Infantry Vehicles

[AmmoTech90]

Definition of far. For me far is 200 yards away on the reverse slope of a hill and well dug in.

Hard to jam a tether.

I've used ROVs with a 100m tether, copper stranded, coax, and fibre optic. They require a lot of babying in an environment that isn't torn up by combat. When an automatic spool was available it was great until you had to turn a corner or move around a vehicle, or lamp post.
Never mind doing a quick turn and grinding your tether between tracks/wheels and shrapnel.
A tethered 'combat' ROV would suffer so many own goals you might as well have a Bradley ready to recover them all- an kill the enemy at the same time.

 

[FJAG]

How many MRZRs can you buy for the price of a Bradley?

This is where I have a problem with each and every one of your arguments on this topic.

No one here disputes the need for a properly equipped light force.

The question isn't: how many MrZRs can you buy for the price of a Bradley?" The question is: "how many MAZRs AND Bradleys do you need to build a properly balanced force?"

 

[quadrapiper]

This is where I have a problem with each and every one of your arguments on this topic.

No one here disputes the need for a properly equipped light force.

The question isn't: how many MrZRs can you buy for the price of a Bradley?" The question is: "how many MAZRs AND Bradleys do you need to build a properly balanced force?"

On the eternal "what to do with the Reserves," would it be worth pushing MRZRs and or similar out to PRes infantry units, and anyone else whose trade encompasses a "light" role? Seem like a handy tool for some DOMOPs, more armoury-friendly than LAVs, TAPVs, and so on, less of a placeholder than Milverados, and to hold integral potential for useful and interesting training as well as being an enabler for fuller use of training areas and anything where a choice falling between hump it and pickup truck would be handy.

 

[Kirkhill]

This is where I have a problem with each and every one of your arguments on this topic.

No one here disputes the need for a properly equipped light force.

The question isn't: how many MrZRs can you buy for the price of a Bradley?" The question is: "how many MAZRs AND Bradleys do you need to build a properly balanced force?"

The question then becomes: how many Bradleys are you willing to sacrifice for a larger quantity of MRZRs (or other similar but lesser pieces of kit)?

Is a pair of Bradley Battalions more useful than a single Bradley Battalion and a light Brigade? And under what circumstances?

My contention is that I would rather have a variety of tools to hand rather than having one exquisite.

...

Everyone seems to think that I argue the binary - either/or. Far from it. I argue a spectrum - a little of this and a lot of that, or perhaps something less of the other. When I put something up for discussion I am trying to find out what it would add, if anything.

I am not inclined to swap 60mm mortars for 40mm AGLs. My question is how many 60mm mortars AND 40 mm AGLs can I afford. When do the 60 mm and 40 mm units overlap by doing the same job and when do they complement each other and do things the other can't.

So, with LUVs, when are they adequate replacements for a LAV and when is the LAV the only solution. Equally when can the LUV do things that the LAVs can't.

I know I don't want to be charging trenches in a LUV. On the other hand do I need to tie up a LAV to cover a trench line I expect to occupy for months? Can I get the LAV to the trench in the first place? Am I going to be there before the enemy gets there so that I can dig in? Or am I going to have to fight my way on to the objective?

I agree with this

The question is: "how many MAZRs AND Bradleys do you need to build a properly balanced force?"

But, from my perspective, to answer that question you need to be aware of the limitations of an unbalanced force. How much can be accomplished with MRZRs and what can't be done? Likewise for the LAVs and Bradleys.

....

When asked to evaluate a system I don't evaluate it against a specific task. I evaluate the array of possibilities the system offers and find out if the specific task falls with that envelope, that array. That allows me to figure out what I do next with the kit at hand when the plan falls apart and the situation changes but the intent remains the same.

 

[FJAG]

On the eternal "what to do with the Reserves," would it be worth pushing MRZRs and or similar out to PRes infantry units, and anyone else whose trade encompasses a "light" role? Seem like a handy tool for some DOMOPs, more armoury-friendly than LAVs, TAPVs, and so on, less of a placeholder than Milverados, and to hold integral potential for useful and interesting training as well as being an enabler for fuller use of training areas and anything where a choice falling between hump it and pickup truck would be handy.

I quite agree that something like a MRZR or even an ISV would be useful for those ARes units which are designated to light infantry roles. I personally dislike Milverados and MSVS Milcots for the simple reason that they are bought as stand-ins and not as "deployable." I think that with the financial limitations, the army shouldn't waste nickel one on non-deployable kit but find better ways for the RegF to share operational equipment with the ARes. Yes, it will buy less total numbers of vehicles but increase the numbers of operationally useable one.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I've used ROVs with a 100m tether, copper stranded, coax, and fibre optic. They require a lot of babying in an environment that isn't torn up by combat. When an automatic spool was available it was great until you had to turn a corner or move around a vehicle, or lamp post.
Never mind doing a quick turn and grinding your tether between tracks/wheels and shrapnel.
A tethered 'combat' ROV would suffer so many own goals you might as well have a Bradley ready to recover them all- an kill the enemy at the same time.

interesting, wonder how well it worked?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1735652247793442897

 

[KevinB]

US Approves $125 Million UK Javelin Missile Request

The US State Department has approved a Javelin missile sale to the UK government worth an estimated $125 million.

www.thedefensepost.com

I will stipulate that the US plays favourites and sells at whatever price it likes - just like any other used car salesman.

