Future weapons/equipment and their impact on the structure of infantry units [Archive]

Firn

February 13th, 2009, 11:10 AM

This is a rough analysis of the current structures and capabilities and an outlook on how new challenges, demands and equipment shape and will shape the way infantry fights.

Overview:

The squad/section is the building block of the platoon. It's size varies greatly between and within the different land forces and runs somewhere in the size of 7-15 men. It can be regarded as the smallest unit capable of "independent" small-scale maneuvers. The organic firepower to allow maneuver can be divided for most western forces in roughly 5 categories:

Organic Firepower

a) The readily available direct fire of the Assault Rifles: compact assault rifles chambered in the 5.56 NATO enable the 5-11 soldiers to shot accuratetly and to suppress with decent volumes of fire.

b) The high volume of direct fire of the 1-2 machineguns: Delivered with weapons chambered in the 5,56 NATO capable of a sustainable ROF of 500-800 rpms

c) The short-medium ranged indirect fire of the Granade launcher: 2-4 Grenadiers are equipped with a 40mmUGL while in other armies the riflemen use the riflegrenade

d) The very short indirect fire of the hand grenades: Usually all members of the squad carry a differing number of them

d) The shortranged Antitank/Bankerbuster capability: Delivered by RPGs or rockets (Carl Gustav, Panzerfaust, AT-4). Not always present.

The supporting firepower assets of the platoon:

a) CAS, artillery and organic or unorganic AFV and mortar fire called in by the Forward observer are the key to win the firefight: This makes the FO a very important member of the platoon

b) The high volume direct fire of 1-2 heavy/medium machineguns: Handled by a section of 2-3 men they are usually chambered in the 7.62 NATO they bring a heavy weight to bear in the firefight

c) The medium-long ranged guided AT/Bunkerbuster rocket launcher. The 1-2 sections of 2-3 men are able to defeat heavily armoured AFV and well protected positions.

d) Accurate medium-long ranged fire by Marksmen/Sharpshooters can be invaluable in a firefight, especially with strict ROE. Not always present or higer up.

e) Steep plunging indirect fire with considerable area effect compared to grenades: The mortar sections can engage well protected enemies from safe distances. Not always present and often organized higher up.

Conclusion:

So the platoon has a considerable amount of firepower at its disposal. However the combination of high personal protection and good firepower comes at the cost of very high burden and a terrific loss in mobility, endurance and thus fighting capability. The fighting load of some members of a marine squad is over 130 pounds - 50 pounds are usually considered to be the best combination of weight and capability.

So when we look at possible additions, the ratio between gain in capability and gain in weight must be closely watched.

Strengthening the base -watching the weight

a) The squad AFO or spotter. Currently only the FO the ability to geolocate and laze targets. However especially against multiple targets the ability to queue them up rapidly accelerates the firecycle for heavy firepower, mortars and CAS.

He also supports the Grenadiers and AT-gunner with accurate ranges making the burdensome rounds count. DM/Sniper also profit from precise ranging.

With no targets in sights he observes the environment with a variable (around 20-60x) spotting scope.

He carries the standard AC with compact sound suppressor and variable/standard optic (roughly 2-6x). If he acts as secundary ammo carrier he might use only PDW.

Performance/weight

This squad member should carry at most as much as a riflemen. The good spotter scope (http://www.opticsplanet.net/swarovski-sts80hd.html) with light tripod and the geolocating Moskito (http://www.vectronix.ch/#/en/news_press/current_news/moskito-midt).

This is perhaps the most effective addition to a squad, enabling to integrate fire support by AFV, CAS and IDF assets far better and faster than with a single FO for a whole platoon. This "outsourcing" of heavy firepower increases the fighting power greatly and must be used to lessen the burden of the infantry.

b) The Designated Marksmen or Sharpshooter. He works closely togheter with a squad spotter and forms with him one of the 1-3 DM training sections of the platoon. A riflemen of the "standard" 9 men strong squad could also be tasked as a DM. However a up to three man strong pool of DM would make training (coupled with the Spotters) easier and employment sounder.

Usually the DM should carry a semiautomatic sniperrifle (7.62 NATO) with a sound suppressor and a PDW (~HK7). Under special circumstances other weaponsystems up to an anti-material sniper rifle are possible.

The DM can be employed as squadmembers on the side of the AFO/spotters or as sharpshooters under the direct command of the platoon leader.

Performance/weight

Traditionally Sharpshooter at squad level or (some) at platoon level proved to be of immense importance in the WWII, especially on the eastern front. The recent wars/campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have once again proven the worth of a trained long-range shooter with high skills of observation. So in almost all cases it is a worthy addition. The DM should not carry more than a riflemen.

c) The specialized grenadier: Some Multi-shot 40mm grenade launchers are already available and battleproven. They provided tremendous firepower and increased accuracy but are heavy (~6kg). They rely on a PDW (with limited ammunition) for personal defense. Future weapons like the XM25 might make this role more widespread. A member of the squad might swap the AR with UGL for a MGL and a PDW but ammunition will be quite limited.

Such MGL profit greatly from accurate ranging and large amounts of ammuntion. The AFO/spotter is therefor an ideal companion for a section of two, togheter with a DM of three. With 18 grenades per men the MGL and accurate targeting.

Performance/weight

A heavy weapon and heavy ammunition make the great firepower very heavy to carry. While it might be a great addition for dismounted troops who operate short distances away from AFV it is IMHO too burdensome/costly for long operations on foot. I see this weapon really shine in convey operations as it can throw a lot of HE on ambushing units, helping to break it.

d) The UV-operator (Communications, Control of UGV/Micro UAV): While the SL/ FTL/Spotter may have in the near term the ability to get and share live informations in visual form in a small portable package (~PDA) this soldier adds specific capabilities. He carries the communication equipment and possibly a micro UGV or UAV. Other soldiers may assist in this task. With the same interface he controls them and the possible UGV "mule" which supports the squad by carrying large amounts amount of weight in difficult terrain - the traditional role of the good old mule. The equipment he carries is of course ideal for the tasks to to plug into the digital battlefield management systems. His primary weapon could be the standard bullup carabine or a PDW.

While this function/role/soldier might first appear in/as a platoon section it is certainly possible that it might become a organic squad capability. Togheter with the spotter he could form a formidable team, as they should be able to identify the enemy positions/forces and interpret, geolocate and digitalize the informations about them.

Performance/weight

The exact weight this soldier must carry is of course highly dependent on the level of technology available and his tasks. However it should be manageable and a light PDW might be possibly considered to lighten the burden.

More to come soon

Tavarisch

February 14th, 2009, 05:34 AM

Let's not forget short-ranged hand-held AAs for helis and slow-moving aircraft like the Igla, Strela and Stingers. I think, it's common for each squad to only have one of these men, depending on the situation though there may be more or none at all. Avenger AA sections supporting infantry can also fit this category.

For supporting, it would be a medium to long range AA missile system like the S-300 and S-400. These would take out high-altitude bombers and if possible, OpFor CAS and fast-movers.

AA Gun Systems like the ZSU-23-4M2, 2S6M and M163 Vulcans can provide low-to-mid level protection against aircraft that are going for the heavy AA missiles.

Radar coverage from AWACS (E-3 and Mainstays), if possible. Ground radars work too. Both must be protected in order to maintain air superiority.

Firn

February 15th, 2009, 02:45 PM

Tavarisch

February 16th, 2009, 09:49 AM

Well actually I think that a western army should handle threats from the air exclusivly with the airforce and the airdefence artillery. The infantry is typically so heavily overburdened already that adding a MANPAD "just in case" is another blow to the fighting prowess.

I also think that "outsourcing" the firepower is the way to go, especially in difficult terrain. I read about how much members of the US forces were forced to carry in Afghanistan in mountain operations. Having myself marched with heavy packs on boots, skishoes and skies in the mountains I think it is almost criminal to burden your soldiers in such a way. For training it is fine - as long the back holds - but for fighting not.

With the ever longer reach of the artillery/mortars and CAS and the ever more precise ammunition and the ever easier and faster ways to geolocate targets the IDF assets should do the heavy work. AFV are usually also within reach. Use their firepower as much as possible, use their presence to resupply as often as possible - up to 3-4 times a day. With this 24/7 support I think for example that Bunkerbuster RPGs or rockets should only carried if unavoidable.

Let's remember that you also have to include not only western armies, but also that of the East. Ukraine, Russia and friends are trying to get there too. And let's not forget that there are many environments and types of warfare that each army has to go through. It can range from the typical tank battle in the open field to the cramped fights of Urban living.

Nevertheless, totally neglecting anti-air missile systems can come at a cost, just as much as neglecting CAP support for air. They should be integrated, and must be carefully coordinated so that they don't blow each other up.

Firn

February 16th, 2009, 10:05 AM

Tavarisch

February 16th, 2009, 10:12 AM

I think we have rather similar thoughts. This thread focuses on western infantry. While I hardly think of a realistic scenario where a NATO army fights without total air and sea superiority GBAD is still an important part of the overall picture. I just said that it is nonsense to task western infantry with selfdefense against airthreats. If the airforce isn't able to dominate the air than the airdefense artillery should protect with its wide umbrella the land forces. Only in desperate situations it is worth for western forces to rely on manpads and to carry them.

Then you should add a bit to the title. If you mainly focus on Western Armies that is.

In any case, I think NATO airpower is sure to dominate their potential OpFors. Russian pilots get barely 1/3rd of what NATO pilots do in the amount of training hours. At the end of the day, the Pilot is the ultimate decision maker when it comes to battle tactics and maneuver. If the pilot is not sufficiently trained, he will lose his aircraft.

I guess that's why the Russians have so many different types of SAM systems and AA cannons.

Firn

February 16th, 2009, 10:16 AM

lobbie111

February 16th, 2009, 07:46 PM

Tavarisch

February 17th, 2009, 03:14 AM

I think one thing worth mentioning, is that unit sizes will increase to cope with the amount of computers and networking involved in modern warfare, Future soldier systems are not stuff of legend anymore...

