Medium Armour Support/ Reconnaissance Regiment
In addition to contributing to an intelligence picture it will provide medium armour support and a number of other functions, primarily equipped with the FRES Scout and related variants, although there is still a place for the lightweight vehicles in order to provide a degree of flexible capabilities.
For FRES Scout and the Base Platform the MoD have opted for a tracked chassis, recognising that the advantages of tracks outweigh the disadvantages, in our proposed Mechanised Brigade structure the Medium Armour Support/ Reconnaissance Regiment would be equipped with the FRES Recce Block family, including the protected mobility, scout, repair, recovery and fire support variants.
Each Regiment would consist of 2 Reconnaissance Squadrons, 1 Fire Support Squadron, 1 Support Squadron and HQ elements. The HQ element would consist of protected mobility and command variants, enough to support distributed operations as the Regiment may be deployed over a wide area.
Reconnaissance Squadron
A Reconnaissance Squadron would consist of a Squadron HQ, 3 Reconnaissance Troops and a Logistic Support Troop.
2 of the Reconnaissance Troop’s will be equipped with 4 ASCOD FRES Scout each and the Logistic Support Troop would be tasked with various support functions like repair, recovery, force protection and ambulance.
The third Reconnaissance Troop would be equipped with a combination of lighter vehicles like Jackal, Coyote, Force Protection Ocelot (if it hopefully replaces LR and maybe even Jackal) and quad bikes depending on the requirement. It is important that at least one troop in the squadron retains some degree of helicopter air mobility.
Dismounted infantry might be organic or attached from other units as needs dictate (thanks gents)
The existing Formation Reconnaissance squadrons are nominally scaled for another troop, the Guided Weapon Troop, that uses the Striker version of the CVR(T) equipped with the long range Swingfire Anti Tank Guided Weapon. The Swingfire is now long out of service so this capability area remains essentially unfilled, originally they were designed to provide overwatch and anti tank cover for the Scimitars that would be deployed in harms way forward and on the edge of the area of operations. It might be argued that this role is now taken by the Apache AH1 Attack Helicopter and RAF aircraft to some extent, but they are a finite and usually over tasked resource that might have trouble operating in restrictive airspace or very bad weather.
I think there is still a need for ground launched long range guided weapons.
The certainties of the Cold War produced some extremely advanced autonomous anti armour weapons like Brimstone, able to selectively destroy large quantities of military vehicles with very sophisticated guidance technology in fire and forget mode. Iraq and Afghanistan have confirmed the ‘old fashioned’ man in the loop systems are now of greater use, as evidenced by for example, the dual mode Brimstone. Top attack weapons are also of less value when attacking small targets hiding behind cover in buildings for example, restrictive rules of engagement and the desire for greatly reduce collateral damage means that some of the advanced modes of operation are now less practical. The increasing use of Javelins to attack small groups or even individual Taleban in Afghanistan is another stark example.
The UK has engaged with MBDA in along term partnering arrangement for complex weapons but there is some synergy between an Army requirement for a long range anti tank missile and the RAF Selective Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) programme. SPEAR has been going in one concept form or another for nearly a decade and included 5 capabilities; Capabilities 1 and 2 to be met by developments of the Raytheon Paveway IV and the MBDA Dual-Mode Brimstone, respectively, other improvements are also being considered. Capability 3 is understood to correspond to what was previously SPEAR Drop 2 and there was some talk of an extended range Future Anti Surface Guided Weapon (FASGW) or Sea Skua replacement, being used by the RAF. The fourth element of the revised program encompasses upgrades to the Storm Shadow cruise missile, while the fifth element could cover a longer-range cruise missile. Up to date information on SPEAR is hard to find but the partnering arrangement does not appear to include any ground launched missile or a replacement for the Attack Helicopter’s Hellfire missile. The UK has also participated in a number of other programmes including the European Modular Missile and the Multi Role Combat Missile. The US has also finally got to grips with a common missile in its revitalised Joint Air to ground Missile (JAGM) that will be launched from both helicopters and fast jets and will have a tri mode seeker, multi purpose warhead and 16-28km range, depending on launch platform.
