tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post1597839448653774578..comments2024-02-29T11:45:01.870+01:00Comments on UK Armed Forces Commentary: Future Force 2020 - ArmourGabrielehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-3591019790770412272011-09-07T19:28:25.606+02:002011-09-07T19:28:25.606+02:00Hey Jed, it is great to hear from you and see you ...Hey Jed, it is great to hear from you and see you on here. I'm glad you enjoyed this article. <br /><br />As to your points, i actually think the Overwatch vehicle would be greatly useful, and armed with a combination of Brimstone and LMM/Starstreak it would have lots of uses. <br />I see your point about ATGW on turrets, though, but putting missiles on all Scouts would be unfeasible due to cost and complexity spread over the whole force. <br /><br />You'd have to do it in the style of other european armies: in the case of Italy, give each Company of mechanized Infantry (or Squadron in a RECCE formation) a couple of additional vehicles with the ATGW launcher and the Infantry space filled with traditional dismounted ATGW teams. <br /><br />An Italian Medium Mechanized Infantry Coy with the Freccia has two Freccia AT in that fashion (two turret-mounted Spike missiles plus 2 dismounted Spike teams in the back) in the Maneuver Support Platoon, which is not even present in UK coys, AND the traditional ATGW section in the Maneuver Support Company at Battalion/regiment level. <br /><br />To do things well, you'd still end up buying more vehicles, even if still potentially achieving savings. <br /><br />At that point, i guess it would be possible to bin the Direct Fire variant and buy a FRES SV AMOS instead, to give in 3 examples to each infantry coy, and to the Mortar Platoon in the MSC at Regimental level. <br /><br />So that would make the Battalion on: <br /><br />3 Rifle Coys on 3 Rifle Platoons and 1 Maneuver Support Platoon (with 3 ATGW vehicles and 3 AMOS vehicles) <br /><br />1 Maneuver Support Coy in the usual fashion but with AMOS vehicles in the Mortar platoon. <br /><br /><br />What are your thoughts about the DRACO, though? <br />It would require adding the 76 mm ammunition, but then it gives undirect, guided and/or "dumb" fire to 22 kmn, direct to as many as 15, AT to 3 km, anti-aircraft to 4/5 km and C-RAM effect as well. 3 of those in Maneuver Support Platoons and we solve Direct Fire, C-RAM and SHORAD issues at once, and we also gain organic artillery as a side effect... <br /><br />The commonality issue could be "mitigated" by using the naval 76 mm Strales on MHPC as medium gun/CIWS. <br /><br />Fantasy, perhaps, but does it not impress you?Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-56246420588190120392011-09-07T19:00:46.772+02:002011-09-07T19:00:46.772+02:00LOL - not sure how 1,800 meters became 1800 millim...LOL - not sure how 1,800 meters became 1800 millimetres....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-47935083790596680252011-09-07T18:59:40.647+02:002011-09-07T18:59:40.647+02:00Hi Gabriele
Great stuff as usual. What I find int...Hi Gabriele<br /><br />Great stuff as usual. What I find interesting is our (British) fixation with this "anti-armour over watch" crap - just fit the recce vehicle, and / or the MICV with a turret / RWS fitted box launchers for ATGW (as per Bradley, Puma, BMP's etc.)<br /><br />If we go this route your saving the cost of extra vehicles, making your fleet more flexible, and in the case of the direct fire support vehicle you take away the need for it to have an ant-armour role (i.e. you dont need a 120mm).<br /><br />However, if you do want some form of Anti-armour overwatch, and direct fire support, and updated mortars for indirect fire support, you can achieve them all with one system - the 120mm mortar:<br /><br />1. Standard indirect fire support role - but with PGM if required<br />2. direct fire support - out to 1800mm with "cheap" mortar rounds<br />3. Anti-armour and long range direct fire support, out to 8km with "less cheap" LAHAT gun-launched laser guided ATGW<br />4. Indirect anti-armour, with STIRX IR guided HEAT mortar round<br /><br />e il gioco è fatto, problemi risolti....... :-)<br /><br />JedAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-90291293058424989922011-09-05T17:51:38.310+02:002011-09-05T17:51:38.310+02:00Interesting image, but i don't think there are...Interesting image, but i don't think there are real links to the Warrior FV514 upgrade.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-58897416483501134532011-09-05T17:45:31.382+02:002011-09-05T17:45:31.382+02:00Hi Gabby,