Yeah, more rear echelon technicians and computer experts. Somebody has to be over the other side of the network.

exuroseason

February 17th, 2009, 06:03 PM

interesting thread gentlemen. :)

lobbie111

February 18th, 2009, 12:39 AM

When you say multi shot, what exactly do you mean by that? as in the six shooter that the US has at the moment or the metalstorm concept of multistacked rounds, or maybe both, now there will be an interesting theory...I like the STK concept maybe combined with a revolving multishot metalstorm all in one launcher now tharrr is a weapon

Tavarisch

February 18th, 2009, 03:55 AM

lobbie111

February 18th, 2009, 04:00 AM

You know what would be cool to see?

A HMG section carrying an M134 Minigun instead of a regular M240 or FN MAG. Not very practical but would be fun to look at.

However, there is talk of satellite targeting solutions for riflemen that will be fitted on their small personal computers. It's a good idea, but do you honestly think troops can carry an additional 2 kg for a computer?

A 2 kilo computer not likely, It was my thinking that troops will recieve a radio transmission device something like the MBTIR (the thales one) and a pda linked via a flexible cord that can do anything hardly 2kg of computer. You will say batteries, but they can be charged with solar power etc. I thin k you will find computers will become a large part of the soldier system

Firn

February 19th, 2009, 04:33 AM

I personally think that in the near term alll western squads/platoons will have the abilityt to get direct informations by ISTAR sources and feed them into the Digital Battlefield management system. The input device (something like a robust PDA with a large display and long battery life) should also allow to control UAV/UGV indirectly (giving them a GO-TO grid or a path) and to some degree directly (when a UGV gets stuck). A Gamepad/Controller might be used to manipulate the UGV/UAV through the radio. But usually it should of course be controlled by somebody in the rear.

A rather large UAV section at the platoon/company level should be a huge asset and force multiplier. UAV's like Raven (http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/raven.htm) should of course be primarely launched and supported by AFV and firebases. The Tier I UAV Raven Raven

In MOUT things like that would be greatmicrodrone.
Tier II UAV could also become an organic capability at company level of the modular force depending on the operational situation. Here a Tier II Scaneagle

Things like Miniguns are of course impossible to carry and impossible to support. Even the MGL M32 is already very difficult to support (heavy ammunition, heavy weapon) in dismounted operations...

OPSSG

February 19th, 2009, 04:56 AM

Rereading the first part I agree that it isn't clear that I focus on "western" forces.

For all the other armies which have not the wealth/allies to be sure to dominate the air, GBAD and especially Manpads are of very high importance...

@Firn,

I would like to give you a little feedback. You started the thread very well and some comments/ questions have taken it a little off-track. This is simply because of some minor conceptual misunderstanding in the comments. You should limit the discussion to infantry weapons and sensors. IMHO, sharpen the focus. Typically Manpads are a division asset or at the lowest a brigade asset (usually under attachment).

If you want, you can extend the discussion on sensors/tools/weapons used by MRRPs (medium range recce patrols) and LRRPs (long range recce patrols) and brigade level intelligence assets. Try not to go too broad - loss of focus means loss of ability to understand how a organic unit will operate.

Best Regards

Firn

February 19th, 2009, 06:56 AM

OPSSG

I agreee with you assessment and it is good to have some feedback by members which have a different military experience. It is hard to keep the focus when talking about highly interconnected organizational layers and abilites. Most people with no military background have a hard time to understand them. I will try to keep at the squad/platoon level and point out which assets should/are at the company level.

OPSSG

February 19th, 2009, 07:35 AM

@Firn,

Thanks for the kind reply.

IMHO, weight is key and there is a max. weight load beyond which soldiers in a section become ineffective. I can't speak for other armies but I can quote an example of load trials and equipment trials held by the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) in the late 1980s:

BG Leong (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/microsites/armymuseum/education/stories/Personal_Stories/1970s/Leong_Yue_Kheong.html) was thankful for the opportunity as CO of an Army 2000 experimental battalion in 4 SIR. He was tasked to work on the reorganisation of the Army infantry battalion as part of the Army 2000 programme. This was an awesome responsibility that BG Leong met head on:

"[4 SIR] was to conduct a series of field trials and experiments. But experiments could fail! I was worried... but we learned to be creative and look for the best ways to measure and quantify our trial results. It was important to ensure that the findings and observations were correct and we spent much time designing checklists and repetitive actions."

These experiments and trials were not without their fair share of problems however, especially when it came to managing the morale of the men. 4 SIR had to undergo overseas training and evaluation in two countries within three months with little time in between:

"We went to two countries in the first year of our training. The soldiers were only seven months old and when we finished our first overseas training, we had 42 days to redesign trials before we went overseas again. Some soldiers and parents were very upset, and it was hard to manage that. I gave a CO talk to every soldier and showed them a simple training programme so that they could help communicate to their parents why we had to go for two overseas training in such a short period of time. In our second overseas training, the battalion conducted a total of nine Battalion Mission exercises in two weeks, always operating with full combat loads."

Besides concluding the battalion experiments successfully, BG Leong believed in pushing the boundaries and setting high standards and goals for his men. Telling of his proudest moments as CO, BG Leong recalled the 50 km fast march he ordered to test the capability and endurance of the battalion. This was done with full combat load over 16 hours:

"We walked overnight for 50km, and we finished at Chestnut Drive at about 6.00am. It was the single proudest moment when I received the last soldier at the end-point. I was proud of the fact that as infantry soldiers, there was not a single drop-out. Every one of the soldiers who started the march in Live Firing Area A arrived with pride at the end-point. I then happily declared a super long weekend for the Battalion without first clearing with my Brigade Commander."

The 50km fast march was a load trial, to see if we had overloaded the infantry section. That's a grunt's life and the 4th Singapore Infantry Regiment (4 SIR) are a infantry battalion comprised of normal conscripts.

Thanks to trials above, the SAF decided to equip our section fire teams with the Ultimax 100 (http://www.ultimaxsaw.com/) (a section automatic weapon), disposable anti-tank/anti-wall weapons called the Matador (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/weapons/matador/) and 40mm grenade launchers. Please see the video below:

Matador

For us, other assets like 7.62mm general purpose machine guns, longer range anti-tank weapons and the mortar platoon are not section support weapons.

Firn

February 19th, 2009, 10:27 AM

Could you please post how high the combat load was for the 50km march?

Weight is certainly key. In the Alpini not the distance but the altitude covered was considered "il criterio" the key beside the weight to estimate the difficulty to the march. The altitude and the grade and outline of the slopes covered play an even more important when using skies (only suited for experienced members). While the support by vehicles has become vastly better (especially with the Bv206) the mulo is sourly missed on alot of slopes. The Fresia (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresia_F18_4x4) replaces it very well on certain terrain but not at all on very rocky and steep one. But in training/combat it could lift a huge amount of weight from the soldiers (ammunition, water/food, sleeping equipment).

Although I not sure how exactly things are organized nowadays (the Alpini became as the whole army a volunteer force) it was clear that the Milan could only be meaningfully employed by a special section (poor guys) or/and with the support of the Fresia. The Panzerfaust was also very heavy but more suited for a squad. Togheter with a laser ranging device it is far more accurate at long ranges. The same goes for the UGL in 40mm. Given that especially on mountains you can carry just so much accuracy becomes even more important in such a terrain. And with the long ranges - you can see sometimes vehicles at distances from huge ranges (IIRC sometimes up to 40-50km, spotting scope) excellent fire support is the supreme asset.

Firn

February 23rd, 2009, 12:43 PM

Available/Near term Technology which will make a huge impact near term:

a) Light wearable sniper detections system like the vehicle mounted Boomerang combined with GPS: This enables a soldier to geolocate with rapid speed the sources of fire. Add the ability to feed it into the common digital battlefield map and everybody sees where the shooter fired from. This gives a huge, huge advantage over the enemy.... Kill cycles can be accelerated. Fire support can already start preparing for the fire mission.

b) Compact sound suppressors: Amazing how much they can cut the noise of war on your side. The greatly reduce the accoustic and especially the visable signature of the shot. The make shooting a lot easier, and greatly increase the hit probability in rapid semi-automatic and fullauto fire.

To be continued

lastdingo

March 2nd, 2009, 06:27 PM

...
b) The high volume of direct fire of the 1-2 machineguns: Delivered with weapons chambered in the 5,56 NATO capable of a sustainable ROF of 500-800 rpms
...The fighting load of some members of a marine squad is over 130 pounds - 50 pounds are usually considered to be the best combination of weight and capability.

That rate of fire is cyclic, not "sustainable" at all!
The full ammunition load for such a light machine gun would last only for about one minute of cyclic fire.
The barrel could only sustain twenty seconds, the spare barrel could sustain another twenty seconds. There's usually only one spare barrel being carried - if at all.

By the way; it's more useful to discuss general infantry platoons than to discuss squads. Important support for the infantry firefight should be platoon-level, not squad-level.
Good assault tactics even promote the use of dissimilar squads (assault / fire support), thus rendering standard squad discussions irrelevant.

Chino

March 4th, 2009, 12:39 AM

The 50km fast march was a load trial, to see if we had overloaded the infantry section. That's a grunt's life and the 4th Singapore Infantry Regiment (4 SIR) are a infantry battalion comprised of normal conscripts.

Dang, they should've done the trial with reservists.

Because when we commit to war, majority of the troops would not be young 18yr olds.

For reservists it would probably be more like a 25km "reasonably brisk stroll".:onfloorl:

My experience, by the time I was a 30yr old reservist was that, though still relatively fit ($200 IPPT award), I don't think I would've survived a 50km fast march even with just helmet/SBO/rifle.

And these days or in the near future, SAF would eventually introduce body armour as standard. Soldier's load is ever on the increase, which may mean foot infantry units in the traditional sense will soon no longer exist.

Firn

March 4th, 2009, 04:09 PM

A long fast march with a lot of weight is a good way to test the endurance of the men, but not just after reading the ever increasing amount of skeletal/muscular injuries sustained by the US forces I always found the tendency to overload troublesome. By trying to hedge against all the risks the "light" infantry gets burdened by up to 130 pounds of "lightweight" equipment, making them unable to move with any degree of speed and agility in rough terrain.

