FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Has Youtube video been uploaded of that or is it still at that stage in development ?
I have the presentation but the video I saw in it won't work on its own...
 
The true logistic burden in the near peer space is arty ammo, fuel and engr sp, but mainly arty. None of the sexy things in that presentation will change that at all.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
BOXER 155mm doesn't need stabilisers, even at 3 and 9 o'clock. I've seen it firing - impressive. Can fire Vulcano out to 70km.
Its not the firing arcs that are particularly a problem (though they are a nice to have IMO), if you want accurate long range dumb shell shooting you need a stable firing platform. Currently thats either spade (Light gun), stabilizers (Archer) or Big 'n' rigid (AS90/MLRS). KMW might have cracked shooting 40km accurately on wobbly wishbone suspension and dumb rounds with new technology, but put me in the skeptic pile!

So any problems will show up in shell dispersion (guided vulcano will obs expensively fix this) or recoil at higher charges, which anyone taking a closer look should pick up quite quickly.
 

rabfan

Old-Salt
Man Archer - In service, Big vehicle, more stability than the Swedish bendy ones. (Lesson learnt!)
KMW Boxer - CAD Drawing, Smaller vehicle, Stabilisers? Nah, it'll be fine.....

Even if they can get it firing supercharges without the suspension falling to bits, its still going to be eye watering expensive....
I'm not a gunner so happy to bow to your greater knowledge of the limitations this platform might bring. However, the wider opportunity to standardise Strike on a single platform (or as few as possible) would be a mistake to miss on my opinion.

Either option would be better than a few light guns and 81m, with both lacking the range and punch that Strike is expected/required to bring to the fight.
 
On the logistics subthread, did anyone else see the LOGBOTS paper and think it was nowhere near as good as it was made out to be?
I have never been a believer of sending stores out in some remote controlled vehicle hoping it gets there in one piece. If we couldn't get Bowman to transmit/recieve the other side of a T-Wall then not sure how someone in no doubt a box container 10 miles away is going to manouvere a veh through choke points laced with IED's whilst 15yr old kid has run behind it, poured petrol over it and then watched it trundle on its merry way like a hi-tech burning rings of fire! ( i know we control UAV's from the other side of the world but when you start putting that amount of tech involved it will get seriously expensive and UAV's in the air are different compared to land movement)
The LOGBOTS piece is fanciful which sounds like something from a manufacturer would reel out at a Logistics Conference in Poland maybe!!;)
Joking aside we would have to change the whole way of thinking in going by the smaller quantities, quicker delivery metho. This may work in some automated warehouse where you see these carts delivering parts to the operatives, a little different in a kinetic operational environment.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
I'm not a gunner so happy to bow to your greater knowledge of the limitations this platform might bring. However, the wider opportunity to standardise Strike on a single platform (or as few as possible) would be a mistake to miss on my opinion.

Either option would be better than a few light guns and 81m, with both lacking the range and punch that Strike is expected/required to bring to the fight.
Sure, but the reason Boxer 155 is a bad idea is the same reason why there was no CVRT SPG. Its just doesn't have the attributes needed.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Its not the firing arcs that are particularly a problem (though they are a nice to have IMO), if you want accurate long range dumb shell shooting you need a stable firing platform. Currently thats either spade (Light gun), stabilizers (Archer) or Big 'n' rigid (AS90/MLRS). KMW might have cracked shooting 40km accurately on wobbly wishbone suspension and dumb rounds with new technology, but put me in the skeptic pile!

So any problems will show up in shell dispersion (guided vulcano will obs expensively fix this) or recoil at higher charges, which anyone taking a closer look should pick up quite quickly.
Lockable suspension, perhaps?
 
Its not the firing arcs that are particularly a problem (though they are a nice to have IMO), if you want accurate long range dumb shell shooting you need a stable firing platform. Currently thats either spade (Light gun), stabilizers (Archer) or Big 'n' rigid (AS90/MLRS). KMW might have cracked shooting 40km accurately on wobbly wishbone suspension and dumb rounds with new technology, but put me in the skeptic pile!

So any problems will show up in shell dispersion (guided vulcano will obs expensively fix this) or recoil at higher charges, which anyone taking a closer look should pick up quite quickly.
Have you every seen an artillery piece fire?
 