If the UK decides that a ground launched long range missile is desirable then in the long term it should be striving for commonality across all three services with a single family of missiles that can be launched from fast jets, helicopters, small ships and vehicles/ground mounts. Dual and tri mode seekers might reduce logistic complexity but will inevitably drive costs up so a single missile ‘family’ might be an appropriate route, one thing is certain, we need to maximise commonality across all three services, the Common Anti Air Modular Missile programme is an excellent example of this, we should ensure that the same approach is followed for anti surface target missiles as well.
In the short to medium term, it should be relatively straightforward to use the already designed Hellfire vehicular launching system on the ASCOD base platform or even design one similar to the Striker configuration. The Hellfire II long range guided missile has a number of warheads options, 500 – 8,000m range, fires from a defilade and has the ability to detach the fire control unit from the launching vehicle (like Striker) would make this a powerful and versatile system. Although the Hellfire is larger than Swingfire, the ASCOD2 is larger than the Striker.
An even cheaper option might be to use Javelin and a dismounted infantry team.
Another alternative might be the CRV-7PG I mentioned in the post on heavy armour.
Fire Support Squadron
The role for this squadron would be to provide direct fire support for dismounted infantry and other units, in this proposal the Mechanised Infantry brigade is much lighter than the existing ones, no Warrior and Challenger for example, so this squadron is the Brigades heavy hitter.
The ASCOD2 already has a version that uses a 105mm tank gun and the version with the Royal Thai Marines have selected the version with the Denel Land Systems LMT105 turret
ASCOD2 LT105
Other options that have been prototyped with the ASCOD chassis include the Oto Melara HITFACT turret and the General Dynamics M6801 auto loading system from the Stryker MGS, although the latter is the perhaps the least suitable as it uses a complex/expensive unmanned mounting and the main reason the US selected the weapon was because it came from old M1A1’s rather than any inherent suitability for a lighter chassis.
ASCOD and GD 105mm
The CMI 90mm or 105mm weapons might also be considered.
The 105mm direct fire canon would seem a sensible route to take for direct fire support and there are many NATO standard ammunition natures in production from a variety of sources, it is a low cost and low risk option although there are also a number of 120mm weapons that might also be considered from Rheinmetall and Oto Melara to name but two.
Each Squadron would be scaled for 4 troops with 4 vehicles each plus the standard Logistic Support Troop.
Support Squadron
The final element of the Medium Armour Support/ Reconnaissance Regiment is the Support Squadron that would provide a number of disparate functions but comprise 4 Troops plus the standard Logistic Support Troop.
1 Troop – Remote Fires Integration, this troop would be manned by forward air controllers and make up Tactical Air Control Parties as needed. Individuals would be able to integrate all forms of indirect fire from land, air or maritime platforms. Given the increasing need and availability of precision indirect fires the ability of Army units to direct those fires needs to expand. Vehicles might be split between a FRES ASCOD Protected Mobility and other high mobility vehicles such as Jackal/Panther in the short term and in the medium term, hopefully the Ocelot. In any case, a mix of vehicles should be used.
2 Troop – Observation, this troop might be larger than normal with a broader range of roles including long range sniping missions, ground observation and NBC Reconnaissance. In an increasingly urbanised environment and where there might be restrictions on the use of aircraft and UAS the need for enduring passive and active ground surveillance remains.
A typical vehicle might be the FRES ASCOD with a hydraulic articulated boom that mounted a sensor head; electro optical, radar and acoustic. For an idea of a similar vehicle have a look at the Czech Sněžka reconnaissance vehicle.
Snezca
3 Troop – UAS, in an earlier post we suggested a Brigade level UAS to compliment and/or replace the Watchkeeper 450 and the Boeing/Insitu Scan Eagle would be the preferred system because it does not need any fixed launch and recover facilities. As ground based UAS become viable they might also be integrated. Each troop would be equipped with 3 systems. Again, vehicles would be likely a mix between FRES ASCOD and lightweight vehicles.
A fourth troop might consist of an NBC Reconnaissance capability, detached from a centralised ‘pool’ of divisional support units although this would not be the norm.
This is a departure from currently accepted structures because it places UAS and remote fires control outside of the Royal Artillery.
Another informed and interesting post.
So naturally I’m going to pick holes. No offence is meant.