That rate of fire is cyclic, not "sustainable" at all!
The full ammunition load for such a light machine gun would last only for about one minute of cyclic fire.
The barrel could only sustain twenty seconds, the spare barrel could sustain another twenty seconds. There's usually only one spare barrel being carried - if at all.

Actually my build let me sadly become a machinegunner of our Alpini section. La Maria Grazie (Blessed Mary, Thanks Mary) is heavy but the more so all verses she preaches. Any person with any degree of experience knows that 700-800 rounds are extremely heavy to carry and may have to last several hours of fighting.

By the way; it's more useful to discuss general infantry platoons than to discuss squads. Important support for the infantry firefight should be platoon-level, not squad-level.
Good assault tactics even promote the use of dissimilar squads (assault / fire support), thus rendering standard squad discussions irrelevant.

Yes I agree. The platoon is a better frame to discuss general infantry tactics and equipment. I started out with the squad to keep the discussion very focused but ended up including more.

usgn

March 4th, 2009, 09:46 PM

Firn

March 14th, 2009, 05:57 AM

Just wondering, after 50km of fast march, upon reaching FUP..can the soldiers still fight on? fatigue will set in....I have been an observer during one such scenario, 2 platoons of soldiers on 20km fast march with full loads with objective to over run the enemies occupying a particular sector...upon reaching, I would say more than 70% were clearly very very exhausted and were dragging their feets to charge up...The KIA rate on that day was very high....

Of course it depends on the condition and discipline of the soldiers but as a matter of fact the performance will be heavily influenced as you also witnessed.
I think it is a vicious circle that so heavy loads forces (realistically) more mounted movement to keep up the fighting capability and that more mounted movement induce heavier loads as shorter distances are marched. Also for example things like the Fresia (ATV) allow to shed burden but are often used to transport more stuff overall.

FutureTank

March 20th, 2009, 08:40 AM

This is an interesting topic, and I happened to be discussing similar ideas on another forum. On thing we came to agree on is that "infantry" seems to mean different things to different people.

I would suggest that there are several distinct if not yet so recognised infantry roles that define the term as:

tactical foot infantry - this is either an area defence role (territorials) or specialist mountain troops

tactical mounted infantry - which is often the "heavy" IFV mounted grunts that can and do operated around tanks, and so usually tracked

operational mounted infantry - which are intended to be fast movers in conventional warfare, conducting mobile defence or exploiting "deep battle" situations and often wheeled, but also can come on helicopters and even tactical fixed wing aircraft.

strategic mounted infantry - these are grunts that go somewhere in style, usually transport aircraft or littoral assault vessels, and are often known as 'paratroops' or 'marines' although neither types of operations have been conducted for a long time, and they tend to either arrive close to their objectives or have some short range mobility

While all are 'infantry', their roles and how they function to fulfil them seems to me to largely dictate their squad level equipment, training and tactics

On the subject of west vs east, it seems to me that there is a significant degree of convergence going on, at least in Europe. There is also some degree of 'throw-back' also taking place. Because since the end of the Cold War 'infantry' , east or west, have been more often found to be fighting in small independent unit actions (section/platoon/company) of the insurgency campaigns rather than conventional engagements with a FEBA and clear unit sectors, there has been explicit or implicit sanctioning of lower-echelon heavy support weapons integration than before. This s only an impression though, so I could be wrong.

cheers

OPSSG

March 23rd, 2009, 04:43 AM

@Firn, I replied via PM on your earlier question.

I agree that things like the Fresia (ATV) allow some shedding of the burden, especially for the support arms, as they tend to be the first to get spinal or leg injuries. I was also thinking of the British purchase of the heli-portable Vikings / Warthogs (or Broncos as they are called in Singapore). These are also potential burden shedding vehicles. I wonder how the Royal Marine Commandos will use them in Afghanistan (and I not familiar with their usage)?

Further, what would happen if the hill is too steep or if the load bearing breaks down or is unable to tackle the incline (once it is part of the orbat)? I remember almost crawling up some of the near fire bases for the support weapons to be in position before the main assault (on our overseas training trips).

Dang, they should've done the trial with reservists... For reservists it would probably be more like a 25km "reasonably brisk stroll".:onfloorl:

Agreed and I remember my last reservist 10 km conditioning road march (about a decade or so ago)... We were not well conditioned :) and we were glad for the physical exercise, which better prepared us for our battalion proficiency test later.

Just wondering, after 50km of fast march, upon reaching FUP..can the soldiers still fight on? fatigue will set in....I have been an observer during one such scenario, 2 platoons of soldiers on 20km fast march with full loads with objective to over run the enemies occupying a particular sector...upon reaching, I would say more than 70% were clearly very very exhausted and were dragging their feets to charge up...The KIA rate on that day was very high....

Thankfully, there was no charging up the hill to taken an objective after that march. It was a pure combat load trial (i.e. it was a test of the degree of discomfort with the new combat load) and not part of a training mission. :onfloorl:

Actually my build let me sadly become a machinegunner of our Alpini section. La Maria Grazie (Blessed Mary, Thanks Mary) is heavy but the more so all verses she preaches. Any person with any degree of experience knows that 700-800 rounds are extremely heavy to carry and may have to last several hours of fighting.

Oh my goodness... that is heavy and in your terrain. I can't imagine what you did as I only had to walk up and down relatively small hills and never up and down a mountain range. Thankfully, I only had to carry GPMGs and 84mm RRs during my leadership training.

Firn

March 23rd, 2009, 09:00 PM

Further, what would happen if the hill is too steep or if the load bearing breaks down or is unable to tackle the incline (once it is part of the orbat)? I remember almost crawling up some of the near fire bases for the support weapons to be in position before the main assault (on our overseas training trips).
Here is a small video about the Fresia. Sadly it is not so widespread, even if in the picture you can see that it is handled by an Alpini. Of course it can break down, but I personally think that it would enhances the capabilities of an infantry platoon in our regions by a large factor. You can use a great deal of mountain paths with it.

In our regions we use thinks like this Transporter (http://www.aebi.com/en/agriculture/products/multipurpose-transporter/multipurpose-transporter/tp98p/), sometimes with winches. This (http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://www.beatenbergbilder.ch/reportagen/reportage_26_bauernhof/heuen_2058_700_511.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.beatenbergbilder.ch/home/reportage_26_bauernhof_heuen.htm&usg=__MIWYTI9wh6HWdfuodKmsximpsFg=&h=499&w=700&sz=166&hl=de&start=3&sig2=GMI5Q-03WEin6UWVMk_BxQ&um=1&tbnid=9rl8ZEeCr6xj8M:&tbnh=100&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSteilhang%2BHeuen%26hl%3Dde%26client% 3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26sa%3DG%26um%3D 1&ei=chnISapixbb4BtaLqOEG) are some impressions from relative "low"-alpine Switzerland. Here alpine views (http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://www.girovagandointrentino.it/puntate/2005/anteprima_primavera/gronlait/images/pan_gronlait_big.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.girovagandointrentino.it/puntate/2005/anteprima_primavera/gronlait/gronlait.htm&usg=__e4HtEyKmkxFmDGFNtO8nLhznCUg=&h=764&w=2715&sz=512&hl=de&start=34&sig2=JXjmzvig9O2ucFwvKQ5uoA&um=1&tbnid=0_ls9X7NeYa5RM:&tbnh=42&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DLagorai%26imgsz%3Dhuge%26ndsp%3D18%26 hl%3Dde%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26sa%3DN%26start %3D18%26um%3D1&ei=LxrISZDXM8S1-AbknbH6Bg) with some information on the war in the mountains. War (http://images.google.at/imgres?imgurl=http://gebirgskrieg.heim.at/Kanone1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://gebirgskrieg.heim.at/5145.htm&usg=__Ofso2yEWSY6NI2NxEKSIEnNM6eU=&h=483&w=638&sz=89&hl=de&start=5&sig2=Pvuv0QZ-64Hikz8MXauUGw&um=1&tbnid=2Nr703rFKlpylM:&tbnh=104&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3DOrtler%2BKanone%26hl%3Dde%26client%3D firefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:de:official%26hs%3Dmtt%26sa% 3DG%26um%3D1&ei=fRvISfrcOMfN-QbC_JjpBg) in the Mountains.

As far as I know the Viking is used as mainly as a) troopcarrie, b) supplycarrier and c) firesupport. Medevac is mostly done by Helicopter.

Oh my goodness... that is heavy and in your terrain. I can't imagine what you did as I only had to walk up and down relatively small hills and never up and down a mountain range. Thankfully, I only had to carry GPMGs and 84mm RRs during my leadership training.

As a matter of fact there was a world of difference between people used to walking/training in the mountains and excercise and people unused to it. Traditionally mountain troops were regionally based because they were hardened and trained from childhood onwards - at least they came from the small villages. They were also more prone to skiing/climbing. The rather large amount of hunters and poachers in the Alps was also be helpful in war - at least so the theory :D. I at least was a not so good shot. Now the Alpini are mostly from southern Italy. But even at my time the physical condition of many was far from good.

BTW: The realities of war can be seen here (http://www.cimeetrincee.it/). The photos (http://www.cimeetrincee.it/albumdepoca.htm) are sometimes disturbing and remind me how fortunate we were that no war broke out when we served.

Crunchy

March 29th, 2009, 07:17 AM

HKSDU

March 29th, 2009, 11:00 AM

With today's latest gizmos/gadgets I think somekind of lightweight & extremely high capacity electricity source has still to be developed to make all those devices real useful in a convential war.
You can return to base to pick up new batteries and then head back to fight those Tangos,but I don't think that the hostile & proberly-equipped army will allow you to do that in a real battle. (OK they might also want to head back to their base for some new batteries too...)

But till then I''m not going to sell my shares of battery producer....
well what happens when your in water or it starts to rain, you kill yourself and your whole squad nearby. Using electrical device as weapons have extreme limits in environment of operation. The rifle it hurts it works, so why change the weapon to something else.

