fully manned, has 28 dismounts.
850/28 = 30 platoons

By my understanding, with 3 regiments, 9 battalions, 27 companies we could field 81 platoons. I believe that the actual number of fieldable platoons is probably closer to 60 than 90.

In two to three days the entire Trained Effective Strength of rifles, with their 1 to 20 years of experience, would be exhausted.

The Russians are fighting a WW1 war based on mass quantities of rifles and artillery. They are generating WW1 levels of losses.

We need to do things differently. Even if we wanted to spend that kind of blood in support of government aims I doubt we could find it, buy it or conscript it. That leaves us with making the most of the treasure available to us and the bodies we have.
You can't compare the Wagner Group driving untrained conscripts in wave attacks against prepared positions to how we would fight in a conflict. Yes Canada is casualty adverse and yes modern weaponry is expensive. We do need to do things differently and I agree that Canada hasn't done nearly enough to keep up with the changes occurring in modern warfare.

Sometimes though I think we need to remember the saying "The Perfect is the enemy of Good". There are existing capabilities out there which if we strive to be excellent in their use may get us further than trying to invent a "Perfect" system.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
12,750
Points
1,260
No we haven't. A vehicle is simply a means of moving assets from point A to B.
I disagree - some vehicles are designed for A to B, but some are designed to fight from A to B with the crew, or crew +...
It is a huge difference - and even A to B vehicles differ depending if they are integral to the entity or not.
You live out of a integral vehicle, an attached vehicle is simply used for transport.


What assets does the Infantry require to do its job?
What is the Infantry's job?
Close with an Destroy the Enemy, in all weather and terrain...
Where will it do it?
Everywhere it needs to.
Where is it based?
That I suppose depends on what/where you consider it's base, and what a "base" is.

How fast does it need to get to where it is needed?
Depends on the type of formation.
What relationship does it have with other organizations, military and non-military, who are equipped with their own assets?
Infantry by itself is useless.
One of the reasons Combined Arms Battalions were formed here was to integrate the Armor and Infantry into a cohesive unit.
The reason I consider the Bde the smallest deployable entity is because the Bde needs to be the integrator of all the non Inf/Arm entities - be it Military or Non.

Who's co-ordinating the various activities and to what end?
See above
The US has entrenched answers for all of those questions - largely driven by a massive sunk investment in assets.

Canada flutters in the breeze.
Agreed

To what range?

Javelin buys you 3 km dismounted and 5 km mounted with no rotorcraft certification, no fixed wing and no naval application.
Javelin is a 6km system - it benefit to dismounted and mounted usage is the interchangeability of the missiles as needed.
Hellfire/Brimstone I/JAGM buys you 8 km from a tripod, fixed rack, light vehicles, trucks, AFVs, rotorcraft, and naval applications with fixed wing launchers giving you a 20 km range. And all launchers can be manned, unmanned, optionally manned or remotely manned.
It's a 8+ km system, and the wing kit is IMHO isn't needed as JAGM-MR can do 16km and has a significantly better seeker head.


Brimstone 2, from the same launchers, buys you a 40 km (static launch) range to 60 km (high speed dynamic launch)
Brimstone 3/SPEAR 3/Land Precision Strike buys you an 80 to 130 km range but because it twice the weight of the earlier missiles (100 kg vs 50 kg) the lighter launch platforms are eliminated (the Ground Launch System requires a Sky Sabre, HIMARS or MRLS launcher).
Targeting of the Hellfire and Brimstone can be a laser designator on the launch vehicle, an off-axis third party designator, or autonomous MMW radar in fire and forget mode. It can be launched individually or in salvos and swarms are anticipated by 2028.

So who is going to use what missile, in what mode from what platform?