First off, where are the dismounts? There are plenty of terrain types that you might not want to send an AFV up to or into for fear of losing it or tipping your hand. Small urban areas, crossing points, areas of dense foliage and other complex geography are all best reconnoitred by infantry. The current/recent Formation Recce establishment features a troop of infantry per squadron, plus three Sabre troops (cavalry silliness) and a guided weapon troop, these days carrying Javelin, which provides a useful ISTAR asset in the TI CLU.
My first observation is the difference between UK and mainland Europe; the Netherlands and Germany chose the Fennek scout car, bristling with sensors, while the UK FRES Recce is still a AIFV.
Brimstone – nice, but not an option.
Although I really like its long-range, its seeker and connectivity, the missile is just too large to be practical for ground users.
There were US tests with a Hellfire missile carrier (M113) and although it could carry 8 missiles in a turret (think ADATS with boxy launchers), it couldn’t carry any reloads. And even if it could, the modified M113 had to withdraw/disengage for reloading. Serious thought was given about adding a crane, increasing the complexity/vulnerability of the launcher vehicle.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_YlJ2nlv_7nA/Sm0Wy_Gd0BI/AAAAAAAAAB0/pTYJnJ2eXNk/IMG00363.jpg
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_0p6VNZ5RkT0/Sko1L-3Dj_I/AAAAAAAAAHA/nqUmYrJ5luc/s288/hellfire.jpg
The Swedes use the Hellfire as RBS-17 on a flimsy tripod launcher in a coastal missile role, and in theory it is manpackable, but the missile itself is just too large, too heavy and too cumbersome.
Alternatives? If the US NLOS-LS could be made to work, that would be my first and only choice. The IAI Jumper is another. Both missiles are vertically launched from a box-launcher, which can be towed on a trailer or integrated in a FRES derivative.
The SPIKE family of ATGWs is certainly attractive, ranging from short to (very) long range variants.
LAHAT is yet another Israeli munition with potential, and perhaps TRIGAT LR has some life left in it.
I wholeheartedly agree that every regiment should have an organic UAS capability, with info analysis and integration staff.
The Regiment should also include expanded COMINT and SIGINT units. A 2x 3-man I-COM unit is the bare minimum – an absolute essential capability.
And as Mr.fred pointed out, dismounted infantry/scouts are a MUST in todays complex ops.
Remember; UAVs, cameras and other gadgets can observe, but it takes a trained recce specialist to nose around and get the ‘feel’ of the place.
I would also integrate a dedicated engineer troop, what with IEDs being so popular. Integrating within the regiment is important because the engineers need to get into the mind-set, culture and dedicated role of the recce (cavalry?) regiment.
it is what is called an ‘oversight’
well spotted!!
will update now
Nice article indeed, I will provide you with a ‘fantasy’ CV90 based response seeing as you have taken the real world ASCOD approach.
The dismounts do not need to be part of the Force Recce Regiment per se. The normal Army way of working as we have discussed in the comment threads to recent posts is to “mix and match” – if a Recce Squadron was attached to a Battle Group, then you can expect infantry to be attached as the Recce dismounts. They would be from the Recce platoon, so they would have the necessary tactics and kit, but of course I admit this might require additional training for an attached group who are not normally in armoured / mechanised infantry battalion.
I am all for the mast mounted EO / radar etc and would go for a smaller size UAV – lots of people on here seem to like Scan Eagle, or maybe even Schiebel Campcopter 100 ??
I would not personally attach the troop of ‘light’ vehicles, at least not the current crop. I would leave Jackal / Jackal 2 / LandRover Wolf WIMIK with the Recce Platoon’s of Mechanised Infantry and light units, but as pointed out on here before a requirement for a smaller ‘close recce’ vehicle might be met by the Fennec.
first of all thanks for the photo of striker, fond memories of squeezing through the smallest rear door in NATO and then bending into a crazy shape around the equipment in th back in a vain attempt to fix it!
As usual jed and i agree, and i agree about the smaller vehicle i have waxed on about the fennek, however i would like to throw another contender in the ring the BAe RG34, it’s a proven design that BAe have bought and it has good size for equipping with mast sights etc etc. Also if we went for the Rg family (31,32 35 etc).
At least there would be no need to aquire licenses to
build and hopefully get BAe to build in britain and also kickstart to some defence exports (ha ha)!