Firn

April 27th, 2009, 08:08 AM

On more serious note I think that the granade launcher of the Daewoo K11 will be a valuable addition for a squad, especially in the terrain of Southkorea. With such a broken, mountainous country and extended urbanized areas and a combination of both it bring a good deal of arguments on the table. I wonder just how effective the air-burst will be. Anyway it seems that the 40mm UGL will stay, as it should IMHO.

The day and infrared night sight combined with the ballistic computer could be, especially when with a decent variable magnification a great rasset for the whole squad. Should help quite a bit to detect&identify targets and to engage them speedily.

Seems that they will give 1-2 K11 to a squad of 10 men. Sounds about right, even if I don't know how exactly the squads and platoons are organized.

OPSSG

June 9th, 2009, 09:19 AM

Singapore, 8 June 2009 (http://www.stengg.com/pressroom/press_releases_read.aspx?paid=1392) - ST Engineering today announced that its electronics arm, ST Electronics, has been awarded a contract to provide the Advanced Combat Man System (ACMS) to the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF). The project which is worth over S$100m will commence immediately and is expected to be completed by 2012...

The ACMS is a 3rd Generation Networked Warrior system fully equipped with advanced C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence) and network capabilities. The ACMS is a joint development effort that started in 1998 among the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) and ST Electronics with the support of Singapore Technologies Kinetics Ltd (ST Kinetics) in the area of weapon sub-system. It features innovations from ST Electronics and ST Kinetics. For this contract, ST Kinetics is a subcontractor to ST Electronics...

Let me just begin by saying that I'm not a fan of some aspects of the SAF's Advanced Combat Man System (ACMS) due to size and weight issues. I'm for the idea of enhancing the situational awareness, especially in urban warfare (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/army_news/News_Archive/2008/Sept2008/acms08.html) - I'm just not a fan of the current form factor and the need for separate batteries (http://www.defencetalk.com/singaporean-fuel-cell-boosts-uav-capabilities-19521/) for each device.

However, the ST Electronics press release indicates that it is going into production (after the earlier trials) and I should share the news and enclose some basic links (http://www.defpro.com/news/details/7939/) on the ACMS.

ACMS Components (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2008/sep/05sep08_nr/05sep08_fs2.html)

Pix of the ACMS (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/news_and_events/nr/2008/sep/05sep08_nr/05sep08_photos2.html) and a video of the ACMS (http://www.mindef.gov.sg/imindef/mindef_websites/atozlistings/army/army_news/News_Archive/2008/Sept2008/acms08.html) used in Urban Warfare Training

In a seven-man section, the two team leaders and section commander will be equipped with the ACMS. The components of the ACMS are:

Personal Radio. The radio enables soldiers to share information, in the form of data and voice, with other soldiers. It has a built-in Global Positioning System (GPS) that helps the soldier's command headquarters to track his location and that of friendly forces.

Communication Keypad. This portable keypad, designed for easy data input, also has hotkey buttons such "On-Contact" and "Call-For-Medic" to enable quick updates of the team's status to the command headquarters, and request assistance from nearby forces at the push of a button.

Portable Computer. The brain of the ACMS, the portable computer processes data collected by sensors, GPS, other ACMSs and user input to provide real-time information updates on the battlefield.

Head-mounted display (HMD). The HMD can switch its displays from a digital map to satellite images of the terrain to videos captured by the various sensors. Through the HMD, soldiers can see locations of targets and friendly forces which are plotted on the digital map.

Weapon Interactor. The section commander will also have an additional camera attached to his SAR 21, so that he can capture and send back images to the command headquarters through the quick buttons on the handguard. The sensor also allows him to survey and fire around corners without exposing himself.

In addition to the ACMS, soldiers are equipped with remote sensors such as a surveillance ball, a remote-control surveillance car and a key-hole sensor.

A Networked Force

With the ACMS and remote sensors, soldiers can track the positions of friendly and hostile forces, effectively engage their targets and concentrate efforts at critical locations. Such information sharing allows the soldiers to navigate accurately through the terrain and avoid known danger areas.

By feeding images back to the command headquarters, soldiers are not only fighters, but also sensors on the ground. They enable commanders to deploy firepower effectively at hostile locations and enhance battlefield coordination. Section commanders are also empowered to call for fire support and for the command headquarters to utilise higher command resources such as artillery, air assets and sensors, to enhance the lethality and situation awareness of their units.

With the integrated information flow, the seven-man section in the battlefield can now tap into the wider resources of the battalion. This significantly increases the lethality, situational awareness and survivability of the individual soldier.

h/t to weasel1962 for posting it elsewhere first.

Chino

June 9th, 2009, 01:07 PM

Let me just begin by saying that I'm not a fan of some aspects of the SAF's Advanced Combat Man System (ACMS) due to size and weight issues.

I can see the advantage of giving every rifleman a radio as shouted commands CANNOT be heard amidst gunfire. So that's a definite plus.

But can anyone elaborate on how such a comms net would be set up?

For example during my time it was very rudimentary.

[edit]

So in the case of every squaddie having a radio, what net would they be on? Is it their own section's net?

Are there any armies that already issue radios to every single riflemen?

As for all the other stuff like keypad, helmet mounted sight, personal computer etc I don't know what to make of them. Probably useful when you are not fighting. When you are fighting, those things will be a fcuking nuisance.

Will these head-mounted display, keypad and other situational awareness gadgets, actually enhance or degrade situational awareness?

OPSSG

June 9th, 2009, 09:29 PM

I can see the advantage of giving every rifleman a radio as shouted commands CANNOT be heard amidst gunfire. So that's a definite plus.

1. The 'radio' enables non-voice communications - i.e. via the sending of text messages (like SMS on a handphone - with more short cut keys). I'm not willing to further elaborate on the features, some of which are explained in the video below:

Urban Warfare - ACMS

But can anyone elaborate on how such a comms net would be set up?

For example during my time it was very rudimentary.

2. I am not comfortable discussing anything relating to signals and comms net on a forum due to security concerns.

Are there any armies that already issue radios to every single riflemen?

3. Even with ACMS it's only the group leaders that have an extra load to carry - so it is not everyone in the section.

As for all the other stuff like keypad, helmet mounted sight, personal computer etc I don't know what to make of them. Probably useful when you are not fighting. When you are fighting, those things will be a fcuking nuisance.

Will these head-mounted display, keypad and other situational awareness gadgets, actually enhance or degrade situational awareness?

4. An ACMS user can just flip up the head-mounted display when it is not in use. The head-mounted display enables the ACMS user to see maps / air photos and other sensor inputs (which includes the Surveillance Ball (http://www.dso.org.sg/news_details.aspx?news_sid=20090324966925465494) and other UAV inputs).

5. Having a keypad is no different from having a handphone (it should not distract you). Further, the section commander's SAR-21 has a TV camera to enable him to see round corners without exposing his body.

OPSSG

June 10th, 2009, 03:51 AM

What the Singapore army needs with the ACMS is the HULC exoskeleton (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/PC/MFC_HULC_PC.pdf) so that our soldiers do not feel like they are over loaded. And if there is a thunderstorm, the ACMS solider can become a great lightning conductor.

HULC exoskeleton

:D To simplify logistics, we need 'D" batteries for the hip torsion devices, and the shoulder, elbow and back actuators will use the DC 9-volt batteries and 2 x PRC-77 batteries for the reminder of the exoskeleton's systems - on top of the 4 other types of batteries for the ACMS (which would also include a laptop battery or two ;) ).

Firn

June 10th, 2009, 04:26 AM

Seems to be a very interesting system. Personally I feel if well implemented it will greatly increase the performances of the combined arms team. The video shows how the group leaders are the communication nodes and are able to take over part of the "scout" tasks I envisioned. He carries seemingly a laser ranger and a digital compass to geolocate the position with help from his GPS.

The ability to call speedily and accurately heavy firepower at such a low level is a huge step forward. And this ability should be greatly enhanced by the increased knowledge where your men, supporting assets and your enemies are. This too allows to greatly increase the sensors capability and narrow the sensor-shooter link.

For the backs of the infantry I hope that some load can be shifted away by "outsourcing" a good deal of the firepower. Even if I'm not too optimistic about that :(

OPSSG

June 10th, 2009, 12:36 PM

Seems to be a very interesting system. Personally I feel if well implemented it will greatly increase the performances of the combined arms team.

Very much a dial 1800-call-a-bomb (http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_275579.html) system. With ACMS, the individual section operating in a Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) environment can call upon greater support resources of the SAF combined arms team. These combined arms resources include air strike (F-15SG, F-16Ds & Apaches), indirect fire support (76mm naval gun fire, 120mm mortar, 155mm artillery & HIMARS), even company direct fire weapons and our own counter sniper support to dominate all roof tops and exposed areas.

The video shows how the group leaders are the communication nodes and are able to take over part of the "scout" tasks I envisioned. He carries seemingly a laser ranger and a digital compass to geolocate the position with help from his GPS.

Geo-location is important for blue force tracking. With ACMS, every section can send information (even pictures) up to higher HQ (or other sections pinned down by enemy fire - to enable these sections to collaboratively ID hidden enemy shooters), if necessary.

The ability to call speedily and accurately heavy firepower at such a low level is a huge step forward. And this ability should be greatly enhanced by the increased knowledge where your men, supporting assets and your enemies are. This too allows to greatly increase the sensors capability and narrow the sensor-shooter link.

SAF's UAVs will provide real time ISAR that will enable a persistent ability to observe - aiding the ACMS equipped section as they conduct MOUT. ACMS can also be configured to receive information from a ST manufactured (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3379147) 40mm SPARCS camera (http://www.stengg.com/upload/993MLWB9jDScd2Vnbdf.pdf) (Soldier Parachute Aerial Reconnaissance Camera System) aka 40mm Spy Grenade or other relevant sensors.

OPSSG

June 10th, 2009, 03:51 PM

Singapore's new urban warfare training facility and ACMS acquisition represents a commitment to improve the SAF's infantry training syllabus, with a particular focus on combined arms in MOUT operations. The ACMS investment also restores an emphasis on the infantry's role in high intensity conflict, with an understanding of the informational/intelligence needs of a conscript based infantry section.