Spike NLOS is operating in the 25 to 32 km range band with rumours of 50 km in the works.
LocMart's upgrade is your 50km system
How does that compare with the Switchblade 600 and the Hero 120 Loitering Attack Munitions for range, cost and flexibility?
Spike NLOS is a weapon that can see. LAMs are observers that can kill.
Who is doing what?
What it the Area of Interest of the employer?
How would other services and branches employ the same weapon?
Are they cheap enough to buy in mass quantities and not have to worry about training budgets and losses?
Loitering munitions and Bde and Bn LAME/MAME/MALE UAS are going to confound folks for a while, all that I know is enough that each Bn is going to need an Air Co-ordination Cell - that has AD and AF linkage if not personnel directly involved in the cell, and larger ones a Bde and higher entities .

The Deep Strike Missles, the PrSMs require any of the following launchers: M270 MRLS, M141 HIMARS, M239 Chunmoo or the Norwegian Sea Can launcher.

Any of those launchers can launch

  • 20 K33 131 mm unguided rockets, previously used on the K136 Kooryong, with a range of 36 km (22 mi) (40 total).
  • Six KM26A2 230 mm rockets which are based on the M26 227 mm unguided DPICM rocket used in M270 MLRS vehicles operated by the South Korean Army, with a range of 45 km (28 mi) (12 total).
  • Six 239 mm guided rockets with either high explosive penetration warheads, or cluster bombs with hundreds of bomblets, designed for the K239 Chunmoo with a range of 80 km (50 mi) (12 total).[6]
  • M30 rockets carrying 404 DPICM M101 submunitions. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). 3,936 produced between 2004 and 2009, production ceased in favor of the M30A1.[52] The remaining M30 rockets has been converted at US Army to M31 (Unitary warhead) variant.[14][43]
  • M30A1 rockets with Alternative Warhead (AW). Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). GMLRS rocket that replaces the M30's submunitions with approximately 182,000 pre-formed tungsten fragments for area effects without unexploded ordnance.[54] Entered production in 2015.[52][43]
  • M30A2 rockets with Alternative Warhead (AW). Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Improved M30A1 with Insensitive Munition Propulsion System (IMPS). Only M30 variant in production since 2019.[55]
  • M31 rockets with 200 pounds (91 kg) high-explosive unitary warhead. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Entered production in 2005. The warhead is produced by General Dynamics and contains 51 pounds of PBX-109 high explosive in a steel blast-fragmentation case.[56]
  • M31A1 rockets with 200 pounds (91 kg) high-explosive unitary warhead. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Improved M31 with new multi-mode fuze that added airburst to the M31's fuze point detonation and delay.[57]
  • M31A2 rockets with 200 pounds (91 kg) high-explosive unitary warhead. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). Improved M31A1 with Insensitive Munition Propulsion System (IMPS). Only M31 variant in production since 2019.[55]
  • M32 SMArt German GMLRS variant produced by Diehl Defence carrying 4 SMArt anti-tank submunitions and a new flight software. Developed for MARS II but has not been ordered yet and therefore not in service as of 2019.[58]
  • ER GMLRS rockets with extended range of up to 150 km (93 mi).[59] Rockets use a slightly increased rocket motor size, a newly designed hull, and tail-driven guidance, while still containing six per pod. It will come in unitary and AW variants.[60] The first successful test flight of a ER GMLRS occurred in March 2021.[61] In early 2021, Lockheed Martin anticipated putting the ER into its production line in the fiscal year 2023 contract award and was planning to produce the new rockets at its Camden facility.[21] In 2022 Finland became the first foreign customer to order ER GMLRS.[62]
  • M39 (ATACMS BLOCK I) missile with inertial guidance. The missile carries 950 M74 Anti-personnel and Anti‑materiel (APAM) bomblets. Range: 25–165 kilometres (16–103 mi). 1,650 M39 were produced between 1990 and 1997, when production ceased in favor of the M39A1. During Desert Storm 32 M39 were fired at Iraqi targets and during Operation Iraqi Freedom a further 379 M39 were fired.[52][43] The remaining M39 missiles are being updated since 2017 to M57E1 missiles.[63][64] The M39 is the only ATACMS variant which can be fired by all M270 and M142 variants.[65]
