• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Informing the Army’s Future Structure

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,060
A4 is just an improvement on the theme - more power for network requirements.
Javelin and Hellfire models have been made, but as I understand it, the hope had been that OMFV would come on line sooner than later - and no major platform upgrades to the Bradley will be required.
Based on OMFV timeline, I expect an A5 Bradley with a 40-50mm gun and JAGM will come on line in the FY24.

Blank Check I think the CV90 MkIV platform would be the way to roll



Tracking

Lost me totally, as I see HIMARS and M1299/M109A7 being the logical CMBG Arty assets.

Although I like pickup trucks as GP vehicles in this instance I am using them as a concept for a GP vehicle, regardless of tonnage, that can launch a variety of missiles. HIMARS is one way to go. Boxer/LAV-ACSV/Stryker is another.
Losing me again.
I do see RWS needs, but I don't see them on all vehicles - and I still believe the ADA needs to control the Anti Air State - and responses.
So I would have some vehicles setup for AAD, as part of the Bde+ Air Plan and networked with the Canadian equivalent of the ADAM Cell (sorry I've been a long time and I flushed most of my CA organization knowledge)
I am thinking in terms of an upgraded Trophy APS system for point defence that can also provide APers defence when manually overridden

I am sold on separate AD and AT organizations. Equally though I am sold on technological commonality where possible.

Common launcher for Brimstone, APKWS, Stinger, CAMM, ASPIDE, AIM9, AMRAAM, ESSM, MRLS, GMRLS, GMRLS-ER, GLSDB, PrSM, ATACMS.

The 25mm is definitely no longer the optimal solution, I think 35-50mm is the way most NATO countries are going for an IFV, with a NLOS ATGM. Keep in mind the ATGM can also be used for anti-structure/fortification usage (even if an expensive option - it's cheaper than wasted lives).
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,359
Points
1,140
Although I like pickup trucks as GP vehicles in this instance I am using them as a concept for a GP vehicle, regardless of tonnage, that can launch a variety of missiles. HIMARS is one way to go. Boxer/LAV-ACSV/Stryker is another.
Okay I am tracking now.

I am thinking in terms of an upgraded Trophy APS system for point defence that can also provide APers defence when manually overridden
Sort of like the reverse of the Abrams X 30mm, primary it is for AP and Light Vehicle engagement - but can be used with Proximity fuzed munitions for CUAS, but it has a separate APS for incoming Missiles.

I am sold on separate AD and AT organizations. Equally though I am sold on technological commonality where possible.

Common launcher for Brimstone, APKWS, Stinger, CAMM, ASPIDE, AIM9, AMRAAM, ESSM, MRLS, GMRLS, GMRLS-ER, GLSDB, PrSM, ATACMS.
I'm not sure what you mean by common launcher - as several of those missiles/rockets need different launchers, due to the size/guidance requirement of the systems.
For example MRLS, GMRLS, GMRLS-ER, GLSDB, PrSM, ATACMS all use the MRLS/HIMARS Boxes - they have no targeting requirements on their own - and just need target data links to be fed firing solutions.
With Stinger and AIM9 those are IR trackers - and need seeker lock - they can go on pretty much anything though.
The Radar etc Air to Air systems - those require much more specialized launch system - and to be linked into detection systems.

I don't see a common system for those different aspects - other than a vehicle platform, for the more fixed AD system you could palletize them so any PLS system could mount them - or just to move them around though.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,060
Okay I am tracking now.


Sort of like the reverse of the Abrams X 30mm, primary it is for AP and Light Vehicle engagement - but can be used with Proximity fuzed munitions for CUAS, but it has a separate APS for incoming Missiles.


I'm not sure what you mean by common launcher - as several of those missiles/rockets need different launchers, due to the size/guidance requirement of the systems.
For example MRLS, GMRLS, GMRLS-ER, GLSDB, PrSM, ATACMS all use the MRLS/HIMARS Boxes - they have no targeting requirements on their own - and just need target data links to be fed firing solutions.
With Stinger and AIM9 those are IR trackers - and need seeker lock - they can go on pretty much anything though.
The Radar etc Air to Air systems - those require much more specialized launch system - and to be linked into detection systems.

