US Army News and updates general discussion

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
The Us Army's 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 17th Field Artillery Brigade too delivery of equipment to stand up the first Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) battery at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. 5-3 FA has most recently been a HIMARS battalion.
The battalion took delivery of a number of what appear to be M983A4 HEMT tractors and modified M870 trailers to serve as transporter erector launchers (TEL), along with at least two training missile cannisters. No LRHW missiles were delivered.
M983A4s are also used as prime movers for Patriot missile TELs and support equipment. Battery configuration is slated to be four TELs with two missiles each, for a battery basic load of eight missiles. The delivered equipment will allow the unit to begin training and developing tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs)
The completed fielding of the first operational LRHW battery, including live weapons, is slated for FY2023.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
There is an interesting proposal for the new division structure of the US Army. If I can find the slides with the ORBAT in decent quality I'll post here as well.

 

seaspear

Active Member
Further information on the "Dark Eagle" with its deployment in Germany, and re-activation of a nuclear commissioning ceremony that had closed at the end of the previous cold war, the potential deployment of hypersonic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons within range of Moscow in smarter times could of led to treaties on these types of wapons
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
There is an interesting proposal for the new division structure of the US Army. If I can find the slides with the ORBAT in decent quality I'll post here as well.

Look no further:

Penetration Division:


Heavy Division:


Light Division:


Joint Forcible Entry Division - Airborne:


Joint Forcible Entry Division - Air Assault:


It seems odd to me that with the USMC shifting to serve as an inland A2AD tool for the Navy and its better integration with the navy, from being a small army, and the Army instead taking the role of landing, we see 2 types of air-centric forcible entry divisions.
Perhaps the Navy will supply modular landing tools that can be attached to any division type?

I also think the JFE - Airborne should have more armor than just the MPF. Russia's BMD family of vehicles is very lightly protected (can be pierced by 0.5" cal from the sides) but provides crucial capabilities. Some light IFVs should be developed and acquired. The German LuWa and Wiesel are good examples. Perhaps something that is optionally manned.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Look no further:

Penetration Division:


Heavy Division:


Light Division:


Joint Forcible Entry Division - Airborne:


Joint Forcible Entry Division - Air Assault:


It seems odd to me that with the USMC shifting to serve as an inland A2AD tool for the Navy and its better integration with the navy, from being a small army, and the Army instead taking the role of landing, we see 2 types of air-centric forcible entry divisions.
Perhaps the Navy will supply modular landing tools that can be attached to any division type?

I also think the JFE - Airborne should have more armor than just the MPF. Russia's BMD family of vehicles is very lightly protected (can be pierced by 0.5" cal from the sides) but provides crucial capabilities. Some light IFVs should be developed and acquired. The German LuWa and Wiesel are good examples. Perhaps something that is optionally manned.
Thank you. I knew this existed but the version I saw was low-res. On the subject of airborne I have a couple of questions. Is it an IFV that they need? Or a light-armor fire support platform? On the Sprut, Russia managed to squeeze a full MBT cannon into an air-droppable light armor chassis. I'm sure it could be done with the 105mm that western light armor loves for use for direct-fire support. Maybe what's needed is a set of SP platforms for direct fire support (ideally in two varieties, the high-caliber and the low-mid caliber), SP mortar (120mm), SP ATGM/loitering munitions carrier.

On other things I can't help but notice is not only the absence of MBTs in some formations but also the extremely low quantity of MPFs. I'd expect either a full brigade of them at the division level, or at least a company in each brigade, with a btln at the division level.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Further information on the "Dark Eagle" with its deployment in Germany, and re-activation of a nuclear commissioning ceremony that had closed at the end of the previous cold war, the potential deployment of hypersonic missiles that could carry nuclear weapons within range of Moscow in smarter times could of led to treaties on these types of wapons
The recommissioned 56th Artillery Command is a theater fires command, not the "substrategic nuclear missile command" of the Cold War.

According to the German government (press conference of Jan 12th), answering to concerns by local interests, it has been communicated by the US government that no new missile units will be deployed in Germany so far in the context of the 56th AC's recommissioning. Presumably (unless reinforced) the primary fires component for 56th AC will be the 41st Artillery Brigade with its GMLRS and ATACMS modularly subordinated.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
The recommissioned 56th Artillery Command is a theater fires command, not the "substrategic nuclear missile command" of the Cold War.