Ascod is good but a bit big and noisey for recce
unrelated subnote on missiles, US navy has ordered low level production of the BAe laser guided 70mm hydra rocket could be one to watch, cheap smart missile
a link to photos and description of RG34
http://www.defense-update.com/photos/iguana_rg-34_040709.html
Paul, thanks for that, it looks like an interesting vehicle. I am getting into the lighter vehicles now that will equip the infantry battalions
My idea for the Observation Troop in the Support Squadron was to use a large hydraulic arm rather than a straight up and down mast, to give some flexibility. This would need a tracked vehicle, potentially with outriggers, to provide stability. Why this option, primarily for use in urban environments.
Jed, I have suggested the Scan Eagle for the as part of the Support Squadron, prising UAS out of the hands of the drop shorts might be a problem though
Marcase, I don’t think I was suggesting Brimstone for the ground role but the bog standard Hellfire II, there may be better options but Hellfire is in the logistics stream so it just seemed a pragmatic choice. If Javelin were available in a vehicle mount (other than lashing the launcher to the roof) then that might also be a good option. The old Swingfires were nearly 30kg. NLOS seems to be hideously expensive and the UK has the Fire Shadow Loitering Munition in the pipeline. My overall preference is for Spike because it could replace NLAW, Javelin, Hellfore and provide some degree of non line of site ‘man in the loop’ capability all in one family but that is about as likely as me walking to the moon!
Interesting thought in integrated COMING/SIGINT, it’s a capability area that will be increasingly important. Anyone else think we should organise this as Marcase suggests?
As for combat engineering and route clearance, that too is a specialist capability and likely to be retained at a higher formation and distributed as required, like medics and NBC now I think
Good post, and raises some interesting points.
There’s a definite need for a vehicle mounted ground launched AT missile as vehicles can do something a helicopter cannot and that’s switch off, cam up and wait. Helicopters are just too vulnerable on the ground and their time on station is always limited by fuel and weather.
As for the type of missile, Hellfire is not it. Its size would make it cumbersome, expensive and limit the number of rounds that can be carried. Also, it would be overkill for a lot requirements, when a smaller and lighter type would fit this role better.
As for a missile family, “If the UK decides that a ground launched long range missile is desirable then in the long term it should be striving for commonality across all three services with a single family of missiles that can be launched from fast jets, helicopters, small ships and vehicles/ground mounts.”
This specification immediately makes the missile somewhat large and heavy, there’s still a requirement for a lighter missile.
OK, so maybe Hellfire II is too big but it is in service, which makes it attractive
How this for a couple of off piste interim suggestions then
1.
Go back to TOW. It is still being manufactured, has a huge installed base, is absolutely cheap as chips, still effective, has a wide range of warheads and crucially, retains the main in the loop guidance. The US is even developing a network connected version
http://www.ausaredstone.org/files/CCWS%20PMO%20Briefing%202009%20TM%20Conference.pdf
2.
Go back to Milan for vehicle installation, again still being manufactured (in India) and even cheaper than chips.
With these older missiles that might be a little less glamorous one can afford to swarm them against targets!
Either that or a CRV7-PG
Erm we seem to be looking for a new missile what about the Thales Lightweight Multi-Role missile? It’s lightweight under 20kg’s and has a range of a couple of km’s and commonality with starstreak. It might not have the hitting power that the other options have but it’s designed to take out things up to around APC size. Maybe there would also be the possibility of a flexible launcher to take a mixture of LMM and Starstreak for all round protection against land and air targets both are laser beam riding IIRC. I don’t know enough but it’s maybe a good idea for a Recce regiment operating forward of the main force and possibly on the fringes of air defence coverage?
I agree with Jed’s suggestion of having the Fennek as the light end of Recce regiment as it suits the role well and is available off the shelf and has that used in Afghanistan label on it. I also agree with the Schiebel Campcopter suggestion as it would be easier to launch and recover and would be a more compact system.
The choice of missile should be determined by what you want to do with it.
If you want to take on armoured vehicles, 2.75″ rockets are not going to cut it, nor is LMM, and even Milan would struggle these days. SACLOS systems need to be able to dismount the sight so the vehicle is not exposed to fire.
Hellfire has the advantage that it can be fired from complete defilade and guided onto the target by any other platform/unit in the vicinity, so you don’t need to get the launch platform to acquire the target first. Hellfire is quite big, but it’s no heavier than a 155mm shell. The equivalent performance SPIKE is 10kg lighter but just as bulky. Spike has an advantage in that it can acquire targets in defilade without exposing any platform – it can fire blind and then update.
