FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

Do you need to stop frag or SAA?

Its a tanker, not a tank.
It's two options. Lightly armoured transport capable of transporting a reasonable load(whatever that is) whilst surviving harassing fire on MSRs or the means of a)preventing the enemy locating said MSRs and b) being capable of smacking the enemy artillery able to reach said MSRs so hard & so fast they don't want to play.

Both need money & long term intent to actually do some real work instead of pissing around on SJAR moments and worrying if an MTP barrack shirt is smart enough.
Except you need vehicles to operate in the A2 and B echelons (and further back) which at most will be lightly armoured (If even, more likely to be soft skinned (although range of Russian arty??))

lightly armoured vehicles to bring the bulk supplies that have been broken up to the F Ech for resupplys (of course that include Zulu vehicles (if suitable))
 
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.
Except the volume and range of Russian Arty at Bde level is probably bigger than the
whole British Army.

the gun lines are definitely a thing of the past in peer/near peer

but then guided ammo probably reduces the amount of ammo required

dispersal and shoot & scoot is an absolute necessity

to me that means the SP Arty needs to carry probably min 30 rounds so it can go to multiple firing points fire a few rounds and bug out before having to be resupplied.

when a resupply is required it is going to have to be rapid in order to avoid being targeted and to get back in the fight. So does the resupply vehicle come to it (how is that co-ordinated etc) or is it done as a rolling replen (in which case it is going to be out of the fight for longer)?
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Except the volume and range of Russian Arty at Bde level is probably bigger than the
whole British Army.

the gun lines are definitely a thing of the past in peer/near peer

but then guided ammo probably reduces the amount of ammo required

dispersal and shoot & scoot is an absolute necessity

to me that means the SP Arty needs to carry probably min 30 rounds so it can go to multiple firing points fire a few rounds and bug out before having to be resupplied.

when a resupply is required it is going to have to be rapid in order to avoid being targeted and to get back in the fight. So does the resupply vehicle come to it (how is that co-ordinated etc) or is it done as a rolling replen (in which case it is going to be out of the fight for longer)?
It's something we've let wither and an area where we're dangerously exposed.

There were also good reasons why we ended up with M109/AS90 - protection. The Israelis learned to their cost with the M107 what happens with open structures, and I do wonder at the continuing search for a 'light' solution - I suspect the answer is ££££.

It's not just just the tubed or the launchers, though. It's a whole 'infrastructure' involving those, plus rounds (of proliferating types and sophistication), plus targeting, plus...

In my mind, rolling replen makes little sense. Better the rounds go where they're needed so that the guns can go where they're needed.

Someone with far, far greater knowledge than me should probably comment, though.

It might be even better if they didn't - not in open forum.
 
Except you need vehicles to operate in the A2 and B echelons (and further back) which at most will be lightly armoured (If even, more likely to be soft skinned (although range of Russian arty??))

lightly armoured vehicles to bring the bulk supplies that have been broken up to the F Ech for resupplys (of course that include Zulu vehicles (if suitable))
The last mile is the problem. There is certainly a role for a protected logistic vehicle, although whether it is an armoured crew cab and an open flat deck or an armoured box body is another matter.
 
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.
But apart from that...?
 

Londo

LE
@irlsgt
My comment on post 2,634 aroused you're amusement . Was my Idea stupid , impractical , unworkable ? I don't know and would appreciate any comments or suggestions .
My post was slightly tongue in cheek in the first place and I know the vehicle is mostly going out of service . Just trying to throw some ideas out there and would welcome some of yours on the subject .
 
Cut down the sides and roof of some of them and have a flatbed . Just keep the armour at the front for the two crew .
I like your idea too .
Well if your resupply ends up full of holes (eg POL, water, rations) or doesn’t arrive because of the resultant explosion (eg ammo) It is kind of a pointless excercise
 

Londo

LE
Well if your resupply ends up full of holes (eg POL, water, rations) or doesn’t arrive because of the resultant explosion (eg ammo) It is kind of a pointless excercise
OK Thanks :-D
 
before expending a large chunk of resources on autonomous/armoured logistics solutions in order to face peer/near peer enemies maybe we should just accept that we're going to lose people and stores due to enemy action and re-route said resources into increasing quantities of stores, manpower and equipment.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Except the volume and range of Russian Arty at Bde level is probably bigger than the whole British Army.
A few years ago I saw a DIA publication (unclassified) on the new-look Russian military, that included what their motor-rifle brigade structure now looked like. Each of the three motor-rifle battalions had eight 120mm SP mortars for organic fire support, plus they had two battalions (each of 18 guns) of 152mm SP artillery and a battalion of 18 multiple rocket launchers (currently BM-21). (And that's before we get into divisional and corps assets)

It's as bad for air defence: they've got shedloads of MANPADS distributed around, plus six SA-13 vehicles, twelve SA-15 TLARs, and sixteen 2S6 or SA-22 vehicles.