On the question of logs, particularly arty ammo, would we really need to truck forward cold war levels to deployed batteries?
If, as seems to be the proposed case for Strike brigades, they're going to be spending most of the time dispersed and hiding from UAVs, with the occassional shoot & scoot fire mission, the rates of fire will be fairly low.
Again, if the Baltics are your proposed battleground, I'd put good money on the Russians having the entire area thoroughly mapped and pre planned target grids known.
They ( Russia) will have a fair idea of speed/time/distance to guesstimate where likely rearmament points might be, and interdicting a few ammo trucks makes your guns rather useless when empty.
The days of deploying in "gun lines" are long gone; resupplying a dispersed battery will likely be delivering a single ULS to each gun, needing only one truck per gun.
I don't see a need nor opportunity to set up 2nd line transport units ( using tactical trucks), your regimental echelon could haul what's needed from a dump well out of range of Russian arty, which puts that dump far enough back to be replenned by bog standard civilian transport. Rail/ road/ canal/ river, all add a great need for troops to secure the MSR too.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
On the question of logs, particularly arty ammo, would we really need to truck forward cold war levels to deployed batteries?
If, as seems to be the proposed case for Strike brigades, they're going to be spending most of the time dispersed and hiding from UAVs, with the occassional shoot & scoot fire mission, the rates of fire will be fairly low.
Again, if the Baltics are your proposed battleground, I'd put good money on the Russians having the entire area thoroughly mapped and pre planned target grids known.
They ( Russia) will have a fair idea of speed/time/distance to guesstimate where likely rearmament points might be, and interdicting a few ammo trucks makes your guns rather useless when empty.
The days of deploying in "gun lines" are long gone; resupplying a dispersed battery will likely be delivering a single ULS to each gun, needing only one truck per gun.
I don't see a need nor opportunity to set up 2nd line transport units ( using tactical trucks), your regimental echelon could haul what's needed from a dump well out of range of Russian arty, which puts that dump far enough back to be replenned by bog standard civilian transport. Rail/ road/ canal/ river, all add a great need for troops to secure the MSR too.
Surely, whether in a gun line or dispersed positions you're still going to need a given volume of fire to neutralise a given target/threat? That still means getting the same volume of munitions forward/to the right places.
 
Surely, whether in a gun line or dispersed positions you're still going to need a given volume of fire to neutralise a given target/threat? That still means getting the same volume of munitions forward/to the right places.
Yes, but look at recent videos from Ukraine, for example, ( on Youtube) where a mortar crew fired a couple of rounds then were killed by counter battery fire. If the opposition are as good as their reputation re arty, will our guns have the time to achieve that " volume of fire" before being malletted?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Yes, but look at recent videos from Ukraine, for example, ( on Youtube) where a mortar crew fired a couple of rounds then were killed by counter battery fire. If the opposition are as good as their reputation re arty, will our guns have the time to achieve that " volume of fire" before being malletted?
So you don't fire a single round for fear of counter-fire. That's nonsense.

I don't know whether we still have the capability now but back in the Cold War days our counter-battery set-up could have rounds in the air pretty damn quickly, too. It's not a new concept to be back on someone's tail PDQ.

No, you shoot and scoot. But that still means that you have to have volumes of munitions forward.
 
I have never been a believer of sending stores out in some remote controlled vehicle hoping it gets there in one piece. If we couldn't get Bowman to transmit/recieve the other side of a T-Wall then not sure how someone in no doubt a box container 10 miles away is going to manouvere a veh through choke points laced with IED's whilst 15yr old kid has run behind it, poured petrol over it and then watched it trundle on its merry way like a hi-tech burning rings of fire! ( i know we control UAV's from the other side of the world but when you start putting that amount of tech involved it will get seriously expensive and UAV's in the air are different compared to land movement)
The LOGBOTS piece is fanciful which sounds like something from a manufacturer would reel out at a Logistics Conference in Poland maybe!!;)
Joking aside we would have to change the whole way of thinking in going by the smaller quantities, quicker delivery metho. This may work in some automated warehouse where you see these carts delivering parts to the operatives, a little different in a kinetic operational environment.
Yeah, I'm deeply sceptical for several reasons. The paper is basically two proposals ground into one - there's the sexy sexy robots, and there's the dispersed loggie operating concept - and I suspect the robots stuff is there to sex up the rest of it and paper over the problems.

On the robots, I am not sure the author realises how demanding his idea is. These vehicles would be expected to manoeuvre and navigate both on and off the road, in a tactical environment, dealing with obstructions, damage to infrastructure, and some degree of threat from all sorts. They would have to operate without relying on high quality mapping (Google's self-driving car basically works by using extremely detailed mapping, surveyed on a daily basis, and as a result has clocked up all its thousands of km on the same specially and expensively surveyed route) or any off-board infrastructure whatsoever. That would include operating under EMCOM and GPS denied. (If EMCON is in force, they can't use radar as a sensor either, which a lot of automated vehicles do.) That's way beyond Level 4 automation, especially as they're not just unmanned but unattended (ie can't count on any human intervention).

Also, he wants them to RV and transfer cargo automatically and unattended, which sounds like a cyber-physical systems nightmare. (Imagine the two vehs don't EXACTLY line up when they park, because the ground isn't level, so the microswitch doesn't quite engage, or the little QR code target is covered in clag from the cross-country drive. Driver Bloggs will sort it out but the bot won't. And what happens then? do they just sit there until a scrap dealer removes them after the war is over? Give up and RTB?). The 'bots are also likely to be full of stuff attractive to thieves, to say nothing of guerrillas/infiltrators, and as far as I can see they have zero self-defence capacity. The swarming thing will also present some problems with things like traffic control.

The dispersed ops concept, interestingly, has next to nothing to do with the robots - there's no reason why you couldn't implement it with Bedfords, a little crane on the back, and drivers, and you know, that might be worth trialling - and this is the other reason why I'm suspicious of all the robot stuff. The big problem I see with it is all the cross-loading, which is by definition double-handling (possibly triple or worse) and everything you're not meant to do in a logistics process.
 

Latest Threads

Top