The FV438 could carry 14 Swingfire rounds, and unlike the FV102 Striker could be re-loaded from inside the vehicle, a definite advantage!
The Milan is a great as a man-portable system, and running in while carrying a firing post or two missiles helps you appreciate the advantages of a light weight ATGW! As a vehicle mounted system its wasn’t so successful as the Spartan MCT (Milan Compact Turret) only carried two rounds and had to be re-loaded externally, a potentially suicidal venture it shared with the Striker. Although, the Spartan MCT does demonstrate that a system like Javelin could be vehicle mounted without too much trouble.
TOW has a lot of potential but I think it is let down by its vehicle deployment in the M901, essentially a converted M113 with a ‘Hammer head’ turret. When mounted on the Bradley, again it has to be loaded externally.
Having given this some serious thought, stick with Javelin as a man-portable system and for a vehicle mounted system develope a reduced diameter Hellfire. It would be slimmer, lighter, less cumbersome and with a shorter range say 4500m (the current range of 8km is somewhat excessive). It would still utilise many of the current components and could be fired off existing launch rails on the Apache etc. Being lighter, helicopters could carry more rounds. It could then be vehicle mounted like the FV438, loaded internally and fired remotely. Any takers?
I was also thinking that it could also be developed Brimstone style and carried on fast jets, although given its shorter range this probably wouldn’t be practical.
How big a deal is a dismounted reload?
If its behind a hill offering fire support to engeaged troops marking targets, does it matter at all?
If its stumbled onto enemy forces, surely it would just fire the lot and run for it?
Obviously, its better to reload internaly on the move, but is the cost worth it?
I think it probably is, but just throwing it out there.
Internal loading isn’t mandatory, but its a nice to have! My reasoning is if they could do it on the FV438 40-odd years ago they should be able to do it today. This was one of the reasons I suggested a smaller Hellfire, as I imagined an ASCOD type vehicle in an almost identical setup.
Random rant: Your comment, “If its stumbled onto enemy forces, surely it would just fire the lot and run for it?”, got me thinking, if that scenario occurred why did they just have a five round swingfire box on top of the Striker? Why not fit a ten-round box and vastly increase the combat capability, 15 rounds instead of 10? Random rant over.
it would be very difficult to make a reduce diameter hellfire as it would require every component to be resized to the new diameter. For example circuit boards in missiles are made bespoke to the diameter of the missile fuselage. A missile could be made shorter by chopping propellant but you won’t save space unless you could stack them. A new missile would probably be easier than trying to re-size one.
i would also not dismiss LMM so quickly. I know it needs line of sight but according to
http://defense-update.com/features/2008/august08/smaller_is_better.html
Thales are thinking of adding a anti-tank tandem shaped charge warhead, so you’d get a lightweight fast missile with a range of 8km
C, I wasn’t dissing the LMM, just coming up with ideas to make the Hellfire less cumbersome. The thought of trying to re-load a 100lb+ missile within the confines of an armoured vehicle…awkward to say the least. Yes, it would result in a new(ish) missile, but the Hellfire has been in production for around 30 years, it could do with going on a diet!
The LMM looks fine though, personally I’d have thought we’d have developed an ATGW based on the Stinger, with a similar fire and forget capability and possibly with a dual MANPADS role. The technology should be almost there.
“For example circuit boards in missiles are made bespoke to the diameter of the missile fuselage”
Computers have moved a long way since 1982.
Moores Law, that the size of transisters would halve every decade (or something about the same) held true for a lot of that time.
Cutting 20% would be a redesign, but that could be all. We shouldnt need to ddvelop new componants.
Richard – all brainstorming is good ! However…. I would not waste money on re-sizing an existing missile.
You know where I am going with this don’t you chaps ? Turreted 120mm smooth bore automatic mortars…
You want non-line of site long range anti-tank ? How about the Strix 120mm IR guided top attack anti-armour round (in use, in production). You want direct, line of site medium range anti-tank, fire the IAI LAHAT tube launched laser guided ATGW from them (in use, in production). Just want plain old fashioned HE while your forward recce elements extricate themselves from contact with the enemy, you can have that too ! Even smoke screens…
Marcase suggests there should be an EW element to the Formation Recce Regiment, for simple SIGINT / COMINT.