  • M39A1 (ATACMS BLOCK IA) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries 300 M74 Anti-personnel and Anti‑materiel (APAM) bomblets. Range: 20–300 kilometres (12–186 mi). 610 M39A1 were produced between 1997 and 2003. During Operation Iraqi Freedom 74 M39A1 were fired at Iraqi targets.[52][43] The remaining M39A1 missiles are being updated since 2017 to M57E1 missiles.[63][64] The M39A1 and all subsequently introduced ATACMS missiles can only be used with the M270A1 (or variants thereof) and the M142.[66]
  • M48 (ATACMS Quick Reaction Unitary (QRU) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries the 500 pounds (230 kg) WDU-18/B penetrating high explosive blast fragmentation warhead of the US Navy's Harpoon anti-ship missile. Range: 70–300 kilometres (43–186 mi). 176 M48 were produced between 2001 and 2004, when production ceased in favor of the M57. During Operation Iraqi Freedom 16 M48 were fired at Iraqi targets a further 42 M48 were fired during Operation Enduring Freedom.[52][43] The remaining M48 missiles remain in the US Army and US Marine Corps' arsenal.
  • M57 (ATACMS TACMS 2000) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries the same WDU-18/B warhead as the M48. Range: 70–300 kilometres (43–186 mi). 513 M57 were produced between 2004 and 2013.[52][43]
  • M57E1 (ATACMS Modification (MOD) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The M57E1 is the designation for upgraded M39 and M39A1 with re-grained motor, updated navigation and guidance software and hardware, and a WDU-18/B unitary warhead instead of the M74 APAM bomblets. The M57E1 ATACMS MOD also includes a proximity sensor for airburst detonation.[63] Production commenced in 2017 with an initial order for 220 upgraded M57E1.[52][43] The program is slated to end in 2024 with the introduction of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), which will replace the ATACMS missiles in the US arsenal.
  • The Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) is a new series of GPS-guided missiles, which will begin to replace ATACMS missiles from 2024. PrSM carries a newly designed area-effects warhead and has a range of 60–499 kilometres (37–310 mi). PrSM missiles can be launched from the M270A2 and the M142, with rockets pods containing 2 missiles. As of 2022 the PrSM is in low rate initial production with 110 missiles being delivered to the US military over the year. PrSM will enter operational service in 2023.[67][52][68]
  • Boeing and Saab Group conducted three successful GLSDB tests in February 2015. The system utilizes an existing weapon paired with a stockpiled rocket motor, while maintaining the loadout on a rocket artillery system. Unlike traditional artillery weapons, the GLSDB offers 360-degree coverage for high and low angles of attack, flying around terrain to hit targets on the back of mountains, or circling back around to a target behind the launch vehicle. The GLSDB has a range of 93 mi (150 km), or can hit targets 43 mi (70 km) behind the launch vehicle.[4][5][6] In a 2017 demonstration, the GLSDB engaged a moving target at a distance of 62 mi (100 km). The SDB and rocket motor separated at altitude and the bomb used a semi-active laser (SAL) seeker to track and engage the target.[7] A 2019 test extended this range to 81 mi (130 km) against a target at sea.[8]
  • Due to the decision to recapitalise the M270 fleet and increase their numbers in line with Integrated Review 2021 outcomes, there are no plans to procure High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS). The recapitalised M270 MLRS platform will fire: Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS); Extended Range GMLRS (ERG); the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM); and the Land Precision Strike (LPS) missile.
  • The Land Precision Strike (LPS) Project is developing momentum fast; it will be fired from the upgraded MLRS to leverage investment in that platform, achieve efficiencies, and deliver the vision of ‘One Launcher, Many Payloads’. This will be a transformational capability from 2028 to counter mobile, fleeting, armoured, and high value threats out to at least 80km.