MSRP. MSRP (+). MSRP (-). Free under the appropriate marketing plan with the right coupon.

We donate vehicles and other equipment etc we divest via FMA (Foreign Military Assistance) one just needs to ask. I know that DoD weighs the requests on a value added scale - So Canada asking for 300 for domestic use would not get a good rating versus asking for 98 for an eFP Bn in Latvia.

WRT pricing of systems. We have a plethora of contracting rules (enough to make you vomit repeatedly) but an OEM can’t sell an item ‘commercially’ cheaper than one sells to DoD. Generally that’s an economy of scale aspect anyway, but it’s also why sometimes one can get a better deal not going through FMS. Then for FMS sales there are factors of which size of the order is also factored.

Big orders get the administrative fee amortized over the entire order, and can be very close to DoD actual costing. Small orders not so much.

Canada never seems to have the right coupon.

Reality seems to be that we are always paying over the odds and that even the export prices are too low.

....


Having said that I note that most of your infantry does not have Bradleys. You have Bradleys with no infantry and infantry with no Bradleys.

We don’t want or need 100% of our Infantry to be Heavy Mech.

You want to get rid of thoes M2A2s? I'm sure that T2B and MarkPPCLI would be only too happy to take them off your hands.

I don’t think Canada wants M2A2 OSD variants. Canada would want the M2A5 prototype and then complain that it’s $$$$.

 

[AmmoTech90]

interesting, wonder how well it worked?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1735652247793442897

It would be fine over open ground. But look in the background, there's a bunch of folks controlling it.
That was the main job out the no2 on an IED team when the pedsco was deployed. We had a big, thick tether. They laid out in a specific pattern and made sure it went out and was recovered properly.
Oh how we envied the RCMP with the RF mod.

Also, AP mines?

 

[FJAG]

interesting, wonder how well it worked?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1735652247793442897

I'll stay with Viper like technology.

 

[GR66]

I definitely think UGV's have a role but I think manufacturers are being far too optimistic with their proposed "combat" versions. These vehicles look like they can be relatively easily immobilized by a wide variety of dismounted weapon systems used by enemy infantry in addition to mines, artillery, UAV's, etc., never mind enemy IFVs.

Recce role? Heavy Weapon Carrier? To use your Bradley vs MRZR argement - how many quad copters or loitering munitions can you purchase for the price of one of these UGV's?

Where I agree that these types of systems can definitely shine is as "mules" to support dismounted or entrenched infantry, high risk/high exposure missions like mine clearance, carriers for weapons systems that are NOT deployed in LOS of the enemy such as C-UAS and AD systems, etc.

$0.02

 

[Kirkhill]

I definitely think UGV's have a role but I think manufacturers are being far too optimistic with their proposed "combat" versions. These vehicles look like they can be relatively easily immobilized by a wide variety of dismounted weapon systems used by enemy infantry in addition to mines, artillery, UAV's, etc., never mind enemy IFVs.

Recce role? Heavy Weapon Carrier? To use your Bradley vs MRZR argement - how many quad copters or loitering munitions can you purchase for the price of one of these UGV's?

Where I agree that these types of systems can definitely shine is as "mules" to support dismounted or entrenched infantry, high risk/high exposure missions like mine clearance, carriers for weapons systems that are NOT deployed in LOS of the enemy such as C-UAS and AD systems, etc.

$0.02

I'll start at the bottom and work my way up.

carriers for weapons systems that are NOT deployed in LOS of the enemy such as C-UAS and AD systems, etc.

Agreed

Where I agree that these types of systems can definitely shine is as "mules" to support dismounted or entrenched infantry, high risk/high exposure missions like mine clearance

Agreed

Recce role? Heavy Weapon Carrier? To use your Bradley vs MRZR argement - how many quad copters or loitering munitions can you purchase for the price of one of these UGV's?

I'll split the difference with you on this one. I agree on the recce role and the benefit of quad copters and loitering munitions over a recce ugv.

I disagree on the Heavy Weapons Carrier.

I definitely think UGV's have a role but I think manufacturers are being far too optimistic with their proposed "combat" versions. These vehicles look like they can be relatively easily immobilized by a wide variety of dismounted weapon systems used by enemy infantry in addition to mines, artillery, UAV's, etc., never mind enemy IFVs.

I agree that these carriers are vulnerable.

But.