I don't see a common system for those different aspects - other than a vehicle platform, for the more fixed AD system you could palletize them so any PLS system could mount them - or just to move them around though.


My models are:

VLS Mk 41
NASAMS
HIMARS
AH-64/MH-60
Anything the Airforce Flies that uses any of their BRU rails.


1669068693055.png


You are putting the targeter on the same platform as the launcher. I see the launcher separately.

HIMARS truck with Traverse and Elevation could be used launch all the missiles I described along with

Hellfire, JAGM, NSMs and ARMs.

Most missiles have a separate TEL removed from the sensor vehicle(s) and the Command Node vehicle(s).

1669069134743.png

1669069193775.png

1669069254852.png

The Launcher Team is becoming more part of the Ammo Train than it is the Command Group.

If one vehicle system can deliver multiple ready to fire ammunition sets to various command groups I would consider that a logistical win.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Reaction score
10,359
Points
1,140
My models are:

VLS Mk 41
NASAMS
HIMARS
AH-64/MH-60
Anything the Airforce Flies that uses any of their BRU rails.


View attachment 75051


You are putting the targeter on the same platform as the launcher. I see the launcher separately.

HIMARS truck with Traverse and Elevation could be used launch all the missiles I described along with

Hellfire, JAGM, NSMs and ARMs.

Most missiles have a separate TEL removed from the sensor vehicle(s) and the Command Node vehicle(s).

View attachment 75052

View attachment 75053

View attachment 75054

The Launcher Team is becoming more part of the Ammo Train than it is the Command Group.

If one vehicle system can deliver multiple ready to fire ammunition sets to various command groups I would consider that a logistical win.
I’d suggest the smaller Missiles etc would better fit on something like a JLTV as a launch platform. Using a Heavy Logistics vehicle for small systems is a bit of a waste.

I’m in full agreement that larger systems make sense for common haulers.

But as far as organizing, the launchers aren’t (and can’t be) considered part of the ammo train - one needs to allocate them in terms of their respective capabilities.
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
880
Points
890
Hellfire, JAGM, NSMs and ARMs.

Most missiles have a separate TEL removed from the sensor vehicle(s) and the Command Node vehicle(s).

I think Kevin is pointing out that the nature of laser guided munitions makes depth deployments sub optimal at best. Hellfires can be LOAL or LOBL, depends on the model and varient for example. APKWS has a seeker head, but it needs to be fired “online” to actually acquire energy and be guided to target.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,060
I think Kevin is pointing out that the nature of laser guided munitions makes depth deployments sub optimal at best. Hellfires can be LOAL or LOBL, depends on the model and varient for example. APKWS has a seeker head, but it needs to be fired “online” to actually acquire energy and be guided to target.
Fair.

But can the VLS and HIMARS pods be more comprehensively exploited so to simplify logistics?
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
880
Points
890
Fair.

But can the VLS and HIMARS pods be more comprehensively exploited so to simplify logistics?
Possible? I just see ground launched APKWS as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist frankly. That’s where I stepped in. Hell fire for sure, but I’m leary if anything that is built on wireless links.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,060
Possible? I just see ground launched APKWS as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist frankly. That’s where I stepped in. Hell fire for sure, but I’m leary if anything that is built on wireless links.
I freely admit to a fantasist streak. My net tendency is to eliminate the impossible ten start playing with the improbable.
 

IKnowNothing

Full Member
Reaction score
294
Points
730
Possible? I just see ground launched APKWS as a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist frankly.
Based on the situation today I agree. Canada needs a true modern ATGM that can kill MBT's at standoff ranges, no substitutions.

That being said, it's almost inexcusably Canadian that we don't have/haven't had an APKWS equivalent in inventory for years. Looking back to the 06-> forward time period when Magellan rolled out the CRV-7PG it's hard to reconcile Canada not getting behind the program and leading the way. When leadership thinks that the peer heavy metal fight is no longer a threat and you have 80k rockets in stock how can you justify not investing in a domestic program to give the army a very cheap precision system to deal with bunkers, T-62's and all manner of failed state threats that don't need a Leo/Javelin.
 

markppcli

Sr. Member
Reaction score
880
Points
890
Based on the situation today I agree. Canada needs a true modern ATGM that can kill MBT's at standoff ranges, no substitutions.