Put that up against a Strike Brigade with its six towed 105mm guns and its slack handful of HVM-LML... and it's not going to be pretty, with their artillery able to obliterate any identified targets with little fear of retaliation and the skies a very unfriendly place for any UK air support.
 
A few years ago I saw a DIA publication (unclassified) on the new-look Russian military, that included what their motor-rifle brigade structure now looked like. Each of the three motor-rifle battalions had eight 120mm SP mortars for organic fire support, plus they had two battalions (each of 18 guns) of 152mm SP artillery and a battalion of 18 multiple rocket launchers (currently BM-21). (And that's before we get into divisional and corps assets)

It's as bad for air defence: they've got shedloads of MANPADS distributed around, plus six SA-13 vehicles, twelve SA-15 TLARs, and sixteen 2S6 or SA-22 vehicles.

Put that up against a Strike Brigade with its six towed 105mm guns and its slack handful of HVM-LML... and it's not going to be pretty, with their artillery able to obliterate any identified targets with little fear of retaliation and the skies a very unfriendly place for any UK air support.
so lets stop spunking money on stuff like robotic ammo carriers and buy some more guns
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
so lets stop spunking money on stuff like robotic ammo carriers and buy some more guns
We could call the project to do that Indirect Fire Precision Attack... no, that didn't work, let's call it Project CONGREVE... well, someone make a decision, how about Land Fires Decision Support... okay, too hard, let's just claim we'll solve it all with "cyber".

My involvement in that area reminded me of Major Major's father in "Catch-22"...

His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa.

Replace "growing alfafa" with "updating the British Army's artillery" and you've got a good description of AHQ Andover...
 
Who are we going to crew them with?
that's not really my point. it's about affordability. we seem intent on pursuing solutions that seem more intent on limiting casualties than combat effectiveness and are so expensive that we end up with reduced fleets.

it may seem counter intuitive but maybe our armed forces are not best served by always having, or at least pursuing, the best kit.
 
We could call the project to do that Indirect Fire Precision Attack... no, that didn't work, let's call it Project CONGREVE... well, someone make a decision, how about Land Fires Decision Support... okay, too hard, let's just claim we'll solve it all with "cyber".

My involvement in that area reminded me of Major Major's father in "Catch-22"...

His specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Major Major's father worked without rest at not growing alfalfa.

Replace "growing alfafa" with "updating the British Army's artillery" and you've got a good description of AHQ Andover...
it sounds exhausting
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Meanwhile elsewhere


Building on the new 6x6 from Patria, which is an evolution of the very successful Patria Sisu

Which can take a 120mm Nemo turret

 
The last mile is the problem. There is certainly a role for a protected logistic vehicle, although whether it is an armoured crew cab and an open flat deck or an armoured box body is another matter.
Like what we did in the resupply of PB's from the FOB's. Wolfhound....stores in the open back. The US do it a stage further, they put trailers onto their MRAP's. So in that case how about a couple of spare Warrior engine/pack trailers on the back of JLTV or MASTIFF?
 
that's not really my point. it's about affordability. we seem intent on pursuing solutions that seem more intent on limiting casualties than combat effectiveness and are so expensive that we end up with reduced fleets.

it may seem counter intuitive but maybe our armed forces are not best served by always having, or at least pursuing, the best kit.
We cannot crew the 89 x AS90 that we have now; buying more would merely ensure that Ashchurch is kept busy.
 
A few years ago I saw a DIA publication (unclassified) on the new-look Russian military, that included what their motor-rifle brigade structure now looked like...

Put that up against a Strike Brigade with its six towed 105mm guns and its slack handful of HVM-LML
It's not that bad - the Strike Brigade won't be up against a Motor-Rifle Brigade, we'll be attacking with 3:1 advantage! (snort).

Our mighty battery of 105mm and three platoons of 81mm will only have to cope with a single Motor-Rifle Battalion, and their meagre slice of Brigade assets! The foe will regret that its platoon of 120mm, with two batteries of SP 152mm and a battery of rocket arty in Direct Support, ever dared to face us!

Of course, if they're attacking us at doctrinally-correct ratios, each of our rifle companies will face that Motor-Rifle Battalion. Our section of 81mm, section of Javelin, and a couple of minutes of HE from the 105mm battery should do the trick...
 
We cannot crew the 89 x AS90 that we have now; buying more would merely ensure that Ashchurch is kept busy.
do you think it's worthwhile pursuing autonomous or up armoured (inc. load) log solutions? or do you think the money could be spent better elsewhere?

i said guns but it could be anything. my fear is we pursue expensive equipment which leads to reduced numbers and ends up robbing other budgets.

we dont seem to do sten guns anymore
 

Latest Threads

Top