Infantry Vehicles

[GR66]

If they can rig up a 120mm mortar on an ISV they can do the same for the Senator.

Here's another one for Kirkhill from the Defence Blog website...81mm Mortar mounted on a Polaris RZR.

Could possibly mount it on a Mission Master UGV for the Light Brigade?

 

[markppcli]

Here's another one for Kirkhill from the Defence Blog website...81mm Mortar mounted on a Polaris RZR.

Could possibly mount it on a Mission Master UGV for the Light Brigade?

Why on a UGV? You still need guys to lay the mortar, out rounds down the tube, and fire the thing. Might as well have them be transported along with it.

 

[GR66]

Why on a UGV? You still need guys to lay the mortar, out rounds down the tube, and fire the thing. Might as well have them be transported along with it.

Mount it on whatever light vehicle the Light Battalions end up using. As for the UGV I was thinking as an alternate option should the Infantry be deployed without their vehicles, for example an airborne operation. Keeps the troops from having to hump the mortar and ammo.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Mount it on whatever light vehicle the Light Battalions end up using. As for the UGV I was thinking as an alternate option should the Infantry be deployed without their vehicles, for example an airborne operation. Keeps the troops from having to hump the mortar and ammo.

Depends on the mortar, of course.

You can manpack 81mm, but not 120mm.

 

[KevinB]

Depends on the mortar, of course.

You can manpack 81mm, but not 120mm.

You can man pack a 120mm, just not very far

 

[Kirkhill]

Why on a UGV? You still need guys to lay the mortar, out rounds down the tube, and fire the thing. Might as well have them be transported along with it.

Because when you put the crew in the vehicle the vehicle gets bigger and it becomes harder for the the vehicle to follow the soldiers (both own forces and enemy) on foot or 50 cc motocross bike.

The whole impetus behind UGVs is to take a load off dismounted soldiers so that they can advance farther, and faster, in complex terrain with weapons that give a higher probability of overmatch. One of the reasons tracks are popular is that they can go places wheels can't go, and, in some instances, places feet can't go.

Mount it on whatever light vehicle the Light Battalions end up using. As for the UGV I was thinking as an alternate option should the Infantry be deployed without their vehicles, for example an airborne operation. Keeps the troops from having to hump the mortar and ammo.

Agreed x3.

Depends on the mortar, of course.

You can manpack 81mm, but not 120mm.

You could drag a 120 on a pulk. But it would be easier if it had a few horses dragging it. Same with the 81. Its possible, as Goose Green demonstrated, but .....

Just like Wireless Ridge demonstrated the value to a small division (2 light brigades) of a couple of troops of toy tanks with popguns

The Household Cavalry sent 3 & 4 Troop from B Sqn, The Blues & Royals. They were equipped with 4 Scorpion (the 76mm gun and turret employed on the Cougar), 4 Scimitar (the 30x 170mm Rarden) & 1 Samson ARV.

Which brings me to the value of the MPFS vehicle.

I understand the value of a battalion of MPFS vehicles to a light division. It can be a very useful augmentation to light troops in the right circumstances. A penn'orth of heavy firepower at the local commander's fingertips can be very useful indeed when trying to maintain momentum (or deny it to the enemy).

My problem with the MPFS is that it is too heavy. It weighs half as much as an Abrams but the same as a LAV 6.0. That means that the advantage of the light force is diminished because it requires a bigger aircraft (and better runways) or a boat to get the MPFS into the field with the troops. A more flexible solution would have been something like the Scorpion with a 90mm low pressure cannon which weighs about as much as a JLTV or a Bv206 at 8 tonnes - all could be sling loaded forwards by a Chinook. All could traverse muddy swamps and piles of rubble.

The MPFS is still conceived as a tank by some rather than a gun. That is explicit in the design of the turret and its commonality with the Abrams turret. And yet we are concerned that the MPFS will be used like a tank, when driven by tankers, even though it is not a tank.

Why was the 105mm gun adopted rather than the 76 or 90s that were considered? For the same reason NATO ended up with the 7.62mm round. There were lots of them in storage. Peculiarly the Ukrainian kerfuffle is depleting the stores and consideration is being given to resurrecting 105mm production lines. Why not replace the 105 with the 90 LPF and lighten up the MPFS so that it could accompany the light troops more often?

And there is ample opportunity to convert light vehicles, even the size of the 4 tonne Wiesel, into Optionally Manned Vehicles that can be securely, remotely controlled with a tether (fiber optic by choice).

If you don't put crew in the vehicle you don't need armour and can carry more rounds on the gun.


I keep coming back to this

Drive the pickup as far as you can
Drive the ATV as far as you can
Walk as far as you can.