Problem is these tasks are rarely simple. Currently all EW is division based in specliased signals units, and this is for good reason.
Now if we are fighting Terry Taliban with his commercial unencrypted 2-way radios, then an intercept should not be too difficult, but you will need a linguist / interpreter. However against someone with even commercial grade encryption, your not going to get any information out of your intercept.
OK, so how about Direction Finding ? This will help pin the bad guys down yes ? Well only if they are on older fixed frequency kit. If they have modern V/UHF or HF radios they will be using ‘spread spectrum’ transmission, AKA ‘frequency hopping’ – this is a pain if your trying to get a quick fix. However I could maybe go with a simple Comms DF capability.
We should however ensure the vehicles have radar warning receivers and laser warning so that they know if they are being ‘painted’ by the enemy’s active sensors.
Jed, re: LAHAT – is there anything it doesn’t do? Certainly seems to fit the bill.
The first question is why aren’t we using them already?
The second question is: are you a mortar salesman?
Forgive me for peeing on your beautifully crafted firework, but I wonder if the role of the armoured reconnaissance regiment cannot now be better performed by UAVs?
This being the case, FRES Scout and its variants could simply become a mobile reserve able to deploy rapidly to fill holes in the battlefield. If such a re-roling makes sense, then it does beg the question of whether such a task could be equally well performed by Challenger 2s and Warriors.
I am sure ASCOD2 is an okay vehicle, but I don’t see it as being a breakthrough design. In fact, I rather suspect that it is less capable than Warrior (please correct me.) If it is really Warrior 2 in disguise, then maybe it can be a good thing.
In the meantime, I would just add a simple reconnaissance troop (8 vehicles) to tank regiments and armoured infantry battalions. I’d buy Fenneks or design a purpose-built much smaller 3-man tracked vehicle with full IED protection and only a 12.7 mm HMG or 40 mm grenade launcher for self defence.
It depends on what the role of an armoured recce/medium armour regiment is as to whether a UAV can do it better. A UAV cannot check a bridge for weight capacity. It cannot gauge local opinion, provoke enemy reaction or detect hidden positions. A UAV cannot hold ground or exploit a detected weakness. It cannot screen or deny enemy recce efforts. It cannot operate in adverse weather conditions or in anything other than a permissive air environment.
Small UAVs could be used to enhance capacity, operating from the back of the FRES Scouts and used to investigate a kilometre or two in front of the ground vehicles.
In fact, the additional space in the back of the FRES SV is something that should be utilised to the fullest advantage (assuming that the programme goes ahead) This space could provide space for dismounted recce teams, FACs/FOOs, engineer teams, UAV operators, ATGW teams, EW and sigint and so on, while the 3 man crew concentrate on what is going on around them.
Nicholas – your not peeing on anything old chap, all ideas welcomed BUT don’t be suckered by the UAV hype, they are not the be all and end all of recce and surveillance, they are just another tool in the bag, and I think Mr Fred pointed out some of the problems with your idea. One day UAV’s directed by SkyNet may role the world, but not yet…….
In connection with the suggestions concerning the need or otherwise for a ground launched AT missile, would it not be a good idea (if affordable) to fit the weapon on an elevatable arm? Richard Stockley has it right when he says that the ground launcher vehicle can do something that helicopters cannot do, which is to “switch off, cam up and wait.” If the launcher vehicle seeks cover behind a slope or whatever, the elevatable arm could raise the missile and aiming system above the level of the cover without exposing the vehicle.
I don’t know whether anyone can remember a British Army programme some years ago now to produce just such a weapon system. It was, I seem to remember, given the name Panther. not to be confused with the later command and liaison vehicle of the same name! I think the original idea was embodied in the WWII vehicle, the Praying Mantis.
The Americans have an elevated station vehicle on M113 basis – the TOW iirc.
I did some research on mast-equipped vehicles for a possible blog post and the pattern is quite clear; this principle is in wide use for sensors (especially radars) and mostly given up for anti-tank purposes.
Specialised AT vehicles are simply out of fashion due to the demise of the red tank horde.
Germany had its own such project as well; it was cancelled for the same reason.
Even DP vehicle AT/anti-helicopter didn’t succeed.