Do we want to get into the systems we can put into a sea can (ie everything that you can fit into a Mk41 VLS, plus the MRLS/HIMARS family, plus JSMs, plus unmanned drones (Makis and Valkyries)? Or the fact that the Brits are looking at their CAMM/CAMM-ER Sky Sabre Vehicles launching Brimstone missiles, along with the M270s, just the same way their Stormers are launching both Starstreak HVM AD missiles and Martlett multi-mission missiles (Both of which are guided by the operators by preference to the Fire and Forget missiles preferred by the US).
Keep in mind the Brits are now moving towards F&F, I think a mix of launch systems is needed there.
I like HIMARS and the CONEX box launcher setups - given the range I don't see the need for tracked M270's regardless of the supported unit.

3 km companies in the defence.
20 km brigades
20 to 50 km exploitation runs in Kharkiv by motorized infantry and light cavalry.

And if Canada aspires to lead a Multi National Division, with out offering up too much blood then it must offer up treasure and fill in the support roles - I suggest that that would mean supplying something like a British Deep Strike Recce Brigade or a USMC Littoral Regiment where the emphasis is in supplying coverage. We should be looking at supplying support brigades to add to allied divisional and corps assets.
Folks don't want that - they want troops "in the trenches" - but they need both.
Agreed



No. Because they already have solutions the army can use and they and the army are too small not to consider engaging with each other.



The skills necessary for employing mortars effectively are not common to those of the rifleman. They are common to the gunner's trade.
The argument that the infantry needs mortars because the guns may not be there when needed indicates a problem in the relationship between the guns and the rifles that needs to be fixed. A similar problem was the position of the FOO. One of the advantages of the Battery supplying the FOOs was it gave the Battery a direct, personal stake, someone they messed with was at risk, in the fate of the Battalion they were supporting.




So what do you do with weapons that can precisely eliminate a squadron (yours or ours) of tanks from 100 km that can be delivered from a truck, a boat, a UAS, a helicopter or a prop or a jet?

When you organize around the platform then task co-ordination becomes hard. When you organize around task then platform coordination becomes hard.



Fair. I would suggest a similar organization for Anti-Tank forces.


Excellent - a demonstrated continuation of a trend

Dispersion, dilution and engagement at increasing ranges.



I would suggest that the problem then is the C2/3/4/5/I structures need to be revisited to take into account a larger portion of the force operating in dispersed mode.



No. I absolutely do not. I reference range bands and historical structures and ask if the historical structures are compatible with modern range requirements.



Agreed and agreed.
More to follow - but I think we are off the original thread intent.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
12,750
Points
1,260
Here's a thought

  • the common skill of the rifleman is to put the enemy in their sights and engage with direct fire.
  • the common skill of the gunner is to engage the enemy with indirect fire.
That sort of thinking killed Combat Support Companies in the Bn’s for years.
It’s not healthy for the Infantry from a combat effectiveness standpoint or a career progression standpoint.


So if a rifleman can draw a bead on the enemy and squeeze a trigger does it matter if the trigger is attached to a pistol, rifle, mg, UGL, CG84, single shot shoulder fired missile or a laser designator? The killer has eyes on the victim. Cavalry, by virtue of their vehicles, can engage with heavier direct fire weapons at longer ranges.

If a gunner or pilot launches rounds into a grid square that is a different animal, in my view.

But are we still left struggling over who owns the airspace and what is allowed to fly where and when?
Airspace control is a vital aspect of current and future conflicts.
I addressed it a little bit in my response to you in a comment above.

I’m of the opinion that the Air Force needs to ‘own’ the airspace, and the only time the Army owns it is if the Air Force isn’t flying in it (which can be for several reasons).

With more UAS, and NLOS Missile systems as well as Artillery and Rockety in the air, deconfliction becomes an exceptionally important aspect.
 
Top