Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[Infanteer]

That is the current THREAT.

I do not agree with references to WWI, napolean or any other war fought more than 20 years ago. Technology, tactics and the threat have changed the shape of warfare.

A minor threat at best.  If we consider mediocre irregular forces as the THREAT then we're setting ourselves up for a fall when an modern fighting formation hits us.  At no point are irregulars a physical threat to our state or our deployed military forces.  They can sting us if we're not careful, but they're hard pressed to conduct any meaningful tactical actions.  A true threat is something that can cause 152 KIA in day, not 5 years.

The references to previous conflicts are useful, as the empirical evidence they provide is concrete proof of what happens when people fight.

As well, how has warfare changed?

Anyway, you have diverted from my question: what does the AGLS bring to the table that isn't already there in an infantry platoon?  But, if you can do better, the floor is yours.

I'm outta here.

Edit to add: your questions add no value and you seem to be diverting from the points I laid out previously, and I admit that there is more to any weapon that it's capability.  There are such things as the terminal ballistics involved, ease of use, portability, flexibility, etc.  If you wish to clutter things  up by getting all philosophical on the matter, that's fine.  I would prefer to keep the discussion in easy to comprehend terms.

Don't get angry - if you don't want to discuss the matter in detail, just say so.  I still contend that your line of reasoning is off.  Suppression is not directly related with the capabilities (point/precise/area) that a weapon produces.  It's an after-effect of employment - I could suppress you with point fire with a sling shot if I was good enough.  Therefore, nix that statement from your list of weapons capabilities.

Your model states the difference between an AGL and a MG being simply one of range (since they both are, in your terms, "area suppressive weapons").  The "effort to keep things simple" completely ignores the fact that AGLs deliver high explosive onto the target whereas MGs clearly don't.  Hence why your model doesn't answer the question (and begs for the Bueller response).  The ability to deliver HE to a target is - at least to me - the key point in answering your root question of "what an AGLS provides to an infantry platoon".

LAVs also deliver HE, which is why I think we are all tracking the limited utility of these things when put up against an M242 Bushmaster.  That being said, should we take a vehicle with a turret as a given?

 

[SeanNewman]

Agreed in terms of the threat.

Also, since we are so close to being done Afghanistan I would argue that any focus on that mission in training sets us up for failure by fighting the last war.

 

[ArmyRick]

Rubbing my crystal ball, I don't fore see us battling it out with mass armour formations or any real well organized militaries.

The world is full of unstable, irregular regimes/war lords/dictators, etc, etc.

I would bet that any future enemy will adopt some of the talibans tactics.

Takers?

 

[SeanNewman]

I would bet that any future enemy will adopt some of the talibans tactics.
Takers?

I don't think the Taliban is doing anything new.  They are using the best tactics they can for being significantly less powerful in terms of military might.

Any force we fight that can't stand up to what we put forward is better off blending in as best they can, prolonging the fight as long as they can, and slowly attriting us until we quit.

However, that does not mean our training's main effort shouldn't be against an equal foe who goes head to head with us

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Rubbing my crystal ball, I don't fore see us battling it out with mass armour formations or any real well organized militaries.

The world is full of unstable, irregular regimes/war lords/dictators, etc, etc.

I would bet that any future enemy will adopt some of the talibans tactics.

Takers?

I don't think the Taliban is doing anything new.  They are using the best tactics they can for being significantly less powerful in terms of military might.

Any force we fight that can't stand up to what we put forward is better off blending in as best they can, prolonging the fight as long as they can, and slowly attriting us until we quit.

However, that does not mean our training's main effort shouldn't be against an equal foe who goes head to head with us

Guys,

Not sure just where it is right now, but there is a recent thread on this already. Watch the tangent. This thread has already skewed too many different ways already.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Infanteer]

Rubbing my crystal ball, I don't fore see us battling it out with mass armour formations or any real well organized militaries.

The world is full of unstable, irregular regimes/war lords/dictators, etc, etc.

I would bet that any future enemy will adopt some of the talibans tactics.

If you have a crystal ball that works, where did you get it.  A "future enemy" (whomever that is) could be just as likely to seek some conventional advantage to nullify our (usual) preponderant strength so that he can achieve his aims decisively.  Nobody here can predict the future and things like Russia crashing into Georgia a few years back are good examples of "when armies collide".  As Petamocto has aptly put it, we're best off preparing for the most dangerous enemy. 

Either way, good training and equipment will handle both. 

