Fighting Light.. what is the problem?

@Cynical -Do your homework .

Maths done -"The APT 70 version carries 70 pounds to a distance of 35 miles at a maximum speed of over 120 mph." that will give a GS of 85kts , sufficient.

In contested airspace, this does sound like a massive 'here are our troops' radar signature risk.
Smart enough UAVs to fly below tree top height, with a decent enough seek and evade capability to nav down woodland rides or firebreaks might as well be loaded with warheads and sent on a 'explode on warm bodies or exhausts' tasks.
Do we still do acoustic tracking?
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
And then you have to allow time for it to be cut and paste onto a Ppt slide, with the appropriate unit specific colour and logos, preferred font etc.

NoDuff - I had to remove key detail from daily TFH update slides because the text was small and the Comd was too vain to put his glasses on to read it during the presentation!
"BLUF: We are not winning."

Bet I know which key detail you had to remove.
 
In contested airspace, this does sound like a massive 'here are our troops' radar signature risk.
Smart enough UAVs to fly below tree top height, with a decent enough seek and evade capability to nav down woodland rides or firebreaks might as well be loaded with warheads and sent on a 'explode on warm bodies or exhausts' tasks.
Do we still do acoustic tracking?
In Vietnam the chopper pilots would do multiple false insertions before and after the drop off to confuse the enemy. That would be a valid tactic with drones - if it’s likely that the drone will be detected then flood the enemy with false information.

Of course, if it’s a major shooting war then you’ll be deploying your heavy units, and there’s no way to supply those units with drones.
 
Which is fine but how will you replace the cargo?
The same way you would when you lose a truck to an IED. Just plan for wastage.
 
The same way you would when you lose a truck to an IED. Just plan for wastage.

Not a factor in British thinking. There is an extremely finite limit on such resources.
 
In Vietnam the chopper pilots would do multiple false insertions before and after the drop off to confuse the enemy. That would be a valid tactic with drones - if it’s likely that the drone will be detected then flood the enemy with false information.

Of course, if it’s a major shooting war then you’ll be deploying your heavy units, and there’s no way to supply those units with drones.
Maybe that is where they do have a use.

Having just lost 2 counterinsurgency campaigns over 2 decades at great cost, reducing troops exposure for logistic supply and sustainment may be worthwhile looking at.

Or alternatively not doing something so ruinously silly. (again, though for US, that's again again)
Just think of the blood and treasure that could have been saved if a bit more was spent on Paul Bremner's education.

Agreed in a major shooting war, it would not be ideal
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
Which is fine but how will you replace the cargo?
It is likely to be consumable items - ammunition and water in the emergency only situation. The loss of that amount is immaterial.

And recovering the drone is a luxury not a necessity in a last ditch resup.
 
You can't compare the use of complex and manned aviation assets controlled by a higher formation with small, expendable drones that are organic to the unit. Need an ammo resupply but afraid you might lose a drone? You send two or three. Weather too bad for aviation to fly? Send multiple drones because it doesn't matter if you lose one.

Let me repost this. The cost of these drones is certainly less than the cost of an ADA system.

Another piece of the puzzle is the use of small drones for resupply. The US Army is testing a few models, with payloads ranging from 80 to 150 pounds. 150 pounds equates to 2,000 rounds of 7.62.

U.S. Army Pushes Ahead With Battlefield Resupply Drones

View attachment 673297
I believe the Royal Marines conducted an exercise recently using drones for resupply.
 
It might be easier if logs/supply were clearly identified between the logistic chain, primarily supplied by the RLC and that brought forward by Regimental Q staff.

Both require different planning considerations.
Fair one, I was thinking of the entire chain not just RLC. I suppose I had the idea that as everything is subject to mission creep, it would be great if what you needed could be delivered to your location when you needed it, without you having to take it out with you on the off chance you might need it. The mission then is not dependent on what you brought out with you - which means there is the kitchen sink type scenario - but what you can be supplied with in time for the new tasking while away from your FOB etc.
 

SuperSLime

War Hero
I'm trying to understand when and where this daylight recce patrol is happening such that you are sure it will not turn into an assault on a compound
If it's a recce patrol it has been sent out to recce an objective. It has not been sent out to assault a compound. If a compound later needs assaulted a fighting patrol can be sent.
 

SuperSLime

War Hero
And a 2Lt is probably not equipped to make a quantifiable decision on something like the wearing of body armour in the last two major campaigns that have been fought.
Then they should ask their sergeant.
 
The physics of a tank round and a barmine explosion impacting on a wall are very different, it's functionally just a matter of surface area. The tank round has a small surface area, high velocity and high latent force, so it will totally destroy the part it touches, but leave the surrounding area intact (because the velocity and small area focus the transference of force). Despite the various accounts of Afghan walls absorbing tank rounds, however, that tank round still has a lot of force coming out the other side of the wall (it would have to be a really thick wall to stop it, they mostly punched through). Ditto a .50 cal round, etc.

A barmine creates an explosive sphere that dissipates very quickly and probably doesn't even breach the wall, but has a much larger surface area and a high explosive force. So it converts the wall itself into matter that is transferring energy in one direction - overpressure - expanding outwards from the strip of the mine. It effectively gets the wall to destroy itself within that sphere by pushing matter into a space where there is more matter. That effect continues with a small degree of energy absorption through heat etc until there is less resistance to the overpressure, i.e. air, such as the other side of the wall. So the matter of the wall (high resistance) blows itself out into the air (low resistance). The same thing happens on the air side of the bar mine, except the energy travels a lot quicker and further, much of it as sound and heat. If you stood in front of the air side of the bar mine, it would still pretty effectively liquidize you, however.

Same basic effect as bellyflopping or a well executed dive from the 10m board.

How does a bar mine kill a tank then?
 
Do we ever exercise logistics at pln level?

A fellow O/Cdt was filling a Platoon Sergeant slot during his TA Commisioning. Whatever happened he was not particularly required for a 10 minute period and it occurred to him to send a request for an ammo resupply. The Q bod turned up and grumpily handed over ammo and the paused and said "Well done". Can't think of any other occasion that I was at or heard of when ammo distribution wan't at the behest of DS after a debrief. Regulars milage may vary.
 
Top