 

[GK .Dundas]

Just about everybody I've talked to who came back from the Falkland islands live fire ex as one guy called it . Not to mention just about every book written by those were there.
The only complaint they all had about the Scorpion/Scimitars was that there weren't enough of them.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Just about everybody I've talked to who came back from the Falkland islands live fire ex as one guy called it . Not to mention just about every book written by those were there.
The only complaint they all had about the Scorpion/Scimitars was that there weren't enough of them.

It always struck me as odd that Canada didn't get into the CVR(T) line.
It currently strikes me that a 10 tonne Scimitar 2 with Moog RiWP mounted M230, Hunter-Killer sights, and 2-4 Javelins could be a very interesting vehicle for RCAC cavalry squadrons, maybe (with a different loadout) for LIB DF/AT platoons as well?

 

[GK .Dundas]

We almost did however, the Scorpion prototype literally burned to the ground in I think it was at Petawawa for testing.
Gave a fairly senior GO the opportunity to start the process to kill it as a project.
We were supposed to order about 150 of them as DFSV's .
It's sad really ,the RCAC has been trying to develop and deploy a light armour regiment scince about 1946 and has yet to manage it .
Mind you we've done a simply marvelous job of rearranging the deck chairs during that time.

 

[WLSC]

Depends on the mortar, of course.

You can manpack 81mm, but not 120mm.

Yes, I've done it but for short tactical move. It should be kept as an back pocket option, not more. For Light Infantry, Light vehicles (bigger than the RZR) or helicopter is the way to go.

 

[markppcli]

Mount it on whatever light vehicle the Light Battalions end up using. As for the UGV I was thinking as an alternate option should the Infantry be deployed without their vehicles, for example an airborne operation. Keeps the troops from having to hump the mortar and ammo.

Are we jumping the UGV then?

Because when you put the crew in the vehicle the vehicle gets bigger and it becomes harder for the the vehicle to follow the soldiers (both own forces and enemy) on foot or 50 cc motocross bike.

The whole impetus behind UGVs is to take a load off dismounted soldiers so that they can advance farther, and faster, in complex terrain with weapons that give a higher probability of overmatch. One of the reasons tracks are popular is that they can go places wheels can't go, and, in some instances, places feet can't go.



Agreed x3.



You could drag a 120 on a pulk. But it would be easier if it had a few horses dragging it. Same with the 81. Its possible, as Goose Green demonstrated, but .....

Just like Wireless Ridge demonstrated the value to a small division (2 light brigades) of a couple of troops of toy tanks with popguns



Which brings me to the value of the MPFS vehicle.

I understand the value of a battalion of MPFS vehicles to a light division. It can be a very useful augmentation to light troops in the right circumstances. A penn'orth of heavy firepower at the local commander's fingertips can be very useful indeed when trying to maintain momentum (or deny it to the enemy).

My problem with the MPFS is that it is too heavy. It weighs half as much as an Abrams but the same as a LAV 6.0. That means that the advantage of the light force is diminished because it requires a bigger aircraft (and better runways) or a boat to get the MPFS into the field with the troops. A more flexible solution would have been something like the Scorpion with a 90mm low pressure cannon which weighs about as much as a JLTV or a Bv206 at 8 tonnes - all could be sling loaded forwards by a Chinook. All could traverse muddy swamps and piles of rubble.

The MPFS is still conceived as a tank by some rather than a gun. That is explicit in the design of the turret and its commonality with the Abrams turret. And yet we are concerned that the MPFS will be used like a tank, when driven by tankers, even though it is not a tank.

Why was the 105mm gun adopted rather than the 76 or 90s that were considered? For the same reason NATO ended up with the 7.62mm round. There were lots of them in storage. Peculiarly the Ukrainian kerfuffle is depleting the stores and consideration is being given to resurrecting 105mm production lines. Why not replace the 105 with the 90 LPF and lighten up the MPFS so that it could accompany the light troops more often?

And there is ample opportunity to convert light vehicles, even the size of the 4 tonne Wiesel, into Optionally Manned Vehicles that can be securely, remotely controlled with a tether (fiber optic by choice).

If you don't put crew in the vehicle you don't need armour and can carry more rounds on the gun.


I keep coming back to this

Drive the pickup as far as you can
Drive the ATV as far as you can
Walk as far as you can.

My point still is if the UGV is there how’d it get there? If it drove so two can a MRZR or ATV. UGVs seem great but I’m constantly left wondering how these light forces that are going where heckles can’t are intending to get them there and sustain them in operations.

We almost did however, the prototype literally burned to the ground in I think it was at Petawawa for testing.
Gave a fairly senior GO the opportunity to start the process to kill it as a project.
We were supposed to order about 150 of them as DFSV's .
It's sad really ,the RCAC has been trying to develop and deploy a light armour regiment scince about 1946 and has yet to manage it .
Mind you we've done a simply marvelous job of rearranging the deck chairs during that time.

