Successul trials held for direct fire system

[Blakey]

Interesting and maybe informative read for all you TOW qualified people out there (RCR,VanDoo, & PPCLI).
http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=367

Exert

While the infantry and armour troops were fairly familiar with each other in the field, the air defence gunners were the new element to the mix in a number of ways. In fact the crews and their vehicles came from 4 Air Defence Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, in Gagetown, New Brunswick.

 

[McG]

The DFS is a significant step in Army Transformation. The end result will be the transformation of Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) from a traditional armour regiment into a DFS unit composed of multiple weapons systems. Instead of using tanks to deliver mobile heavy firepower, task forces will be able to deploy DFS teams equipped with the 105mm mobile gun system, as well as tube-launched optically-tracked wire-guided (TOW) and ADATS missiles in an integrated system. Using all three systems in a layered approach from up to eight kilometres away, the DFS team will be able to provide soldiers with the direct firepower to take the objective and achieve the mission.

While the vehicles themselves will be different in the future, Major Paul Peyton says the weapons systems will be the same. Maj. Peyton, the officer in charge of the trials, says the armour, infantry and artillery were able to work out the nuts and bolts of integrating on the field into something that will give deployed forces a considerable punch in combat operations.

"We found that these three platforms can be integrated into something that is more than the sum of its parts," he says. "It is decisive, flexible and sustainable. It has the potential to be the most effective land-based direct-fire organization ever."

Is there anybody here who was on the exercies and that can comment on how well this worked?

Despite the trials' successes, everyone involved said there is still a lot more work to do. The next step will be to take the results in the field and translate them into doctrine and tactics for the whole Army. In the meantime, the work will continue towards more DFS training in the coming year, with the aim of fielding a cohesive direct fire team in the near future.

 

[George Wallace]

Interesting.  In my day we had M109s with 155 mm rds reaching out to touch the enemy.  Then as the enemy got closer we had tanks with 105 mm and TOW and mortars along with the 155 arty to engage him.  When he got closer we had tanks, arty, mortars, TOW, M72 and Eryx, .50 Cal, and 7.62 mm.  If he got too close we added some 9mm and bayonets.

What is so new about 'Layers"?

GW

 

[aesop081]

Interesting.   In my day we had M109s with 155 mm rds reaching out to touch the enemy.   Then as the enemy got closer we had tanks with 105 mm and TOW and mortars along with the 155 arty to engage him.   When he got closer we had tanks, arty, mortars, TOW, M72 and Eryx, .50 Cal, and 7.62 mm.   If he got too close we added some 9mm and bayonets.

What is so new about 'Layers"?

GW

I think "transformation" is the new buzzword for "reinventing the wheel"

 

[George Wallace]

;D

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Very good analogy,...but unfortunately they are trying to make that tiny spare in the trunk do the full-time work of the old 4x4 tire.

 

[Blakey]

Very good analogy,...but unfortunately they are trying to make that tiny spare in the trunk do the full-time work of the old 4x4 tire.

I like that analogy, seems to nail it right down.

 

[aesop081]

Why is it i can't help but feel that "transformation" ( ATOF too while i'm at it) is like a used car salesman. Its the same old shit....emphasis on old.  They are making it sound like some kind of revolution but IMHO, all it brings to the army is decreased capabilities. I know this is the subject of alot of other threads here but i don't buy this "niche" capabilities thing at all.  Alliances are great but what happens WHEN we have to do our own dirty work ?

 

[George Wallace]

...... They are making it sound like some kind of revolution but IMHO, all it brings to the army is decreased capabilities. I know this is the subject of alot of other threads here but i don't buy this "niche" capabilities thing at all. Alliances are great but what happens WHEN we have to do our own dirty work ?

Ummm?...........We die......

GW

 

[022 AD Gunner]

I was not there, but talking to the troops who went said it was a good show all the NCM,s from all three trades worked hard to make it work. Aswell by the end of the EX there was the playfull cutting up between the three trades.

From the PXR points I have read say this "new unit" will work if the CSS side is sorted out. But that being said we all know that they just need to be pointed in the right direction, and CSS is very good at ther job and will be great.