 

[McG]

Wow, after six + years, the name has gone from:
Company Area Suppression Weapon, to
Close Area Suppression Weapon, to
C16 Automatic Grenade Launcher System

This, ladies and gentlemen, is progress. :

It is quite common that the weapon/vehicle/"thingermajig" that a project delivers comes with a name other than the official project title.  Given some of the extraneous, vague, goofy and/or fruity project titles, this is not neccesarily a bad thing.

Rubbing my crystal ball, I don't fore see us battling it out with mass armour formations or any real well organized militaries.

The "great powers" of the world were saying the same things in 1910 and 1935.

Wouldn't a sniper picking off people that stick their head above the parapet, a la WW1, and thus discourage them from sticking their heads up, as is required by machine gun crews, be considered suppressive fire?

Yes.  A well concealed shooter (sniper or otherwise) taking single well aimed shots can cause a significantly larger force to go to ground/cover.  Such a shooter could bring a dismounted platoon to a full stop and hold-up a company long enough for indirect fires to engage.

I simply point out what their capabilities are. 

... but capabilities need to be looked at with limitations to get a true appreciation of a weapon system.  There is no perfect weapon and so there is a trade-off made for every increase in terminal effect, range, precision, accuracy, supportability, portability, engagement time, etc, etc.

WHAT DOES AN AGLS PROVIDE TO AN INFANTRY PLATOON???? 

Our firepower doctrine calls for a spectrum of weapon systems with overlapping capabilities & diverging limitations.  In this way, there should never be a situation which prevents us from employing all capabilities even if ground/environment/other prevent us from using one or two specific weapons.

Your model states the difference between an AGL and a MG being simply one of range (since they both are, in your terms, "area suppressive weapons").  The "effort to keep things simple" completely ignores the fact that AGLs deliver high explosive onto the target whereas MGs clearly don't.  Hence why your model doesn't answer the question (and begs for the Bueller response).  The ability to deliver HE to a target is - at least to me - the key point in answering your root question of "what an AGLS provides to an infantry platoon".

On the AGL vs MG comparison - in addition to just HE (or HEDP, or HEI, etc), the modern AGL can have airbursting munitions.  Neither MG nor LAV cannon do this.

 

[dapaterson]

Well, among others, the AGLS provides increased job security for EME technicians (EO Techs in particular) as it has an increased degree of complexity compared to a mortar.

 

[vonGarvin]

Well, among others, the AGLS provides increased job security for EME technicians (EO Techs in particular) as it has an increased degree of complexity compared to a mortar.

:rofl:
Well, they could keep a mortar for DP 1 EO tech so they practice with tubes with nails in them before progressing!  8)

 

[McG]

Are you pro-mortar or anti-AGL?  Right now you are coming off as the later, and I could convince Treasury Board that we don't need either just by putting you in a room with someone using a same approach to argument from the CASW camp.  Really, there are roles for both types of weapon.  Instead of positively arguing for what we need, this thread is looking at just two pieces in the whole suite of dismounted weapons and negatively dissecting each.  Limitation of resources mean we cannot have everything.  The “tool box” is not big enough for everything, so instead of arguing tools out of the tool box – lets empty the box and make an argument for which tools go back in.

WHAT WOULD AN AGLS PROVIDE TO AN INFANTRY PLATOON THAT IS NOT ALREADY BEING PROVIDED BY THE EXISTING FAMILY OF INFANTRY PLATOON WEAPONS?

A broader spectrum of overlapping capabilities with diverging limitations.  I thought you believed in that concept.

 

[vonGarvin]

A broader spectrum of overlapping capabilities with diverging limitations.  I thought you believed in that concept.

I raise the Bullshit flag on that, given that it is not man-portable, and it brings nothing to the table that isn't already there.


An AGLS is an awesome weapon.  Given its weight, mount it on a vehicle.  Otherwise, give them to anyone but the infantry.  We already have a broad spectrum of overlapping capabilities with diverging limitations. 
I'll ask nicer this time.

Would some one please tell me, what would an AGLS bring to the table that is not already available in an infantry platoon?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Would some one please tell me, what would an AGLS bring to the table that is not already available in an infantry platoon?

It would close the dangerous and growing 'me too' gap currently present between the CF and our allies, like the UK and the US, who already deploy a GMG.  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

It would close the dangerous and growing 'me too' gap currently present between the CF and our allies, like the UK and the US, who already deploy a GMG.  ;D

:rofl:
In that case, I want mortar platoons back, just like our allies.  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Are you pro-mortar or anti-AGL? 

