Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[McG]

Suppressive fires is pretty much the same as its always been - to degrade the effectiveness of enemy fires.

You are missing a key element: temporary.  Definitions can be found in JP 1-02 DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms 12 April 2001 (As Amended Through 17 October 2007):

suppression - Temporary or transient degradation by an opposing force of the performance of a weapons system below the level needed to fulfill its mission objectives.
suppression mission - A mission to suppress an actual or suspected weapons system for the purpose of degrading its performance below the level needed to fulfill its mission objectives at a specific time for a specified duration.
suppressive fire - Fires on or about a weapons system to degrade its performance below the level needed to fulfill its mission objectives, during the conduct of the fire mission.

and AAP-6(2007) NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions:

suppression fire - Fire that degrades the performance of a target below the level needed to fulfil its mission.  Suppression is usually only effective for the duration of the fire.

but, as has been said:

Close Area Suppression be damned, its just an lousy acronym.  Lets take them out with the very first burst.

So let’s have a look at the whole capability (destroy, suppress, neutralize, disrupt & attrit).

Never look at a weapon in isolation. 

You are absolutely correct. 

Right now, the only weapon that can hit bad guys who don't want to be hit (generally most bad guys) is the 60 mm.  The CASW, as advertised, can hit "some" of those guys with its airburst round

Which targets will the 60 mm hit that the CASW will miss?  With airburst, CASW will get enemy in trenches, taking cover in a road drainage ditch, or hiding behind a wall.  With high angle fire, CASW will get the enemy lobbing bombs from two blocks over (or so the project has told us in this thread & on the links at the start of this thread).

From the GPMG reaching out beyond 2000 m (SF "Indirect" role...that's no typo.  If you have the DIN, check out the actual figure)

You’re only looking at range and not terminal effects here.

• Dismountable capability to defeat light armour at 2000 m – Currently the Pl has nothing to do this; CASW will do it.  (If we get ALAAWS & find ourselves fighting a mech foe, that weapon will be busy looking for heavier targets)
• Dismountable capability to destroy an advancing platoon at 2000 m -  I’ll accept that C6 can suppress at this range, but I cannot see the one platoon C6 achieving the destroy at this range
• Capability to breach heavy walls at 600 m to 2000 m –  Currently the Pl has nothing to do this; CASW will do it.
• Dismountable capability to suppress & attrit fortified enemy (~ Pl size) at 2000 m – CASW will do this.  A C6 can suppress, but is unlikely to attrit; a 60 mm mortar would be able to attrit but can it achieve a rate of fire to suppress?  In this instance, one CASW could stand in for two other systems (C6 + 60 mm, or 2 x 60 mm).

Considering all the weapons in a platoon, the CASW fills no niche.

I can think of at least one.  Lets consider the discussions on these boards about the mechanized infantry company’s in ability to defeat TB holed up in grape huts back in 2006.  It appears to me that a 5 round burst of HEDP would open a nice hole through which a following 5 rounds of air-burst would suppress & attrit (or destroy) the occupants, and it could do this from ~ 2 km stand-off.

 

[vonGarvin]

You’re only looking at range and not terminal effects here.

Dismountable capability to defeat light armour at 2000 m – Currently the Pl has nothing to do this; CASW will do it.  (If we get ALAAWS & find ourselves fighting a mech foe, that weapon will be busy looking for heavier targets)
Dismountable capability to destroy an advancing platoon at 2000 m -  I’ll accept that C6 can suppress at this range, but I cannot see the one platoon C6 achieving the destroy at this range
Capability to breach heavy walls at 600 m to 2000 m –  Currently the Pl has nothing to do this; CASW will do it.
Dismountable capability to suppress & attrit fortified enemy (~ Pl size) at 2000 m – CASW will do this.  A C6 can suppress, but is unlikely to attrit; a 60 mm mortar would be able to attrit but can it achieve a rate of fire to suppress?  In this instance, one CASW could stand in for two other systems (C6 + 60 mm, or 2 x 60 mm).

Actually, though I didn't mention terminal effects they were front and centre, but I didn't point that out.
For defeating armour at 2000 metres, that's getting into the company's range band of effects.  ALAAWS will indeed help take out stuff that far out, and if it is doing that, then we are fighting an enemy that most likely is not much to worry about (exposing at such a range, but of course, there are always exceptions)
As for destroying an advancing pl at 2000 m, I thought that the "S" in CASW was for "suppression".  The C6 can do it at that range, and beyond. Also remember that platoons now have 2 GPMGs. 
I do have a question re: CASW.  I suspect the answer is "yes", but indirect fire is a capability, no?  (I don't mean "high angle" fire, but the true sense of indirect)
Though heavy wall breaching is good, I doubt that a platoon would have to do such at 2000 m.  600 is also a stretch, though not beyond the realm of the possible.  But at those ranges, it's only accuracy (or lack of it) that keeps a Gustav from doing its job: CE rounds of course do virtually equal damage irrespective of range.
I would argue that a 60 could suppress, albeit for shorter periods of time.  The shock of round hitting in such quick succession, combined with other weapons effects, is what wins battles (eg: moral plane, and stuff like that)

This is interesting; however, I am afraid that the songs of praises of the CASW are being sung in order to situate the estimate, while the praises of the 60 are being drowned.

 

[McG]

As for destroying an advancing pl at 2000 m, I thought that the "S" in CASW was for "suppression".  The C6 can do it at that range, and beyond. Also remember that platoons now have 2 GPMGs. 