The AD guys are looking foward to be in a real Regt with clear direction, somthing we have never had. :skull: :skull:

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"Instead of using tanks to deliver mobile heavy firepower, task forces will be able to deploy DFS teams equipped with the 105mm mobile gun system, as well as tube-launched optically-tracked wire-guided (TOW) and ADATS missiles in an integrated system. Using all three systems in a layered approach from up to eight kilometres away, the DFS team will be able to provide soldiers with the direct firepower to take the objective and achieve the mission."

Doesn't this "layered approach" create more logistical problems as well as having 3 vehicles do the job of 1 (in a land role).  That is the most ass backwards thinking I have ever heard.  Also wouldn't this "layered" approach create a greater "signiture" to the enemy?

 

[George Wallace]

Doesn't this "layered approach" create more logistical problems as well as having 3 vehicles do the job of 1 (in a land role). That is the most ass backwards thinking I have ever heard. Also wouldn't this "layered" approach create a greater "signiture" to the enemy?

Well, with the Liberal's "Kinder - Gentler" Army, what better way to do it, than to lower the numbers of Combat Arms Troops and increase the numbers of the Admin and Support troops.

A friend sent me this:

How Government Works
Once upon a time the government had a vast scrap yard in the middle of the woods. Parliament said, "someone may steal from it at night." So they created a night watchman position and hired a person for the job.

Then Parliament said, "How does the watchman do his job without instruction?" So they created a planning department and hired two people, one person to write the instructions, and one person to do time studies.

Then Parliament said, "How will we know the night watchman is doing the tasks correctly?" So they created a Quality Control department and hired two people. One to do the studies and one to write the reports.

Then Parliament said, "How are these people going to get paid?" So they created the following positions, a time keeper, and a payroll officer, then hired two people.

Then Parliament said, "Who will be accountable for all of these people?" So they created an administrative section and hired three people, an Administrative Officer, Assistant Administrative Officer, and a Legal Secretary.

Then Parliament said, "We have had this command in operation for one year and we are $18,000 over budget, we must cutback overall cost."

So they laid off the night watchman.
Fm Dean Fairbairn    

 

[2 Cdo]

Thanks for making my day George. That was either the funniest thing I've read or the saddest. Depends on how you take it!

 

[Zipper]

That was awesome George. Even my wife saw the irony behind it (being a Federal employee and all).

As to the idea of layered light armoured vehicles. Didn't you know that survivability goes up if you have three targets instead of one? Someone will make it out alive. Lets hope it is you...

 

[EODSpr]

From the limited research I have done (heavy on the limited part) my impression of the MGS is that it just plain doesn't work all that well. I think I have the feel of the RCD out there from my conversations with them that they are just plain not impressed. I can understand this, I don't think I like the idea of following this MGS in the advance, and i'm sure our Armoured guys would rather have a little more armour between them and the bad guys. Are there any proponents in the rank and file for this thing?

E45

Chimo!

 

[George Wallace]

Not too many proponents in the Rank and File.   Gen Hillier did highly praise it in a half to 3/4 page letter to the Ottawa Citizen (copy in one of these threads), but he is the only 'RCD' that I know that thinks so.   Years ago, Rick Whelan was RGWO for the RCD and as such was down south to do trials on it.   He and his crew failed it.   GM and NDHQ, however, thought differently.  

GW

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Where is Hillier now?

 

[George Wallace]

Oh!    ;D

GW

 

[Cloud Cover]

Where is Hillier now?

LOL! Sometimes you just have the knack for capturing the moment. 

 

[Good2Golf]

Intersting note about a discussion that several of us in the Doctrine and Combat Capability Development world had with a US Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) Batallion Comd months ago...he said he'd didn't really know why we bought the MGS...and that he'd actually trade their MGS and LAV I's for our LAV III.  He noted that the only reason the MGS was developed was to fill the gap between a turretless LAV I with a .50 and the Bradley.  He said he'd kill to have our LAV III with turreted 25mm Bushmaster!  Ironic, eh?

Not that I've spent a lot of time in AFV's ;D ...but I'd mount CASW and ALAAWS to our LAV III's, skip the MGS, LAVTUA and MMEV.anyV entirely and go straight for FCS.  Do folks think that LAV III and an FCS-type AFV rally wouldn't provide a decent layered approach to a DFS capability compared to MGS/TUA/MMEV?

Then again, maybe I should just stay in my own office in DAD and amuse myself by making helicopter noises...  

Cheers,
Duey