Re-reading your post, I am not talking AGLS vs. Mortar.  I'm asking a simple question:
What does the AGLS bring to the infantry platoon that is not already provided better by other systems?

You see, your point is part of the problem.  Way back when, when the earth was still cooling and there were tours to the top of the World Trade Center, "someone" said that the mortar was a thing of the past and that we needed a grenade launcher.  Well, the earth cooled, the WTC fell, and we found ourselves in combat.  And that attitude still lives on. 

Don't divert from the very simple question: what does it bring that's not already there?

Edit to add: in spite of making large font in my question, it has been missed.  Therefore, I will make it smaller, because maybe then SOMEONE will RTFQ.

 

[a_majoor]

When you ask the question in the form "what does a tripod mounted AGL bring to the table that existing weapons don't" then the answer is "nothing".

This means the CASW program has been an expensive tangent and consumed large amounts of time and money for very little result (we don't even have an AGL to show for the process). Since we have a real question for a starting point, then the obvious (to me) follow up is to ask what does bring something new to the table that existing weapons do not. This means we *should* be looking at lots of different systems and solutions, as well as asking what the AGL can do that nothing else can (vehicle mounted RWS weapons systems, for example).

By this reasoning, we should be considering a wide array of weapons (a few favorites of mine):

Starstreak: provides mounted/dismounted AA protection against aircraft, helicopters and UAV's, as well as a secondary use against LAV class targets (KE on impact similar to a 40mm cannon shell). The high speed and man in the loop operator system allows engagements out to 6000m in under 5 sec with little chance of being jammed or foiled by countermeasures.

Breech loading automatic mortars. These provide the ability to fire large calibre HE projectiles in both the direct and indirect roles. A 60mm version would have devastating effect against bunkers and the like, and still be able to drop rounds on defiladed targets. An 81mm would be a vehicle mounted or towed weapon, but have the same advantages as a 60mm version.

Lightweight AGL's. Unlike the current idea of a CASW, lightweight AGL's pack a similar punch in a package about as large and heavy as a GPMG with SF kit. This would answer most of the objections to the CASW as currently described. This also segues into man portable high velocity grenade launchers. With proper optics, a man portable single shot weapon that fires HV grenades would provide the ability to supress or destroy targets at considerable range .

I'm sure that many other weapons and systems can be considered as well.

 

[SeanNewman]

Not making this anything about the mortar, can we spread this into the Fire Control System (FCS)?

Something that bothers me about this purchase, and the simulated comparison was that it had a lot to do with this magical FCS that doesn't yet exist, and when it does exist will be just one more complicated system away from the KISS principle.

IMO, whoever uses the C16 (not Infantry for argument's sake), what they need is a simple Grenade Machine Gun (GMG) as the UK calls it.  Not a wonder weapon, not something you need to lase a target with and plug grids into a computer, just something that you load, ready, aim, and fire until the enemy is dead.

Do soldiers (Pte-Gen) really need yet another complicated system to learn?  Are lessons not learned from the 522 radio?

 

[Infanteer]

I still think the answer to the original question is "deliver direct fire HE onto the enemy to suppress and destroy him".  The M242 Bushmaster alost can do that, but we don't always have LAV with us to provide that fire.  Aside from mech infantry, defending COPs/Patrol Bases seems to be a good fit.  As well, perhaps mounted on a MBT as a method of close protection.  Artillery gun lines could take them and give the Infantry their 81mm "Local Protection" mortars back.  LAV ISCs and any other turretless vehicle would be a good fit (a mix of AGL and HMG is a well-known combo).  This is obviously a weapon that is too versatile to give up.  It is obviously also a weapon that doesn't replace "deliver indirect fire HE onto the enemy to suppress and destroy him" - I'll believe that when I see both weapons employed and we quit bringing a mortar because the CASW is simply more effective and foolproof.

Not making this anything about the mortar, can we spread this into the Fire Control System (FCS)?

Something that bothers me about this purchase, and the simulated comparison was that it had a lot to do with this magical FCS that doesn't yet exist, and when it does exist will be just one more complicated system away from the KISS principle.

Agreed 100%.  Although not a luddite, I'm a bit suspect of a system that has a computer AND special fuzes to operate.