The whole issue is probably obsolete anyway because a sensor mast really suffices if you can launch your missiles vertically or from another vehicle.
M901 ITV (Improved TOW) doesn’t raise its turret much, but there’s a ’99 development that does:
http://kr.blog.yahoo.com/shinecommerce/11978
Jed
I wouldnt complain if say, 10% of the warrior fleet is converted into a mix of none troop carrying fire support vehicles, why not a mix of Anti Tank Missile, 120mm Mortar, multiple autocannon and Air Defence Missile.
Brilliant post, Mr. Fred! I really can’t disagree with anything you’ve said. Goodness me, this is an intelligent, interesting and inclusive website. You guys should be working in the MoD – if indeed you aren’t already.
Sven, Jed er al, surely we don;t need to elevate the whole bloody missile system, when we already have non-line of site weapons.
Yes a telescoping mast to see over hills/trees etc is a very sensible idea and don’t know why we have not done it.
With regard to which missile is the most appropriate. Given a clean sheet I would go for the Gill/Spike. This should have won the medium range (Milan replacement) rather than Javelin IMHO… but we are where we are, so my vote hoes for Hellfire/dual mode brimstone. The reasons:
1. We already have it
2. It works
3. it has a very long range
4. Apache, UAVs and Fast Air can iluminate targets for the ground based missiles and vice versa.
With regard to reloading under armour. That’s got to be a no brainer. Do we really expect to have to stop the vehicle and clamber up the side to manually reload (aka the Milan mounted on a Spartan I think it was).
Jed, I am with you on the breech loading mortars… What ever happend to the RO (Royal Ordnance 120mm breech loading mortar?). That was a prototype long before others got in on the act.
My choice would be AMOS on FRES scount and NEMO on Viking/Warthog. Whilst I am on the subject, we should be making more of the Viking/Warthog vehicles for our light/amphibious forces and equiping them not just with the handful of versions that we currently have but Mortars (as suggested here) plus anti-tank, air-defence, UAV launchers and mortar locating radars etc.
Phil, I believe the RO project became the BAe Ground Systems Advanced Mortar System (AMS)- which appears to have morphed into the Armoured Mortar System Mk 2 (or AMS II) see: http://www.baesystems.com/ProductsServices/bae_prod_serv_ls_120mm_II.html
I have nothing against the BAe product, just think NEMO is a lighter turret for Warrior and AMOS has the advantage of the twin barrels.
However rather than integrate NEMO on Warthog, I would just stick with the manufacturers automatic muzzle loading SRAMS 120mm mortar: http://www.stengg.com/upload/1044MLQ8ZAeCOAW4C496.pdf
Don’t need an elevating ATGW launcher in my humble opinion, just drop these on top of tanks from any of the above mentioned mortars – STIRX:
http://www.saabgroup.com/en/ProductsServices/products_az.htm?url=http%3A//products.saabgroup.com/PDBWebNew/Generic.aspx%3FEntrance%3DProduct%26ProductCategoryId%3D270%26ProductGroupId%3D377%26ProductId%3D658
As someone noted earlier, perhaps I should be a salesman for the mortar industry…..
The only thing I would say to all you mortar salesmen out there is putting them in the FR/Fire Support formations means that for many fire support type missions you would have to integrate them into the already overly complex air/land space which puts restrictive ROE and airspace management issues in front of the fire control chain.
Much better to have something you can use immediately, so I am sticking with 105mm and a missile
I do agree, however, that there is a place for something like NEMO/AMOS to supplement 105mm Light Guns
I like the ST Kinetics lightweight version, it has been integrated onto the Bronco so getting it on our Warthogs shouldn’t be a problem
That said, NEMO has also been fitted to the BVs10
Have a look at the US Accelerated Precision Mortar Initiative
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/21/troops-clamor-for-precision-mortars/#axzz0l5Pc9vTw
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009MES/Knudson.pdf
But it’s not guns and missiles versus mortars, when the mortar can launch the missile or be used in direct fire mode
And ROE applies to all weapons systems and use cases !
Sorry, just clarify.
Are we saying theres a risk of a friendly aircraft being shot down accidentaly by a friendly mortar?
Really?
I mean sure yeah its possible, but is it at all likely?
Even aiming you need thousands of rounds to stand a tiny chance.