Spike or Javeline, I care not which.

That being said, it's almost inexcusably Canadian that we don't have/haven't had an APKWS equivalent in inventory for years. Looking back to the 06-> forward time period when Magellan rolled out the CRV-7PG it's hard to reconcile Canada not getting behind the program and leading the way. When leadership thinks that the peer heavy metal fight is no longer a threat and you have 80k rockets in stock how can you justify not investing in a domestic program to give the army a very cheap precision system to deal with bunkers, T-62's and all manner of failed state threats that don't need a Leo/Javelin.
Probably has something to do with CF18s seeing CAS as at best a distasteful afterthought.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,060
Spike or Javeline, I care not which.


Probably has something to do with CF18s seeing CAS as at best a distasteful afterthought.

And the other common platform for the 70mm/APKWS being rotary wing..... and complementary to the Hellfire.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,091
Points
1,010
All this 2025 and Future Structure dreaming is kind of pointless in view of the current financial situation.

What we need to do is get ahead of the cycle by leaping two or thread or four bounds down the road - Force 2100.

Assume future staff and bureaucrats and politicians will have the same motivated reasoning (estimate situating) skills as current and previous generations. Extrapolate the trends - eg. fewer capabilities since they'll be assumed away, less than 1-for-1 equipment replacement, increasing HQ staffs.

A possible vision for Army 2100 - tanks and artillery dropped, so no real need for infantry, so no real need for any other combat enablers. Instead, a Public Order Battalion (eg. mostly MPs) and a Public Welfare Brigade (comms, supply, transport, medical, construction engineering); the latter would be deployable for peace support abroad. Increased staffs so we have an Army Group HQ staff in each Area in case of general mobilization. Militia entirely reworked to support the Public Welfare Brigade as Labour Companies (pick & shovel) (if motorized, they can be Labour Squadrons) - no more fighting over roles and tasks and hat badges, no need for ranks above Lt or WO, much reduced training burden, equipment in line with what they can be trusted to master, matches customary contemporary employment.

Naval and air forces could undergo similar evolutions. Say, four minesweepers/gunboats on each coast, a SAR wing, and a transport wing.

Should be affordable.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
5,985
Points
1,040
And entirely liable to be wiped off the face of the Earth by the average drug cartel.

🍻
 
  • Humorous
Reactions: ueo

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
4,696
Points
1,060
All this 2025 and Future Structure dreaming is kind of pointless in view of the current financial situation.

What we need to do is get ahead of the cycle by leaping two or thread or four bounds down the road - Force 2100.

Assume future staff and bureaucrats and politicians will have the same motivated reasoning (estimate situating) skills as current and previous generations. Extrapolate the trends - eg. fewer capabilities since they'll be assumed away, less than 1-for-1 equipment replacement, increasing HQ staffs.

A possible vision for Army 2100 - tanks and artillery dropped, so no real need for infantry, so no real need for any other combat enablers. Instead, a Public Order Battalion (eg. mostly MPs) and a Public Welfare Brigade (comms, supply, transport, medical, construction engineering); the latter would be deployable for peace support abroad. Increased staffs so we have an Army Group HQ staff in each Area in case of general mobilization. Militia entirely reworked to support the Public Welfare Brigade as Labour Companies (pick & shovel) (if motorized, they can be Labour Squadrons) - no more fighting over roles and tasks and hat badges, no need for ranks above Lt or WO, much reduced training burden, equipment in line with what they can be trusted to master, matches customary contemporary employment.

Naval and air forces could undergo similar evolutions. Say, four minesweepers/gunboats on each coast, a SAR wing, and a transport wing.

Should be affordable.
1669344878871.png
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
14,736
Points
1,160
Helicopters, helicopters and more helicopters...


What the British can learn from the USMC re: the Falklands would be more important.

One measly USMC MEU has more resources than a British Bde AFAIK.

 
Top