If you are interested, there is a SAF urban warfare video (mms://media.mindef.gov.sg/24jul06_urbanOps_hi.asf) with trial versions of the ACMS (based on PDAs). This old video focuses on the sensors used for urban warfare.

IMHO, nothing very unique about ACMS in concept, as compared to the Land Warrior being developed for the US Army. Popular Mechanics has a 2007 article (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4215715.html) on why US soldiers don't like it. BTW, I quite amused, there's even a Malaysian defence blog (http://www.malaysiandefence.com/?p=602#comments) with comments on the ACMS.

Firn

June 10th, 2009, 05:47 PM

Your take on the issue is much appreciated. I will comment later.

Here (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004866.html) is a documentary about the employment of the Land Warrior in Iraq.

The Ares Blog (http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogscript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A3b4402ae-3a80-452b-8a35-67fbbffc59f7) addresses also the issue.

The Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/10/army_landwarrior_101308w/) on it

Firn

June 11th, 2009, 04:11 AM

I will comment first on the Land Warrior.

The video is worthwhile to watch even if even it has a slight "happy end" touch, with everything seemingly fitting too well into the narrative. I hope that the perception of the Land Warrior really underwent such a positive turn. Anyway it is well made and comes up with very interesting points, with a lot of thought and talk by soldiers of all ranks. It fits also well into my assumptions, even if I was surprised just how highly they rated the ability to "solve" navigation. Perhaps it is due to the urban maze, difficult environment and the pressure of war.

From the Army Times:

Instead, he pulled down a tiny helmet-mounted display screen and gazed into a satellite image of the battlefield terrain. Tidwell tapped into the computerized ensemble that quickly showed him the exact distance to the grove of palm trees where the enemy was holed up: 819 meters away on an azimuth of 186 degrees.

The mortar section leader then grabbed his 60mm mortar in the hand-held mode, sighted in on the target, and “started dropping HE rounds.”

“I got three rounds out of the tube and on their position before they had time to react to it,” Tidwell said of the high explosives.

This was no small feat — Tidwell was shooting in direct lay mode, a quick suppression style of mortar fire using range estimation that’s less effective on targets beyond 500 meters.

“It would have taken me six to seven rounds to get on target,” he said. “I shot 17 rounds in two and a half minutes. It blew up their vehicle.” Tidwell said three insurgents were reported killed.

Here we see some of the great advantages of the system. He gets thanks to the system, possibly helped by a digital chemlight set by a fellow soldier at once a accurate firing solution and a bird's eye view of the location and the position of his mates. This greatly increases the effect of the fire.

Eliminating confusion

B Company leaders came to depend on this feature on time-sensitive target missions that involved sending small units by helicopter to capture individuals identified as enemy leaders.

Landing by helicopter at night in unfamiliar terrain, 4-9 soldiers said they were able to move without hesitation because the target house’s location had been marked on everyone’s Land Warrior system.

“Every time we hit the ground, there was no waiting to get your bearings. We just took off running toward the objective,” Tidwell said. “We were hitting houses literally before these guys could wake up and get their guns.”

Few things can slow a mission’s momentum like last-minute confusion over which house in a darkened compound is the target building, said Capt. Johann Hindert, first platoon leader in B Company.

He said that without Land Warrior, “You might knock [down] three different doors before you get to the right one.”

Here we see how it can speed every thing up and reduce the collateral damage of searches in a COIN environment. As surprise is the only real advantage of the attacking force this increase in speed and operational tempo should be an immense advantage. See also

Sergeants and officers in 4-9 — as well as Army Land Warrior program officials — have told the Army’s senior leadership that Land Warrior is ready for the battlefield; that it gives units a clearer view of their tactical environment and empowers them to move with more certainty than ever before.

“They are going to be faster, more lethal and more agile,” said B Company commander Capt. Jack Moore. “The Army would be foolish to lose this system.”

Between July and August, B Company captured 36 high-value targets identified on Multi-National Division North, Tidwell said.

“We were always able to catch them with their pants down because, as soon as we got on the ground, it was 45 seconds to the objective,” he said. “It’s almost too easy. It’s almost like cheating.”

This is the type of lesson that can’t be simulated or recreated in training, Land Warrior program officials maintain.

“They have taken the system into areas we never thought we would go,” said Lt. Col. Ken Sweat, TraDoc Capabilities manager for Land Warrior out of Fort Benning, Ga., talking about 4-9’s deployment with the system. “The value out of this is incredible.”

Thoughts:

I really liked the Clausewitzian summary by one of the platoon? leaders that by taking care of much of the science of war the Land Warrior allows to concentrate on the art of it. ;)

The Land Warrior should be the core unit in which other technologies and systems plug in. Take for example the wearable sniper detection system or geo-locating assets. Both allow to fix the enemy on the digital map for everybody to see and to engage and allows for a very easy and accurate transfer of data by an SMS even in region where the connection is bad. Add an request and it will get engaged by heavier assets in no time.

All in all I feel that such systems are a way to transmit nonverbal signals and gestures over radio. Something like pointing "there" over your guys a lot of corners away.

Chino

June 12th, 2009, 02:17 AM

5. Having a keypad is no different from having a handphone (it should not distract you).

Talking on the handphone while driving is supposed to cause accidents. So I can't see how so much gadgets is gonna help during an intense firefight.

Anyway, I can see the advantages of these Christmas tree gadgets. But let's hope we don't go overboard and end up with our soldiers becoming clumsy robots.

In all the training missions that I can recall, reservists - the bulk of SAF - were tired even without all these fancy gear and body armour. It was often chaotic, and messy and the last hing you want is people trying to access computer equipment.

We are not SWAT.

I would start with a small radio for every man, but beyond that, all the fancy gear, could be information overload.

Like I said, nice before the shooting start. But a nuisance during actual combat. Unlike other countries, we do still have tropical forests where these things are quite useless and make movements difficult as they will snare branches, cannot cross rivers etc. If such a heavily-equipped meets a lightly equipped and highly-agile force in the forest, the outcome is predictably not in out favour.

I wonder what would happen if such a well-equipped person is captured by the enemy? Will they be able to use these gadgets against us? For example by pressing on the keypad, can he lure the rest of the troops into a trap etc?

Firn

June 12th, 2009, 02:56 AM

Talking on the handphone while driving is supposed to cause accidents. So I can't see how so much gadgets is gonna help during an intense firefight.

Anyway, I can see the advantages of these Christmas tree gadgets. But let's hope we don't go overboard and end up with our soldiers becoming clumsy robots.

I think you should read about the experience of the soldier-created mesh-up of the Land Warrior in Iraq. It seems to have been a supreme help in many situation. The video is quite good.

In all the training missions that I can recall, reservists - the bulk of SAF - were tired even without all these fancy gear and body armour. It was often chaotic, and messy and the last hing you want is people trying to access computer equipment.

This is the curse of overburdening soldiers with too little physical training. There is no single solution to that, but giving a hard look on what the mission requires is a start. As far as I have understood is that the current Land Warrior weights roughly 3,5 kg for team leaders.

We are not SWAT.

I would start with a small radio for every man, but beyond that, all the fancy gear, could be information overload.

Like I said, nice before the shooting start. But a nuisance during actual combat. Unlike other countries, we do still have tropical forests where these things are quite useless and make movements difficult as they will snare branches, cannot cross rivers etc. If such a heavily-equipped meets a lightly equipped and highly-agile force in the forest, the outcome is predictably not in out favour.

Personally I think that a light and agile force can only be achieved if there is a willingness on the side of the officers to take higher risks to lower the overall risk. This means trying to take only the important items, using the vehicles as far as possible as mules, make aggressive use of ruck caches. After what I have seen about the Land Warrior it seems to be among the essentials, at least in the specifc environment.

I wonder what would happen if such a well-equipped person is captured by the enemy? Will they be able to use these gadgets against us? For example by pressing on the keypad, can he lure the rest of the troops into a trap etc?

This is actually possibly a problem, although I guess that a specific key is needed to log into the network and that the access can be thus be denied.

OPSSG

June 12th, 2009, 07:51 AM

First of all, I'm not a fan of ACMS in its current format and size. In particular, I would think that the ACMS will be a horror in a river crossing exercise (without the proper prior preparation) - therefore, I don't want to be cast into the role of 'selling' the merits of the ACMS.

However, please consider reading more on the ACMS (http://www.defencetalk.com/advanced-combat-man-system-for-the-singapore-armed-forces-19621/) (Singapore) and the Land Warrior (US) programmes, if we are to have a meaningful discussion on the topic.

For the sake of clarity, let me explain that ACMS has three modular variants:
(i) the Basic Fighting System (supplied to group leaders) focused on fighting capabilities;

(ii) the Full Fighting System (supplied to Section Commanders & above), equipping the Commander and building on the Basic Fighting System, but adding significant C2 capabilities ; and

(iii) the Hand Held System (i.e. a Panasonic Toughbook) which works with the Full Fighting System (a new role for the signal guys). This is carried by a commander’s aide, for use in stationary mission planning tasks, where greater screen size is necessary and a more complex input device can be used.
Across ACMS, there are certain key capabilities common to all configurations for the trials including; GPS navigation, Blue Force Tracking, red force marking, ‘Medic’ Alert, ‘Contact’ Alert, text messaging, reception of video from remote sensors and round corner firing.

Talking on the handphone while driving is supposed to cause accidents. So I can't see how so much gadgets is gonna help during an intense firefight.

Anyway, I can see the advantages of these Christmas tree gadgets. But let's hope we don't go overboard and end up with our soldiers becoming clumsy robots.

I'm sharing with you the declassified version of the trial report (http://www.soldiermod.com/summer-08/prog-acms.html) (based on early versions of the equipment). While it is true that during the trial phase:
(i) 96% of users found that the Helmet Mounted Displays (HMD) hindered dismounted movement at night;

(ii) 78.3% found this to be the case during daylight and a clear majority found it adversely affected aiming throughout the day; and

(iii) that ACMS had encountered problems dealing with very harsh environments and there had been issues with overheating and systems overload,
please note that a number of options were being looked at, including see through HMD, alternative display location and a recent technology – membrane displays. This ONLY means that over time, when the cost of new technologies comes down, the HMD will be changed.