So are the infantry that they are accompanying. They too can be "easily immobilized by....."

Also vulnerable are the machine gunners and atgm gunners manning the trenches.

This has given rise to this
And this

Themis with the M230 LF / XM914 is merely an extension of the concept.


Would you be happier if the Support company was equipped with the static tripods for the MGs, AGLs and ATGMs and had a Air Defence Platoon with M230s mounted on Themis with a MACE control tower?

Then the gunner just has to get to the gun to clear jams and reload.

If the gun is on wheels than it can return to the gunner for servicing.

Armed Forces of Ukraine to be equipped with ShaBlia remote weapon stations

The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine has authorized the first ShaBlia remote weapon stations for operation in the Armed Forces of Ukraine

mil.in.ua

 

[GR66]

Also vulnerable are the machine gunners and atgm gunners manning the trenches.

You need to be careful not to overly equate what is happening in Ukraine with what may happen in a future war. Just because Ukraine is largely a static, infantry-centric war it doesn't mean all wars will be.

Is there possibly a role for what is basically a dismounted infantry RWS? Sure. But you seem to be making the stretch into these being some kind of alternative form of combined arms element of a light force that can stand in for traditional, heavy combined arms forces rather than a tool that can assist light forces in fulfilling the roles that light forces traditionally fulfill.

 

[Kirkhill]

You need to be careful not to overly equate what is happening in Ukraine with what may happen in a future war. Just because Ukraine is largely a static, infantry-centric war it doesn't mean all wars will be.

Is there possibly a role for what is basically a dismounted infantry RWS? Sure. But you seem to be making the stretch into these being some kind of alternative form of combined arms element of a light force that can stand in for traditional, heavy combined arms forces rather than a tool that can assist light forces in fulfilling the roles that light forces traditionally fulfill.

No. You are inferring something I am not implying.

As you say these are tools that assist in managing some conflicts in some situations. They add to the collection of tools accumulated over millenia.

I am not looking for something that revolutionises warfare and rewrites doctrine. I am looking at what can be done today with the stuff that is at hand that keeps friendlies alive and eliminates the other chaps as cheaply as possible.

I don't really care if the solution only lasts one battle.

That might be one battle won as a result. Tomorrow's battle might or will require something different.

 

[markppcli]

No. You are inferring something I am not implying.

As you say these are tools that assist in managing some conflicts in some situations. They add to the collection of tools accumulated over millenia.

I am not looking for something that revolutionises warfare and rewrites doctrine. I am looking at what can be done today with the stuff that is at hand that keeps friendlies alive and eliminates the other chaps as cheaply as possible.

I don't really care if the solution only lasts one battle.

That might be one battle won as a result. Tomorrow's battle might or will require something different.

If everyone else responding to you is missing your point, I’d suggest your not doing a very good job making it.

 

[Kirkhill]

If everyone else responding to you is missing your point, I’d suggest your not doing a very good job making it.

You are absolutely right.

 

[Fabius]

Here are a couple pictures showing the current weapons outfit and configuration of 3 RCRs MRZRs.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php/?photo_id=670108938617263

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php/?photo_id=670108948617262

 

[GR66]

Roshel has unveiled a Senator MRAP Pick-up truck to go along with their APC version:

Canadian armored vehicle maker unveils Senator MRAP pickup

Roshel, the Canadian-based armored vehicle maker, has introduced its latest innovation, the Senator MRAP pickup. As noted by the company, this state-of-the-art multipurpose support vehicle is designed to cater to diverse operational needs, offering flexibility and reliability for modern military...

defence-blog.com

 

[FJAG]

Roshel has unveiled a Senator MRAP Pick-up truck to go along with their APC version:

Canadian armored vehicle maker unveils Senator MRAP pickup

Roshel, the Canadian-based armored vehicle maker, has introduced its latest innovation, the Senator MRAP pickup. As noted by the company, this state-of-the-art multipurpose support vehicle is designed to cater to diverse operational needs, offering flexibility and reliability for modern military...

defence-blog.com

Roshel is very quickly falling into the category of one of my preferred defence contractors. I can see a range of logistics and tactical vehicles from section carrier to cargo to ambulance to CP and beyond versions. for light forces.

 

[GR66]

Roshel is very quickly falling into the category of one of my preferred defence contractors. I can see a range of logistics and tactical vehicles from section carrier to cargo to ambulance to CP and beyond versions. for light forces.

It could likely mount a 120mm mortar like this:

as well as the same RBS 70 NG SHORAD system that Sweden is mounting on their BvS10's (and we're getting for eFP Latvia):

 

[IKnowNothing]

Roshel is very quickly falling into the category of one of my preferred defence contractors. I can see a range of logistics and tactical vehicles from section carrier to cargo to ambulance to CP and beyond versions. for light forces.

Light, or the new LAV as default for the non-mech/armour, with a smaller mech/armour force getting proper heavy metal?