Prototype of which sorry

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes, I've done it but for short tactical move. It should be kept as an back pocket option, not more. For Light Infantry, Light vehicles (bigger than the RZR) or helicopter is the way to go.

Light vehicles (bigger than the RZR) AND helicopter is the way to go.

Both. The vehicle needs to be light enough to be deployed by helicopter so that it can stay on the ground with the troops when the helicopter is grounded by weather or lack of fuel.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes, I've done it but for short tactical move. It should be kept as an back pocket option, not more. For Light Infantry, Light vehicles (bigger than the RZR) or helicopter is the way to go.

Our mortar platoon did 30 miles carrying the 81mm. We were the ammo mules.

Not ideal, but it sure surprises people who are like "Hey, how did they get mortars way up there behind us?" which, sometimes, is the goal of course

 

[GK .Dundas]

Are we jumping the UGV then?



My point still is if the UGV is there how’d it get there? If it drove so two can a MRZR or ATV. UGVs seem great but I’m constantly left wondering how these light forces that are going where heckles can’t are intending to get them there and sustain them in operations.

Prototype of which sorry

Sorry, it was quite literally one the prototypes of the Scorpion.

 

[Kirkhill]

Are we jumping the UGV then?



My point still is if the UGV is there how’d it get there? If it drove so two can a MRZR or ATV. UGVs seem great but I’m constantly left wondering how these light forces that are going where heckles can’t are intending to get them there and sustain them in operations.

Prototype of which sorry

See my comment above. The ground vehicle has to be compatible with existing transport. Just like the ATV in the back of the pickup.

There's a whole raft of places you can't get a LAV into by any means. A400s, C17s and Ships are pretty much the only way to connect them with places they can drive.

I'm saying that Light Forces need to be deployable by air or helo and their support gear, including vehicles, needs to be deployable by the same means. No sense having a support vehicle that has to stay back in Petawawa.

@KevinB - favourite helicopter CH-146

Bell CH-146 Griffon - Price, Specs, Photo Gallery, History - Aero Corner

The Bell CH-146 Griffon is a Canadian medium utility helicopter, originally designed for the Royal Canadian Air Force. It has since been exported to other international customers. The Griffon can be used in search and rescue missions, tactical transport of troops, medical evacuation, disaster...

aerocorner.com

Max Take Off Weight: 5,398 Kg
Max Payload: 1,830 Kg

Polaris 800 Widetrack Sled - 274 kg dry
Polaris 850 Sportsman Quad - 444 kg curb
Polaris MRZR D2 - 856 kg curb
Polaris MRZR D4 - 952 kg curb
Argo 8x8 Aurora 850 - 708 kg
Mission Master SP A-UGV - 750 kg.

All of those vehicles could be ported forwards with the light infantry by Canada's least capable utility helicopter. or transported by Cyclone, Cormorant or Chinook, taken on board an AOPS, a CSC, a JSS or the Asterix, or air freighted by CC177, CC130 or CC150 or palletized and airdropped from the CC177 or the CC130.

All of them will haul a lot of rucks, water, meals, ammunition, and support weapons and sensors. All of them will make the Light Infantry more capable and more likely to be able to overmatch any enemy they are likely to encounter.

 

[markppcli]

See my comment above. The ground vehicle has to be compatible with existing transport. Just like the ATV in the back of the pickup.

Yes thank you for that. Please explain how they get refuled, who’s hauling their file after drop off. What’s the range of the UG. See my comment above.

There's a whole raft of places you can't get a LAV into by any means. A400s, C17s and Ships are pretty much the only way to connect them with places they can drive.

Thank you I was unaware of this.

I'm saying that Light Forces need to be deployable by air or helo and their support gear, including vehicles, needs to be deployable by the same means. No sense having a support vehicle that has to stay back in Petawawa.

Yes and I agree. My point is that putting a mortar ina UGV to have its crew walk is dumb. Put it in the MRZR with its crew. Because, and maybe I’m just an idiot here, but that mortar needs to be cited in a tree gap, and fairly level no? Even if it is its dense terrain, you’re probably going to be moving in more accessible space in general for that mortar. What is Mission Master really saving you much in practice if it’s only effectively moving at walking speed anyways vs having it on an MRZR type vehicle that moves the whole crew at speed.

@KevinB - favourite helicopter CH-146

Bell CH-146 Griffon - Price, Specs, Photo Gallery, History - Aero Corner

The Bell CH-146 Griffon is a Canadian medium utility helicopter, originally designed for the Royal Canadian Air Force. It has since been exported to other international customers. The Griffon can be used in search and rescue missions, tactical transport of troops, medical evacuation, disaster...

aerocorner.com

Max Take Off Weight: 5,398 Kg
Max Payload: 1,830 Kg

Polaris 800 Widetrack Sled - 274 kg dry
Polaris 850 Sportsman Quad - 444 kg curb
Polaris MRZR D2 - 856 kg curb
Polaris MRZR D4 - 952 kg curb
Argo 8x8 Aurora 850 - 708 kg
Mission Master SP A-UGV - 750 kg.