"S = surppression" is a pretty weak argument to dismiss the ability for a single weapon to destroy an enemy platoon. 

 

[tomahawk6]

+1 MR.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its not worth debating this topic.

 

[McG]

MCG, have you ever been Infantry?

It is my secondary role & I've practiced it enough (usually dismounted) to not be out of my lane here.

 

[tomahawk6]

It is my secondary role & I've practiced it enough (usually dismounted) to not be out of my lane here.

Fair enough. I am surprised by your advocacy for this weapons system with your infantry experience. Would you still support the system if it was going to replace a 25mm gun on 1 LAV in each platoon ?

 

[a_majoor]

I note one of the key objections to the CASW program is the weight and bulk of the thing. Perhaps we need to widen the lanes a bit, since there are at least two lightweight designs I am aware of which can provide the physical aspect (hurling grenade munitions). The FCS and high angle mount are the two special ingredients that make it a CASW rather than an AGL, but I would suggest these can be tailored for the actual gun.

The Chinese  QLZ-87 automatic grenade launcher admittedly fires a non standard 35mm round (but the design can be reverse engineered for this thought experiment), and weighs 12 Kg in the "light" configuration (only a bit heavier than a C-6 GPMG) and 20 Kg when mounted on its tripod (but without ammunition). For a light or dismounted infantry unit, the weapon would probably be used as a AGL for the vast majority of actions, and only mated to the tripod and FCS for deliberate attacks or in the defense (which seems to be the argument the program manager is using anyway). The downside to this option is no Western company makes anything like this to my knowledge. The weight and bulk of the ammunition will be an issue regardless of the role it is used in. An evolved semi automatic version also exists which is even lighter, but no longer has the ability to suppress area targets with volume of fire.

The other weapon which might fit the bill is the ST Engineering LWAGL, which weighs 19kg and is much smaller and narrower than the competition. Unlike the Chinese weapon, it seems to be able to only fire from a tripod, but a two man crew could man pack it with greater ease than more conventional AGL's. Once again, ammunition weight and bulk are issues when employed in the light role. WRT reverse engineering, even the Russian AGS-30 comes in at 30kg with its tripod (a high angle design) and a 29 round drum, so these are not impossible design specifications.

Since tripods (even ones capable of high angle fire) are pretty basic low tech equipment, and we can hope the FCS will gradually shrink as technology improves, lightweight AGL's should be considered to be the "core" of the CASW system, and competitors given some pretty compelling incentives to create a lightweight launcher.

 

[McG]

Would you still support the system if it was going to replace a 25mm gun on 1 LAV in each platoon ?

For one LAV & with all the potential promised of CASW (not just of an AGL), probably yes.  I can think of a few occasions where the ability to suppress with air bursting munitions would have killed a few more of the bad guys.  As mentioned in my previous post, I think it could have made a difference in a few grape hut engagements, and I cannot think of a single mounted indirect fire weapon at the company level (C6 & 60 mm both must be dismounted in this role).

That being said, a 40 mm automatic cannon with APFSDS, Frange, HEDP & airburst munition options might be a better option for all the LAV  .... but it would come with its trade offs  ... and, that's a topic for a whole other thread.

 

[a_majoor]

That being said, a 40 mm automatic cannon with APFSDS, Frange, HEDP & airburst munition options might be a better option for all the LAV  .... but it would come with its trade offs  ... and, that's a topic for a whole other thread.

You mean like the CV 90 Fan Page? 

 

[McG]

You mean like the CV 90 Fan Page? 

Maybe or not.  I’m only commenting on the weapon & not a whole vehicle.

 

[vonGarvin]

How about 120 mm HEAT?  I'd rathe that than 40mm "airburst".  Again, no weapon in isolation.

 

[McG]

How about 120 mm HEAT?  I'd rathe that than 40mm "airburst".  Again, no weapon in isolation.

If 120 mm is available then sure, but we all know that is a limited resource. 

.... and HEAT does not have ideal terminal effects for most targets over there.  The type of projectiles I'd prefer as the "average target" killer in TFA are thermoberic, HESH, HEDP then HEAT.  It's unfortunate that HEAT is the only popular 120 mm round in my list.

 

[Royal]

The Inf School will be participating in the trials of the selected variant of the CASW in the summer of 08, to determine the method and training to get this into units from IOC to FOC.  And incidentally the Inf sch will be the first unit to get them so that they may be injected into the training.  Not sure yet, but I believe that they will create an instructors course and run through the Sch instrs and the battle school ( couple from each) in the early fall, with the first course-ware delivery to the fall 08/winter 09 courses.  The current plan is to have these deploy with TF 3-09.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I trust that the School of Infantry will recommend the addition of a bayonet lug prior to deployment of the weapon system?  ;D

 

[tomahawk6]

Sounds like CASW is a done deal. 

 

[Royal]

Seems so.  I just hope that it lives up to its claims and that the ammo guys get all the nature's through in time for delivery.

 

[McG]

I just hope that it lives up to its claims

Same here, and if we are already committed to a specific product then somebody had better already know that it will.

 

[KevinB]

I'm pretty sure the HK GMG is the CASW -- but I've been wrong several times before.

 

[421 EME]

They are looking at the US MK47 also, better FCS and the receiver is stronger and will last longer (that's what they tell me).