One of the major findings from the trials is the saving in time ACMS has provided. In trials to measure reaction time to enemy contact while en route, time dropped from 20 minutes to less than 6 minutes.

The current Proposed Equipping Scale for ACMS consists of the section commander and above being equipped with the Full Fighting System, with team leaders and below being given Basic Fighting System with basic functionality. This recommendation again is based on trial data and there was no significant difference between ACMS implementations down to all troopers or just section commanders.

With the introduction of ACMS, with new intelligence information flowing to users almost twice as quickly, down from 13 to 7 minutes. Effective distribution of the information was also found to have improved.

In all the training missions that I can recall, reservists - the bulk of SAF - were tired even without all these fancy gear and body armour. It was often chaotic, and messy and the last hing you want is people trying to access computer equipment.

We are not SWAT.

I would start with a small radio for every man, but beyond that, all the fancy gear, could be information overload.

SWAT is a police function - why bring it up here in a discussion on infantry of the 'future' matters? And how would giving a radio to every trooper help - other than to clutter up the command net (especially since you say you are signal trained)? Chino, please take the trouble to understand the system before making such throw away comments.

As previously stated, ACMS allows the section to call upon fire support systems that aren’t held at the section level to engage specific targets they do not have the capability to engage effectively.

Further, one of the goals of ACMS is to enable the section commander to “see one block away”, via a virtual presence. The ACMS trials have used a Worn Array Sniper Detection Systems and a Round Corner Firing attachment. The latter is integrated on the SAR 21 assault rifle allowing aiming through the weapon’s optical sight via a camera, with the display having multiple positions for viewing. The camera is designed to flip sideways with just one hand action, back to a normal weapon sight configuration. Tracked and wheeled, low cost small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) and Micro Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) have also been trialled with ACMS. The integration of tactical sensors has been factored into the architecture from the start to cope with bandwidth and power consumption considerations, although the major concern in this area has been how to manage costs.

Chino

June 13th, 2009, 02:58 AM

Again, please don't ask about security related functions in a forum.

Erm... never mind...

It was nice talking to you.

Firn

June 13th, 2009, 02:28 PM

Firn

June 14th, 2009, 02:13 PM

Some nifty plug-ins for a networked system:

Sensor fused googles (http://vimeo.com/4532787)

Optics or "Sniper" Detection system

Both are of course very expensive toys, but both have their uses so I expect them to see them, if fielded only in very small numbers. The SDS is clearly a very specialized tool, but would be of excellent use on IFV and for selected sections, especially snipers.

And of course the perfect UAV:

Highly mobile UAV

Firn

June 21st, 2009, 05:53 AM

How and IDF colonel trains infantryman to think (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1094133.html)

Boim says the assault on the Gaza Strip in January, as part of Operation Cast Lead, proved that the course is effective in training infantry squad leaders. Lessons from the operation have already been adopted into the second part of the training, which involves 30 different classes for training infantry troops in using various types of weapons and driving armored vehicles.

"From the operation [in Gaza] we learned to place emphasis on the use of mortars, especially on how to locate and pinpoint targets," Boim says. On a number of occasions during Cast Lead, mortars were fired against mistaken locations, injuring IDF troops and Palestinian civilians. In most of these cases, the issues stemmed from problems in relaying target data to the units operating the mortars.

Since the Second Lebanon War, the IDF has invested a great deal in the infantry Brigades, including acquiring new combat gear that no longer requires manual computing. Plans to acquire new armored personnel carriers, which have been delayed for budgetary reasons for nearly 20 years, are now being implemented in the form of the Namer tank, modeled on the chassis of the Mercava main battle tank.

Interesting article

The importance of a well integrated mortar support seems an almost eternal truth especially in MOUT - and that it with the large amount of other sources of firepower so close by in Operation Cast Lead is also not surprising. However as the article points out, sprinting through the processes that start in the sensor and end by the shooter can be problematic and subject to errors. Exactly such scientific aspects can get smoothened out by systems like the "Land Warrior".

Firn

June 30th, 2009, 04:54 AM

Operation Phantom Fury reveales some gruesome, yet not surprising aspects of the second Battle of Fallujah.

It also strenghens the case for a system like ACMS which incorporates electronic hearing protection and sound suppressor. Especially in MOUT with grenades going off inside rooms and tanks firing at point blank range nearby. As I wrote before their task is it to cut down the noise of war, keep the aurial sensors sharp and help to keep the communications and thus the bond between the soldiers and buddies strong and alive. The amount of ammunition and ordinance spent in some houses was truly frightening and amazing. If the enemy is determined and brave or on drugs heavy firepowers seems to be the almost eternal response.

Here some insight about Squad tactics in Fallujah (http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Defensewatch%20Special%2010.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=1&rnd=586.9043912519592)

gardnerdesign

July 12th, 2009, 01:10 PM

Future Squad:

-sixteen men (four four-man fire teams)
-4 Fire Team UCAV's

Soldiers Armament:

-Infantry light weapon: An OICW like weapon that would allow all units to have the capabilities of a assault rifle and a multi-shot grenade launcher.

- Infantry heavy weapon: A disposable 120-155mm weapon that would combine the capabilities of an anti-tank guided missile and a mortar into one weapon. It can be shoulder launched as a direct fire weapon or set up verticley and fired like a morter as an indirect fire weapon.

-4 Hand grenades: Standard hand grenades with the ability to be electronicly detonated. This allows them to be paired with the area defence sytem or other systems.

Equipment:

-Electronic scope: A day/night optics system with zoom that integrates an illumination and designation laser and a laser rangefinder that mounts on top of the light infantry weapon and can connect to the multi-purpose PDA.

-Multi-purpose PDA: A PDA that gives the soldier wireless communication capabilities as well as navigation capabilities expanded situational awareness and when paired with the electronic scope the ability to remotely launch the infantry heavy weapon and guide it to its target or target designate and call in an attack by UCAV.

-4 Area defence systems: An unattended ground sensor with the ability to attach explosives such as hand grenades and mines via a retractable cable. This provides expanded situational awareness and the ability to secure key areas.

-Survival suit: A form-fitting dry-suit that regulates temperature and protects the soldier from moisture.

-Camouflage: Worn over survival suit and chosen based on expected area of operation.

-Survival pack: Caries the soldiers water as well as food rations and contains a medical kit and small oxygen tank (for increased endurance during combat operations as well as allowing for increased proformance at high altitudes.)

-4 Fire Team UCAV's: A tilt rotor UCAV armed with a 30mm auto cannon and 8 heavy infantry weapons with the ability to carry 4 soldiers and there gear. This vehicle provides each fire team with rapid mobility, aireal recon capabilities and close air support . It would be a farly compact bare-bones platform with the soldiers riding externally, it should also utilize a mono-tilt rotor design to reduce the required landing space.

OPSSG

July 13th, 2009, 02:20 AM

I see you are a potential student of Mr Mike Sparks or Sparkie (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/air-mechanized-fighting-vehicle-9020-3/#post173278) -- good imagination!

Again, I note that you DO NOT try to support your imagination with reputable 'links'. And as usual, most of your ideas lie in the realm of imagination, unrestrained by laws of physics (as most of your fellow forum participants currently understand) and other technical or tactical considerations.

:onfloorl: I am amused.

Soldiers Armament:

-Infantry light weapon: An OICW like weapon that would allow all units to have the capabilities of a assault rifle and a multi-shot grenade launcher.

Do you have any reputable links for actual projects (and not just those from your imagination or day dreams)?

I believe there are different manufacturers offering similar solutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_K11) to the OICW (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_Individual_Combat_Weapon_program) being developed - with different calibres. Why don't you look for the links online and explain the pros and cons of each solution, the limitations of current technology and how your idea is different from existing solutions.

- Infantry heavy weapon: A disposable 120-155mm weapon that would combine the capabilities of an anti-tank guided missile and a mortar into one weapon. It can be shoulder launched as a direct fire weapon or set up verticley and fired like a morter as an indirect fire weapon.

You've been watching Transformers and want to import the idea, right?

-4 Area defence systems: An unattended ground sensor with the ability to attach explosives such as hand grenades and mines via a retractable cable. This provides expanded situational awareness and the ability to secure key areas.

Do you know that unattended ground sensors (http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/feature-ugs.htm) currently exist? BTW, mines with a cable - is an apt description of a Claymore mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claymore_mine) (a widely used 1960s product/weapon).

So you are not happy with current sensors and mines. Therefore you have just invented in your head (and only in your head), a combination command detonated mine and sensor. When you detonate the mine, you lose the sensor... Or have I mis-understood you?

-Survival suit: A form-fitting dry-suit that regulates temperature and protects the soldier from moisture.

-Camouflage: Worn over survival suit and chosen based on expected area of operation.

Hmmm... A dry suit? What about heat build up? I hope you know that some military uniforms are sweat wicking (http://www.slate.com/id/2124889/) to deal with heat build up and permethrin treated (http://npic.orst.edu/hottopic/ptc/index.html) (to make the wearer less attractive to mosquitoes and other insect vectors).

Hmmm... I get it, you must have been reading up on Harry Porter and his invisibility cloak as an idea for next generation camouflage. What spell do we need to cast to merge defence technology and magic into a single product?

the road runner

July 13th, 2009, 04:24 AM

OPPSG you are a fish in a world of fisherman:)

I have been looking at Metal Storm Technology,a revolutionary weapons platform.With a amazing rate of fire,no moving parts......i think Metal Storm is a true future weapon.

YouTube - Future of Warfare

The area denial weapon shown on youtube seems to deny an enemy an area...like a mine field without the problem of Leaving mines in place.

I also like the 3 round 40 mm grenade launcher.This weapon can be slung under a rifle like a single shot 40 mm launcher but with the benifit of 3 nades.

Metal Storm - 3GL - 3 shot semi automatic modular grenade launcher (http://www.metalstorm.com/content/view/37/92/)

Metal Storm is an Australian company,listed on the ASX.
It is in Joint development with both USA and Australian Governments.