 

[vonGarvin]

I still think the answer to the original question is "deliver direct fire HE onto the enemy to suppress and destroy him".  The M242 Bushmaster alost can do that, but we don't always have LAV with us to provide that fire.  Aside from mech infantry, defending COPs/Patrol Bases seems to be a good fit.  As well, perhaps mounted on a MBT as a method of close protection.  Artillery gun lines could take them and give the Infantry their 81mm "Local Protection" mortars back.  LAV ISCs and any other turretless vehicle would be a good fit (a mix of AGL and HMG is a well-known combo).  This is obviously a weapon that is too versatile to give up.  It is obviously also a weapon that doesn't replace "deliver indirect fire HE onto the enemy to suppress and destroy him" - I'll believe that when I see both weapons employed and we quit bringing a mortar because the CASW is simply more effective and foolproof.

1.  Why "deliver direct fire HE onto the enemy to suppress and destroy him"?  Why HE?  Why not kinetic energy?  Why blast energy and fragmentation?  But, if we must, then the 60 mm does that already, as do the 4 x M242s in the platoon. 
2.  No, you don't always have the LAV there to provide that fire.  So, if they are not there, then the assumption is that you have walked or have flown in.  You will need something man-portable.
3.  I only speak of Mech Infantry, because we have no other kinds according to our Force Employment structure.  And Infantry are the only ones getting the C16, so talk of other arms and services is moot.
4.  Though I'd love to have 81mm back, it does nothing to address what an infantry platoon has as an integral asset.  (Besides, we'd have to kill 3 battalions to get the PYs)
5.  It's not going on vehicles.  Dismounted on tripods only.  Talk of going on a vehicle in any way, shape or form is moot.  *IF* the brain trust at DLR (short on both if you ask me, but that's just my opinion) were to suddenly fund a vehicle mount for this thing, for the LAV sans turret, then we could. (Side note: when did they term a LAV without turret as "ISC"?  As I recall, "ISC" referred to "Infantry Section Carrier" to denote the configuration in the back, as different from say CP variant)
6.  Since you brought up what weapons do, "destroy" is not one of the things that the weapons in the infantry platoon do: the infantry do that themselves.  The weapons* suppress so that the infantrymen can close with and destroy.  I'm digging way back in my furthest recesses of my memory here, but I do believe that only the **King of Battle can destroy targets on its own.
7.  If you can find a place within the back of a LAV to stow it, or find enough troops to haul it around, then good on you.  Otherwise, this is just a 70+kg hunk of junk that will soon be relegated to the dustbin UNLESS we mount this on vehicles.  As a weapon for a RWS, stabilised with night vision would be a perfect place for it.  In that role, perhaps superior to the 25mm HEI-T from the M 242 for anti-pers fire out to ~2000m.

*Not just the platoon weapons, but all weapons, up to Corps level if need be, and beyond.  The platoon only needs weapons to suppress (eg: to deny the enemy freedom of action, thereby protection your own freedom of action), and only long enough to let the higher assets get in on the fight.

**Artillery.

 

[a_majoor]

GDLS will be upset, but the only weapon that satisfies the "man portable" "tripod mounted" criteria is:

AGS-30 Automatic Grenade Launcher System

Round VOG-17, VOG-17M, VOG-30
Sight PAG-17, optical
Muzzle velocity, m/s 185
Sighting range, m 1,700
Rate of fire, rds/min 400
Overall dimensions, mm 360 x 500 x 1,100
Weight with mount without ammunition box, kg 16 ±0.5
Fire unit, rds 90

A rugged sight unit is a must, the CLASS sight from the 1980's provided day/night capabilities along with laser rangefinding and a ballistic computer, so what CDC could do back then could probably be replicated now. Otherwise a coincidence rangefinder with one fixed and one moving prism....

The CLASS was advertised to provide ballistic calculations for 84mm, .50, Mk 19 Mod3 AGL and apparently the ASP 30mm cannon. Programming different weapons seems to have been as easy as "flashing" the firmware, but this is a guess based on an old Infantry journal article I remembered from long ago. Perhaps a retooled CLASS sight with ballistic tables for the C6 (SF), .50 HMG and 84mm would do far more than any new wonder weapon. The tests on the 84mm provided really improbable first round hit ranges against moving targets, something like 800m with HEAT/RAP at night, so you can just imagine how much more effective other weapons would be with that sort of capability.

 

[vonGarvin]

Video of the AGS-30 here.  Around the 1:20 mark, you see a single soldier lugging it up the stairs about as easy as hauling a C9.  (Yes, C9, not C6).
If THAT were the "C 16 AGLS", then I could very well see it to provide the platoon with fire support when not using the LAV.