All of those vehicles could be ported forwards with the light infantry by Canada's least capable utility helicopter. or transported by Cyclone, Cormorant or Chinook, taken on board an AOPS, a CSC, a JSS or the Asterix, or air freighted by CC177, CC130 or CC150 or palletized and airdropped from the CC177 or the CC130.

All of them will haul a lot of rucks, water, meals, ammunition, and support weapons and sensors. All of them will make the Light Infantry more capable and more likely to be able to overmatch any enemy they are likely to encounter.

Yes, I’m in favour of doing the most jobs with the least extra kit. Ie if we can move the mortar and its crew together, let’s do that.
What the range under max payload ? I’ve never flown with more than like 6 guys with rucks in a griffon. I assumed that was because of practical weight restrictions with fuel / altitude / ect. It’s hard to do that calculation with one the actual numbers and just the wiki Cole’s notes on weights.

Sorry, it was quite literally one the prototypes of the Scorpion.

Pity, cool little vehicle. Then again we’d have gotten into CVRT and be stuck trying to move soldiers around in Spartans or something.

 

[Kirkhill]

Give me 6 months and a consulting contract and I write you a detailed staff manual for the employment of Light Forces, Griffons and ATVs....

Except that a Captain in 3 RCR did most of that work a few years back.

The Griffon has short legs. It is a one tonne pickup suitable for short runs around the neighbourhood. If you want to get from neighbourhood to neighbourhood then you need CH-147/148/149 in the mix or, as noted the Fixed Wing Fleet. What the Griffon does give you is the ability to clear hurdles in the neighbourhood - water hazards, woodlots and cliffs.

As to logistic sustainment of troops and vehicles in the field - the same way LAVs and Leos get sustained. But less.

Come on Mark. Cut me some slack here. I am not picking fights.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In Vietnam the US had the Mule, so we are sort of reinventing the idea again

In India they had/have Mountain artillery

 

[KevinB]

Give me 6 months and a consulting contract and I write you a detailed staff manual for the employment of Light Forces, Griffons and ATVs....

Except that a Captain in 3 RCR did most of that work a few years back.

The Griffon has short legs. It is a one tonne pickup suitable for short runs around the neighbourhood. If you want to get from neighbourhood to neighbourhood then you need CH-147/148/149 in the mix or, as noted the Fixed Wing Fleet. What the Griffon does give you is the ability to clear hurdles in the neighbourhood - water hazards, woodlots and cliffs.

Part of the Light issues in the CAF is the Rotary Wing fleets are too small to be effective, for anything larger than a Battalion.
- and that takes over 80% of the Rotary fleet to move in one lift.

As to logistic sustainment of troops and vehicles in the field - the same way LAVs and Leos get sustained. But less.

The problem that has always crippled the Light Force construct in Canada is support beyond road.
LAV and Leo travel roads (relatively) and so support can often be moved via road to them.

If you walked in, jumped in, or were dropped by Helo, the same support options for a road based system doesn’t exist.

Come on Mark. Cut me some slack here. I am not picking fights.

I think he’s just pointing out the obvious support infrastructure issues to any Light Force enabler

 

[markppcli]

Give me 6 months and a consulting contract and I write you a detailed staff manual for the employment of Light Forces, Griffons and ATVs....

yes, agreed. ATVs, see my post above. Move crew and weapon system. Mission Master / UGV is where my point of contention lies.

Except that a Captain in 3 RCR did most of that work a few years back.

I know, I read it. I agree with parts of it.

The Griffon has short legs. It is a one tonne pickup suitable for short runs around the neighbourhood. If you want to get from neighbourhood to neighbourhood then you need CH-147/148/149 in the mix or, as noted the Fixed Wing Fleet. What the Griffon does give you is the ability to clear hurdles in the neighbourhood - water hazards, woodlots and cliffs.

As to logistic sustainment of troops and vehicles in the field - the same way LAVs and Leos get sustained. But less.

LAVs and Leo’s are sustained by having integral wheeled fueling vehicles, with links back to fueling points and setting up rolling reopens. How does that work in an airmobile setting; we don’t have the lift capacity to be dropping off fuel bladders for the UGV ( presumably picked up by other UGVs?).

Come on Mark. Cut me some slack here. I am not picking fights.

And yet your tone begs to differ. My comment was purely about the value of a UGV carrying a mortar when you can have the whole team mounted together. You took exception, you changed tone.