Reading with great interest; haven'...Hi Gabby,<br /><br />Reading with great interest; haven't even finished yet.<br /><br />There might be a precursor of the artillery command vehicle upgrades out there: for this picture<br />http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/10732 the original text states that the turret is British made, even though the comms sets in the back are domestically produced (and the mechanics for moving it all around are from an old BMP).<br />- can you connect it with any of the new models being worked on?<br /><br />Cheers, <br />ACCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-50789673914304933262011-09-05T16:49:16.655+02:002011-09-05T16:49:16.655+02:00Indeed, i known that MICV was scaled back several ...Indeed, i known that MICV was scaled back several times. A real pity, and economically, a measure that did not pay at all. <br />Had the army been given a coherent fleet on Warrior mechanics, there would not be a need for FRES SV, but just a bigger upgrade programme for Warrior. There would also be a lot more commonality in the ranks. <br /><br />Glad you liked the post, though. I hope the next ones will be good too. <br /><br />@Phil <br /><br />I definitely like the idea of embedding such heavy fire support and armour protection in Infantry battalions. <br /><br />FRES Direct Fire is an option, with the 120/45 smoothbore. <br />105 mm rifled and smaller guns, i would personally not consider, unless it is the 76 mm DRACO, because... that one is really phenomenal. C-RAM, anti-air, howitzer out to 22 km, direct fire to 13, good anti-armour at 3 km. It is an everything-doing piece! <br /><br />Another option is the AMOS mortar/gun turret. Direct fire is only out to 1800 meters at most, probably, but this would be enough in urban scenarios. <br />Less so out on the open. <br />But this solution would also replace the Mortar platoon in the Maneuver Support Company, and fill two roles for a single bill, so it is attractive in its own right. <br /><br />Ideally, we'd get a modern 120 mm mortar carrier in the Mortar platoon AND the Direct Fire platform. <br />But of course costs are to be considered. <br /><br />I have hopes that this month will bring around quite a bit of answers, with the FRES Scout prototype and the Lockheed Warrior CSP prototype shown at DSEI and with the fabled 10-years equipment plan document promised.<br /><br />We will see! For now thank you for following... i hope the next post will also be interesting.Gabrielehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01623558391676151582noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-340089060290741062011-09-04T19:00:40.547+02:002011-09-04T19:00:40.547+02:00Hi Gabriele,
Another great post.
I have long fel...Hi Gabriele,<br /><br />Another great post.<br /><br />I have long felt the infantry could do with more fire support. So I agree with you on giving the infantry a section of fire support vehicles per company.<br />But it all depends on finding the money. I hope we will find out more soon!<br /><br />Regards<br />PhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-442909239199162925.post-31542324487981620582011-09-04T16:14:15.193+02:002011-09-04T16:14:15.193+02:00Another excellent post. A couple of points.
1) Th...Another excellent post. A couple of points.<br /><br />1) The MICV programme was originally planned to acquire 1,900 vehicles, so it is possible that the variants you identified above were included in the number. However, by the time procurement ooh place the order was down to 1,053- which shrank further in the 90s<br /><br />2) ASCOD-SV "rear-space": There really is no such thing as the "rear space", simply a large area that stretches from the rear of the engine/transmission bay to the rear of the vehicle with which one can do whoever one likes. In all probability there will be very little space left inside the vehicle by the time it has entered production just due to internal rearrangements.<br /><br />3) I agree entirely with your CV90 analysis, the more I look at their offer the more I can see why they lost, GD just seemed to better grasp the CBP concept and offered what looks like a better thought out vehicle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com