Metal Storm and Singapore Technologies are in the process of designing a 40mm Grenade for Metal Storm Stacked round Technology.

Comments welcomed

gardnerdesign

July 13th, 2009, 11:32 AM

OPSSG---

i dont have time to break down everything into small enough words for you to understand ..... and on top of that u need to grow up.... u cant expect everyone to sit down and just blast out a perfectly written paper.... some of us have lives .... and as far as all that sparky bs ...... you are right about that guy wrong about me simple as that .... your great at the facts but your life must be sad lacking an imagination or any people skills .... you are simply a number cruncher, a worker bee nothin more than a gear in a machine .... im the guy ur boss hires cuz u havnt come up with a new and innovative idea in years. my point is anybody can research and report (especially you) or speculate on things that are obvious ...the real gift of a human brain is the imagination and problem solving capability we (well at least i do) posses try using it

OPSSG

July 13th, 2009, 01:23 PM

:) Off-Topic Warning - Responding to a Troll :)

When you first started a thread on your left field idea of an Air-Mechanized Fighting Vehicle (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/air-mechanized-fighting-vehicle-9020/), I was wondering if you are a really creative thinker that has been misunderstood OR were you a total wanker. It took 35 posts in the other thread, for me to decide that you are a total wanker or what others would call a troll.

In the course of your dealings with other forum members your approach become clear. Let me explain in a roughly chronological fashion, as follows:

(1) You posted your BS idea and thereafter interacted with Feanor so as to obtain information on Russian systems to avoid doing any research.

(2) Thereafter, you baited Abraham Gubler in the hope he would lose his temper when he showed that your idea defiled the laws of physics. I note that you succeed making a 2nd forum participant give up on you.

(3) You then argued/disagreed with Falstaff (who is an engineer by profession) when he cast doubts from an engineering perspective on the idea of a Air-Mechanized Fighting Vehicle. In the process, you managed to frustrate a 3rd forum participant with your BS responses.

(4) Thereafter, kato provided you with constructive criticism in the hope that you would adopt a different approach. kato's work as the 4th forum participant, in delivering constructive criticism to you fell on deaf ears.

(5) Then Marc 1 came in to objectively look at which bits of your ideas were absolute rubbish and which bits could be salvaged or developed. At that point you told Marc 1 that you refused to accept that you idea could not work and also baited Abraham Gubler by trolling. In one stroke you attempted frustrate a 5th forum member. It was then I realised you were not here to interact - you agenda was to draw attention to your BS ideas without regard for the idea's merit. AT THIS POINT if you were sincere you should have reconsidered you ideas. But no! You work harder to bait others.

(6) The above chronology demonstrated that it takes 5 forum members to deliver constructive criticism to you. And yet you don't accept their reasoned ideas. For their efforts, you basically baited anyone who disagreed with you. I on the other hand, as the 6th forum participant, did not take you so seriously. Therefore you move directly to personal insults without making an effort to discuss this current topic. If it was just a disagreement between you and me - it could be a difference of opinion. But when you have 6 people disagreeing with you...

IMHO, you must be a troll by virtue of your above mentioned conduct in the other thread. Thus, it is with sadness that I provide my reply to your current attempt at trolling below.

i dont have time to break down everything into small enough words for you to understand ..... and on top of that u need to grow up.... u cant expect everyone to sit down and just blast out a perfectly written paper.... some of us have lives ....

Let me be honest with you. What you lack -- is the will to reason and discipline to do any proper research on future infantry weapons.

.... your great at the facts but your life must be sad lacking an imagination or any people skills .... you are simply a number cruncher, a worker bee nothin more than a gear in a machine ....

Your first response is to try to insult me. Resorting to ONLY personal insults merely creates the impression that the points you raised are WITHOUT SUBSTANCE. In your world anyone who disagrees with you is 'lacking an imagination'. Unfortunately for you, I know that your ideas may have a few minor problems.

and as far as all that sparky bs ...... you are right about that guy wrong about me simple as that

For a guy who claims to know that what Sparky writes is BS, you sure lack self awareness on the quality of your prior posts.

im the guy ur boss hires cuz u havnt come up with a new and innovative idea in years.

I see, an ideas man (your point of view). Or from my point of view - a prodigious producer of poorly digested thoughts.

...the real gift of a human brain is the imagination and problem solving capability we (well at least i do) posses try using it

Kindly take up your own suggestion. Use your brain! Go post in a SciFi forum or try your hand at B movie script writing, your ideas MAY POTENTIALLY BE better appreciated there.

PS You must be a fan of James Joyce - since you like to write in a 'streams of consciousness' style.

OPSSG

July 14th, 2009, 10:51 AM

@gardnerdesign, as you may remember, I previously brought some of these limitations to your attention, in the hope that you will rethink your approach. IMO, some of your ideas if further refined may be salvaged. In fact, like Marc 1, I even made a specific suggestion for further research. However, you seem to lack the humility to learn (when you are given input) and the discipline to engage in a reasoned discussion (with your quick retort).

You could have looked at factors influencing the extent of Blue Force casualties in urban warfare. If you understand the problems faced by infantry moving through a specific terrain (such as urban areas), you will be in a better position to understand or predict future trends. Please remember that change occurs in a context and is often the result of an attempt to solve certain specific problems faced. Let's cite an example to illustrate my point.

Example of Current Urban Warfare Research *

Research Data: Research models have suggested that sensor latency greatly affects casualties suffered by the attacking Blue forces. Specifically, UAV and the counterbattery radar support in urban warfare. It has been suggested that a latency in delivering information from the sensor to the shooter of more than 1.5 minutes (98 seconds) almost doubles the mean casualties (from around 90 to 170) suffered by the Blue forces.

Possible Analysis: The above date demonstrates the importance of not just accurate information, but also information that is timely. In observing the simulation runs, it is seen that if the targeting effort on the defenders' reserves is not executed well, it could result in the attacking forces having to deal with the reserves that "leaked" from the targeting effort, thus increasing casualties in the ensuing combat at the frontal positions.
-------------------
Footnote: Cpt Ong C. H., Pointer (2009) Vol 35, No. 1

If you had bothered to do some research (like the research extract cited above), you could have come back with a data driven response to agree or disagree with another forum member, which would have been appreciated. Instead you resort to personal insults.

Are you telling me that I don't have the right to disagree with you (even if you are wrong)? I've got news for you. That's not the way forums work. In forums, you may get support for your ideas or you may get challenged. In your case, you are being challenged. And there is no need to foam in the mouth to a challenge. :lul

...my point is anybody can research and report (especially you) or speculate on things that are obvious

You know why you cannot cite research - it is because you are lazy. You are too lazy to build up any subject matter expertise. In fact, you are too lazy to even organise your thoughts. Yet you expect fellow forum members to read your knowledge poor BS ideas and tolerate your insolence.

BTW, do you know why what I write seems obvious? The reason is simple, I happen to be interested in the topics I respond to. I bother to read before posting, unlike a lazy dreamer like you. That is why my points raised seemed obvious.

PS The points I raised would not be obvious to knowledge poor forum participants like you. :nutkick

gardnerdesign

July 14th, 2009, 03:08 PM

Im going to respond as if you had done the constructive thing (instead of doing haf the things you accuse me of doing) and possed simple questions so that i can respond secsinctly.

The reasoning behind the weaponry, equipment and structuring is to allow the full force of a squad to be focused where and when is nessesary as well as increasing mobility and responsiveness in a 360 degree battfield. On top of that it reduces the chances that an essential capability of the squad will be lost and deprives the enemy of high value targets such as machine gunners or grenadeirs.

-For OICW i like the astralian concept with the stacked granades

-wile i am aware there is no current system that fuses the capabilities of a morter and desposible guided missile system .... surly you can see the value of giving such weapons to every member of a squad. It is completly within the current capablities of all weastern and most eastern countries to do this... the two weapons are not that differnt in both form and function

-sorry have not seen transformers(couldnt resist)

-The unattended ground sensors( of course i kno they exsist or i probubly wouldnt have used the correct terminology ...use ur brain) would be placed with a feild of veiw that was advantages in some way (of course) and an explosive divise would be placed comwere in that field of veiw were an enemy is likly to go. it would than be attatched by a thin wire ( hence the wire duh) there by avoiding destruction and retaining there advantages feild of veiw

-i suggest you all read OPSSG's first responce to me and count how many times he uses he logical falicies he so kindly pointed out in my emotionaly charged(and rrightfully so) responce.

im not a good writer im a good talker in that sence i am a farly lazy person but i dont loose debates and arguments in conversation so the internet is nice...... it gives other people a chance to not only get there ideas heard in full but in most cases win the debate or argument with me

i would prefer u not interact with me if ur not gonna show me respect i dont need you to agree with me just ask me simple questions and state ur opinions and keep them away from personal comments ( didnt your perents teach you interpersonal skills... its respect 101 to do everything in your power to prevent your comments from being offensive

Bonza

July 14th, 2009, 09:01 PM

i would prefer u not interact with me if ur not gonna show me respect i dont need you to agree with me just ask me simple questions and state ur opinions and keep them away from personal comments ( didnt your perents teach you interpersonal skills... its respect 101 to do everything in your power to prevent your comments from being offensive

Here's a quote from one of your previous posts in this same thread:

i dont have time to break down everything into small enough words for you to understand ..... and on top of that u need to grow up.... u cant expect everyone to sit down and just blast out a perfectly written paper.... some of us have lives .... and as far as all that sparky bs ...... you are right about that guy wrong about me simple as that .... your great at the facts but your life must be sad lacking an imagination or any people skills .... you are simply a number cruncher, a worker bee nothin more than a gear in a machine .... im the guy ur boss hires cuz u havnt come up with a new and innovative idea in years. my point is anybody can research and report (especially you) or speculate on things that are obvious ...the real gift of a human brain is the imagination and problem solving capability we (well at least i do) posses try using it

I'm sure OPSSG can take care of himself, but don't you dare take a tone of personal injury when you've clearly gone out of your way to maliciously insult a man's livelihood and intelligence.

gf0012-aust

July 14th, 2009, 09:48 PM

Admin.

Edit: Thread now re-opened.