According to the German government (press conference of Jan 12th), answering to concerns by local interests, it has been communicated by the US government that no new missile units will be deployed in Germany so far in the context of the 56th AC's recommissioning. Presumably (unless reinforced) the primary fires component for 56th AC will be the 41st Artillery Brigade with its GMLRS and ATACMS modularly subordinated.
Not to mention that there is no proof actual "Dark Eagle" missiles have been even fully tested yet. And the only unit currently that exists with equipment to field the LRHW are stationed on the west coast of the US.
The Us Army's 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 17th Field Artillery Brigade too delivery of equipment to stand up the first Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) battery at Joint Base Lewis-McChord. 5-3 FA has most recently been a HIMARS battalion.
The battalion took delivery of a number of what appear to be M983A4 HEMT tractors and modified M870 trailers to serve as transporter erector launchers (TEL), along with at least two training missile cannisters. No LRHW missiles were delivered.
M983A4s are also used as prime movers for Patriot missile TELs and support equipment. Battery configuration is slated to be four TELs with two missiles each, for a battery basic load of eight missiles. The delivered equipment will allow the unit to begin training and developing tactics techniques and procedures (TTPs)
The completed fielding of the first operational LRHW battery, including live weapons, is slated for FY2023.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
There is an interesting proposal for the new division structure of the US Army. If I can find the slides with the ORBAT in decent quality I'll post here as well.

These might be helpful. Real (US Army produced) ORBAT slides (I combined the Heavy/Light slides to get past the 4 image limit)
Joint Forcible Entry Division - Air Assault (USA).jpgJoint Forcible Entry Division - Airborne (USA).jpgPenetration Division (USA).jpgStandard Divisions (USA).jpg
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One question: Is the concept "breakthrough operations" / "contested breakthrough operations" (in the Penetration Division descriptive text) an invention by that Battleorder site, or is that an actual thing now?

Because the term sounds rather ... uh, 1920s instead of 2020s.

I did check the Army Futures Command Concept for Maneuver in Multi-Domain Operations 2028 (which should at least mention such), but that does not refer in any way to such operations. It is however fairly focused on describing maneuvers in a penetration - disintegration - exploitation cycle, so the above term might find an application in that. Describing their purpose to be "such as river crossings" is of course a far too simplistic approach ...
 

Big_Zucchini

Well-Known Member
Thank you. I knew this existed but the version I saw was low-res. On the subject of airborne I have a couple of questions. Is it an IFV that they need? Or a light-armor fire support platform? On the Sprut, Russia managed to squeeze a full MBT cannon into an air-droppable light armor chassis. I'm sure it could be done with the 105mm that western light armor loves for use for direct-fire support. Maybe what's needed is a set of SP platforms for direct fire support (ideally in two varieties, the high-caliber and the low-mid caliber), SP mortar (120mm), SP ATGM/loitering munitions carrier.
They need some firepower that is readily available to maneuvering forces, of which the hard core is infantry. An IFV is inherently closest to that role. It could be potentially anything else, but the way we see firepower added to even very light platforms, it would be a missed opportunity if a dedicated platform is created.
They do need some weapon carriers for capabilities like loitering munitions and dedicated payloads (EW, SIGINT etc), but also some medium firepower.

JLTVs with light M230 30mm guns will go a long way, but it's not hard to see how a Russian BMD would deliver a lot more effect. Take just a high pressure 30mm gun like the XM813, add ATGMs, and some deployable payloads on that platform, with about enough protection to take on the abundant 14.5mm, 23mm, and 30mm in the east, and it will significantly enhance their capabilities and target sets tremendously.

Additional MPFs are unfortunately not deployable enough to go beyond a battalion and will be a strain on lift.

On other things I can't help but notice is not only the absence of MBTs in some formations but also the extremely low quantity of MPFs. I'd expect either a full brigade of them at the division level, or at least a company in each brigade, with a btln at the division level.
So your minimum proposal is 2 battalions worth of MPFs per division. However, beyond deployability issues, the MPF is under-powered to do any more than demolition and direct fires against light to medium targets. It cannot go toe to toe with MBTs due to its 105mm gun. Much of the firepower will exist on infantry assets, of which we don't know that much about.
Beside strategic mobility, the division will be inherently built of platforms and assets that are highly tactically mobile, and with a low footprint, logistical or otherwise.
The MPFs will be its bottleneck - they are the heaviest and most resource intensive asset. As much as they are helpful, they may undermine the pace of operations of the entire division if you add too many to handle. I believe about 1 battalion per division is that limit.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
They need some firepower that is readily available to maneuvering forces, of which the hard core is infantry. An IFV is inherently closest to that role. It could be potentially anything else, but the way we see firepower added to even very light platforms, it would be a missed opportunity if a dedicated platform is created.
They do need some weapon carriers for capabilities like loitering munitions and dedicated payloads (EW, SIGINT etc), but also some medium firepower.
That's the thing, I don't believe US Airborne currently uses IFVs, so this would be a shift not only in hardware but also in CONOPS.

JLTVs with light M230 30mm guns will go a long way, but it's not hard to see how a Russian BMD would deliver a lot more effect. Take just a high pressure 30mm gun like the XM813, add ATGMs, and some deployable payloads on that platform, with about enough protection to take on the abundant 14.5mm, 23mm, and 30mm in the east, and it will significantly enhance their capabilities and target sets tremendously.
But the BMD doesn't offer enough protection to handle 23mm or 30mm. Can this even be done on an airdroppable platform? Is there a reason these capabilities can't be placed on the same JLTVs? Possibly even an unmanned missile carrier version of it? Or are we talking about air-mobile rather then air-droppable?

Additional MPFs are unfortunately not deployable enough to go beyond a battalion and will be a strain on lift.
I guess, if mobility is the top priority. I read the light division description and it specifically said that airborne and air assault operations are not the focus. If moving by rail or sea, then lift shouldn't be the main consideration.

So your minimum proposal is 2 battalions worth of MPFs per division. However, beyond deployability issues, the MPF is under-powered to do any more than demolition and direct fires against light to medium targets. It cannot go toe to toe with MBTs due to its 105mm gun. Much of the firepower will exist on infantry assets, of which we don't know that much about.
One could give it a 120mm gun, like the Centauro 2 HITFACT. One could also invest into ATGM capabilities on the platform for anti-MBT capabilities (imagine a barrel-launched top-attack munition for the 105mm). Also with modern APSFDS against less then entirely modern tanks, this is still plausible. And most modern opponents are generally fielding fewer and fewer MBTs.

Beside strategic mobility, the division will be inherently built of platforms and assets that are highly tactically mobile, and with a low footprint, logistical or otherwise.
The MPFs will be its bottleneck - they are the heaviest and most resource intensive asset. As much as they are helpful, they may undermine the pace of operations of the entire division if you add too many to handle. I believe about 1 battalion per division is that limit.
For airborne or for light? I think that a light division may find itself in hot waters against a peer opponent that favors heavier formations. It also means that for fire support, instead of a company per btln of infantry, you have a company per brigade of infantry. That's a very low density for offense or defense.
 

Terran

Well-Known Member
So it finally happened, no cancellation.

Well, there it is.
Sig Sauer will produce the XM5 Rifle and XM250 Automatic Rifle for the US Army.
View attachment 49179
first these images are now how the Infantry will get them. Both will come from the factory with a suppressor can and the XM157 optic. On the optic if you have 50 minutes and hear that Starship troopers voice asking want to know more. This video by the maker breaks down.
1-8x24 LPVO with more smarts than most people.
now we have the XM5 and XM250.
Despite appearances the Spear is actually the same size as M4. The MG68 roughly that of the M249 but with longer effective range.
 
Last edited:

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
So it finally happened, no cancellation.


first these images are now how the Infantry will get them. Both will come from the factory with a suppressor can and the XM157 optic. On the optic if you have 50 minutes and hear that Starship troopers voice asking want to know more. This video by the maker breaks down.
1-8x24 LPVO with more smarts than most people.
now we have the XM5 and XM250.
Despite appearances the Spear is actually the same size as M4. The MG68 roughly that of the M249 but with longer effective range.
I quite like the Sig Sauer system. I really like the 6.8mm x 51 round because it brings back the hitting power of the 7.62mm x 51 but is lighter. Actually the 6.8mm x 51 has greater hitting power than the 7.62 x 51 and longer range. I have never liked the 5.56mm round at all. One of the contenders, General Dynamics True Velocity, had the round with a polymer case which was quite light. This is Chris Cappy's take on their gun and ammo.


I think that the Army should seriously consider polymer ammo cases because of it's lightness and less dependence upon metal casings. The end caps are metal, steel I think, so that the spent casing can be easily extracted, but the polymer doesn't retain heat unlike metal casings and hence doesn't help cool the barrel.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
I quite like the Sig Sauer system. I really like the 6.8mm x 51 round because it brings back the hitting power of the 7.62mm x 51 but is lighter. ...

I think that the Army should seriously consider polymer ammo cases because of it's lightness and less dependence upon metal casings. The end caps are metal, steel I think, so that the spent casing can be easily extracted, but the polymer doesn't retain heat unlike metal casings and hence doesn't help cool the barrel.
The selected Sig weapons are really not suitable for polymer cartridges, which is why they went with their hybrid steel/brass design. Due to the Sig rifle's short barrel (in order to make weight requirement) their 6.8 rounds will be generating ~80K psi chamber pressured
in order to meet the Army's range & energy requirements.
I will be interested to see what develops in the Army's recent request for sources for conversion kits/processes to rechamber M240s to the accepted 6.8mm ammo (the selection was not yet announced at the time of the Army's RFI being published). While True Velocity showed publicly that their ammo essentially only needed little more than a barrel swap, I expect Sig's ammo is going to necessitate some additional modifications to handle the extra 20K psi over current 7.62 ammo
 
Top