Read the Forum Rules
Absorb the intent and spirit of the Forum Rules
Abide by the intent and spirit of the Forum Rules

Firn

September 4th, 2009, 06:39 PM

Rafael (http://defense-update.com/photos/mini_spike.html) has unveiled a "mini" Spike missile to complement their already exisiting family.

Mini-Spike is the first implementation of an anti-personnel precision attack missile, designed for operation at the company and platoon level.

This man-portable missile system weighs about 12 kg, and comprises of a command and launch unit facilitating target acquisition and wireless control for the missile, weighing 4 kg and missiles stored in a canister-launcher, weighing 4 kg each. Typically a soldier will carry the CLU and two missiles with other members of the unit carrying spare missiles.

The missile itself could of course be used in other packages as well, for example on UAVs, Helicopters and AFV. All in all it seems to me to be a sensible addition - how pricey it is has yet to be known. It can be used with a new compact CLU or the existing one, which is suitable for the ATGM Spikes. One can imagine a wide field of uses for such a relative compact and light, EO guided missile with small warhead and a range of 1,2 km, especially in LIC.

Firn

September 7th, 2009, 11:59 AM

The use of high-tech UGV (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-donkeys7-2009jul07,0,6183548,full.story) might greatly reduce the strain on the backs of the soldiers and marines. This is great news and shows that sometimes great investments into new technology can bring ripe fruits. The video (http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=8338900&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,540432,00.html) is especially telling. I guess my grandgrandfathers, grandfathers and my father would be quite in awe :)

Waylander

September 7th, 2009, 04:37 PM

Sometimes one can't beat nature.

Our mountain troops also have nothing but praise for their mule unit.
Nothing can replace them when it comes to carrying heavy loads in difficult terrain.

Chino

September 8th, 2009, 02:45 PM

Silly question about the Metal Storm that I am too lazy to search on the web:

- Can it be reloaded quickly after firing its entire load?

- The first rounds in front are closer to the muzzle and have a shorter barrel travel when fired. The last rounds at the back will travel a longer length of barrel when fired. So in theory the first and last round would fall at different distances, right?

Waylander

September 8th, 2009, 02:52 PM

I assume that at least for the grenade launcher the different trajectory is no problem.
Getting a little dispersion isn't that bad if one wants to saturate a target area.

Firn

September 8th, 2009, 04:39 PM

Sometimes one can't beat nature.

Our mountain troops also have nothing but praise for their mule unit.
Nothing can replace them when it comes to carrying heavy loads in difficult terrain.

I guess that at least three generations of my family, me not included would have agreed with that ;)

Metal storm seems to be an interesting concept but largely unsuited for infantry units. As Waylander said the little differences in range should be not a problem for a GL, at least not until the differences become too large.

gf0012-aust

September 8th, 2009, 05:24 PM

Metal storm seems to be an interesting concept but largely unsuited for infantry units. As Waylander said the little differences in range should be not a problem for a GL, at least not until the differences become too large.

I've been to test firings of MS over the last few tears and did have some peripheral association.

not much variation of projectile flight due to barrel length - in fact I've seen rounds basically follow through into the same hole at "nn" metres
it will be part of an infantry weapon solution - having seen some of the future personal combat systems touted for future soldier - an MS solution has not been removed and still appears (even as recently as last week) in the material

Bonza

September 8th, 2009, 11:23 PM

I've been to test firings of MS over the last few tears and did have some peripheral association.

not much variation of projectile flight due to barrel length - in fact I've seen rounds basically follow through into the same hole at "nn" metres
it will be part of an infantry weapon solution - having seen some of the future personal combat systems touted for future soldier - an MS solution has not been removed and still appears (even as recently as last week) in the material

Hi GF,

I was under the impression that MS was still experiencing big issues with reloading in combat conditions, has a solution been found for this? Or does the problem differ between applications, for example automatic fire vs grenade launching?

the road runner

September 9th, 2009, 12:40 AM

I've been to test firings of MS over the last few tears and did have some peripheral association.

Worth buying shares in the company:?2

Do you think Metal Storm has a future,or has it missed the boat?

Regards

the road runner

September 9th, 2009, 12:51 AM

Silly question about the Metal Storm that I am too lazy to search on the web:

- Can it be reloaded quickly after firing its entire load?

In my previouse ,post number 50.

It dose show the 40mm Mortar being realoded,but not the whole Mortar at once ,just isolated barrels.

Hope this helps

gf0012-aust

September 9th, 2009, 04:17 AM

Hi GF,

I was under the impression that MS was still experiencing big issues with reloading in combat conditions, has a solution been found for this? Or does the problem differ between applications, for example automatic fire vs grenade launching?

Still a problem as far as I'm concerned. but, it needs to be assessed against weapons role...

gf0012-aust

September 9th, 2009, 04:19 AM

Worth buying shares in the company:?2

Do you think Metal Storm has a future,or has it missed the boat?

Regards

IMO (and I'm a shareholder), it missed the good boat and is now picking up the remaining opportunities which IMO are and can be better served by other technologies.

IMO, its now a technology looking for a user as opposed to initially having a window where it was a high priority tech for a user looking for a solution

Firn

September 10th, 2009, 08:32 AM

It is interesting that there is seemingly little variation - the ever hotter and longer barrel for the following rounds should make at least some impact. Perhaps the amount of propellant changes according to the position of the projectile in the barrel.

Waylander

September 10th, 2009, 09:41 AM

Firn

September 10th, 2009, 11:47 AM

In doubt that. That would mean one needs a lot of different rounds for one weapon.
That would increase the logistical tail as well as raise the price for the ammo itself.
And it would make fast reloading difficult.

Hm, given that the groups of rounds are containerized and are reloaded togheter it should not be a big problem for the tail. Anyway I think that only varying amounts of propellants in such an container can make sure that all projectiles strike roughly the same point.

Chino

September 10th, 2009, 11:43 PM

Noob questions on the Metal Storm...

Is there a need to deliver such a devastating number of 40mm grenades from a vehicle mounted weapon? Would support arty etc be more suited to the job?

And if the MS-mounted AFV is expending ammo at this incredible rate, wouldn't they run out of ammo quickly?

Can the MS role be replaced with, say... twin AGLs on the AFV? (AGLs can fire longer without needing to reload due to its lower rate of fire and belt-feed.)

And reloading an AGL seems simpler, less frequent, and doesn't involve exposing yourself to small arms and shrapnel like with the MS.

shihido

November 11th, 2009, 12:27 PM

Hmmm... A dry suit? What about heat build up? I hope you know that some military uniforms are sweat wicking (http://www.slate.com/id/2124889/) to deal with heat build up and permethrin treated (http://npic.orst.edu/hottopic/ptc/index.html) (to make the wearer less attractive to mosquitoes and other insect vectors).

Hmmm... I get it, you must have been reading up on Harry Porter and his invisibility cloak as an idea for next generation camouflage. What spell do we need to cast to merge defence technology and magic into a single product?[/QUOTE]

Actually i think i get what he means. To make the combat attire comfortable, but a modular camoflague component would allow the attire to be adapted to the combat environment, ie. desert, urban, jungle.

fixdeluxe1

November 17th, 2009, 08:04 PM

I beleive that the Modern/Future infantry squad should posses an AT/SAM missile launcher,standard assault rifles,sniper rifle,and an intergrated HUD and COM system.

Aircraft operate in sqaudrons and Vehicles operate in Platoons.Same unit-based principle.

All small arms should posses electronic sights and crosshairs in the HUD,ammo readers,40mm Multipurpose launchers(sticky cams,smoke,Explosive,stun,shotshell etc) and fire High-Explosive Armour Piercing ammuntion.

That's what I would like to see,as well as an intergrated battle network and video/audio/text communications in real-time.Rations should be assesed individually by Militart Medicals who asses the nutritional and health needs of that individual.

StevoJH

November 17th, 2009, 09:15 PM

Enjoy paying for it. :)

I'm sure infantry squads would love to have a MANPAD per squad, except for the people who have to carry the launcher and spare missiles that is. :duel

fixdeluxe1

November 18th, 2009, 12:42 AM

Enjoy paying for it. :)

I'm sure infantry squads would love to have a MANPAD per squad, except for the people who have to carry the launcher and spare missiles that is. :duel

I think the Chinese,Russian,American and German armies with support from Israel and tech experts in Japan are working on something along the lines of this.I think that it's called some thing along them lines of Infantry of the future.

StevoJH

November 18th, 2009, 12:55 AM

Lots of countries are working on future Infantry Unit Structures and equipments. I'll break your previous post down point by point.

I beleive that the Modern/Future infantry squad should posses an AT/SAM missile launcher,standard assault rifles,sniper rifle,and an intergrated HUD and COM system.

At the moment most infantry squads are broken down into a two or three fire teams. Within each fire team of 4-5 people you might have one with an M203 equipped rifle, one with a dedicated marksman rifle, for example the L86 in the UK, one with a Minimi etc. LAW's can be issued on an as needed basis. Heavier weapons are held at the battalion level in a weapons company.

Aircraft operate in sqaudrons and Vehicles operate in Platoons.Same unit-based principle.

Aircraft:
- Flight
- Squadron
- Wing
-Group
- Airforce

Vehicles
- Troop
- Squadron
- Regiment
- Brigade

Infantry
- Fire Team
- Section
- Platoon
- Company
- Battalion
- Regiment (Ceremonial and Admin)
- Brigade (Operational)
- Division

All small arms should posses electronic sights and crosshairs in the HUD,ammo readers,40mm Multipurpose launchers(sticky cams,smoke,Explosive,stun,shotshell etc) and fire High-Explosive Armour Piercing ammuntion.

If you check out a few of the recent You Tube messages you will see that most soldiers have an ACOG, EOTECH, AIMPOINT or similar scope on their rifle. Some have M203 Grenade Launchers.

That's what I would like to see,as well as an intergrated battle network and video/audio/text communications in real-time.

Look up the US Stryker BCT or UK Bowman system.

Rations should be assesed individually by Militart Medicals who asses the nutritional and health needs of that individual.

Have fun with that.

Regards,
Stephen