Author Topic: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)  (Read 201779 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Yard Ape

  • Guest
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2004, 10:03:10 »
Yard Ape and Here Comes the Gun

The concept mockup seems to include the Hydra-70 modules and a pair of Hellfires.  
That may be what the picture shows, but threre is no telling what the final procuct will use.  We may find it includes LOSAT, and I've heard a lot of talk of non-line of sight munitions (but will that happen now that the US is killing thier program?).

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2004, 00:37:08 »
Right enough Yard Ape.

It seems to be something of a notional concept at this time.  Somebody thinking that they can turn a land platform into as versatile a platform as a CF-18 or an AH-1.  Something that you can mount any current weapon onto and upgrade it with whatever comes along.

Something of a logisticians wet dream maybe?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #27 on: November 14, 2004, 23:53:16 »
On of the various computer studies described in the ADTB had a notional MMEV mounting an "electro-thermal cannon", giving it the ability to fire high velocity rounds for direct fire engagements, but also lower velocity rounds in "howitzer" like engagements as a form of SP artillery. (Presumably using less current).

If we want an "all singing and dancing" MMEV, ditch the missile route and go for a gun solution. A very simple and effective MMEV for the first generation would be a direct fire platform with a fairly decent on board ammunition supply. Modify the gun mount and cradle for high angle fire, and supply both high velocity "tank" rounds and low velocity "smart" rounds. The low velocity rounds can use a "stub" casing that fits the breech of the gun, without the full propelling charge of a high velocity round.

"Smart" rounds have been around for a while, with the 155mm "copperhead" laser sensing round introduced in the 1980's, and the 120mm STRIX infared seeking mortar round in Swedish service today. The UK also experimented with the 81mm "Merlin" mortar round, which used a form of on board radar. If we really want missiles, the LAHAT through tube missile can be fired from a gun for 8km direct engagements, and 13 km indirect engagements.

CASR also posted an interesting gun concept, using the cast off 155 barrels from the M-109 as a starting point. http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-mgs.htm

IF we want to go the MMEV route, go all the way and replace SP artillery, Anti-Armour systems and direct fire artillery with one gun armed vehicle. Distribution of ammunition determines the role that particular vehicle will perform (direct or indirect fire), sorting out lots of logistical issues (although creating a few new ones). The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,777
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #28 on: November 17, 2004, 20:22:01 »
If we want an "all singing and dancing" MMEV, ditch the missile route and go for a gun solution. A very simple and effective MMEV for the first generation would be a direct fire platform with a fairly decent on board ammunition supply. Modify the gun mount and cradle for high angle fire, and supply both high velocity "tank" rounds and low velocity "smart" rounds.   ....

The "three headed monster" we are creating now will have so many difficulties in terms of interoperability, logistics, etc. that it may be best to get a clean sheet of paper and start over.
Would an MMEV gun system still be able to function in a AD role?   As we strip away all our other AD capabilities, I feel that an MMEV evolved from ADATS would allow us to retain some level of AD capability.

LOSAT and FOG-M are potentially as destabilizing as the introduction of the HMS Dreadnaught was to the capital fleets of the world in the early part of the last century.
LOSAT is still line of sight and its range is considerably shorter than ADATS   of FOGM.   However, it does promise greater lethality to armour than current missiles.   I think this has potential to replace TOW in our envisioned system of systems.   I do not think it enters into the equation as an MMEV alternative (and while the option would exist to arm an MMEV with a LOSAT type missile, this would push a long range asset very far forward).

The Non-line of Sight (NLOS) characteristics of the FOGM is what I typically hear of when the MMEV concept comes up.   I believe that this and traditional ADATS missiles are the way to go.   I like ADATS because it is dual role, and even in the direct fire role it has greater reach than most anti-armour systems.  Ideally, there would be options available in guidance of NLOS missiles.   Target designators mounted on Coyote surveillance masts, target designators carried in infantry sections and platoons, and GPS are all options.

Mounting short-range line-of-sight weapons on the MMEV would be foolish and lead to its quick destruction in battle.

 So, we are still left with a â Å“three headed monsterâ ? but with LOSAT and a ADATS/NLOS MMEV we would have a much more capable monster.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2004, 20:24:46 by McG »

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #29 on: November 17, 2004, 22:44:24 »
So many factors:

A gun armed MMEV can have some AD ability with the right weapon and mount, like the Israeli rapid fire 60mm, or the ARES 75. A larger calibre weapon might use a through tube missile or a "shotgun" type round. Since AD involves looking up, I would issue the MMEV chassis to AD units along with AD ammunition, rather than try to have Armoured crewmen trying to do that and fight the ground battle at the same time.

LOSAT is potentially destabilising because it can "snap shoot", unlike other missiles with their long engagement times. The US Army had also demonstrated a LOSAT armed Hummer which could pick up four separate targets then volley fire all four LOSATS. This parallel engagement capability can destroy multiple targets faster than a tank with its serial engagement capability. Future LOSAT type missiles will have improved range, less bulk, greater manoeuvrability etc.

Quote
Ideally, there would be options available in guidance of NLOS missiles.  Target designators mounted on Coyote surveillance masts, target designators carried in infantry sections and platoons, and GPS are all options.

To make best use of these systems, consider a USMC LAV coy. One platoon is up front scouting, while the remaining infantry are one bound behind. One bound back is the LAV-TOW platoon, followed by the LAV mortar platoon. The Coy commander is up front with the Infantry, while the 2I/C trails the mortar platoon in the "C Cubed", a bison like command and control post. The future Canadian LAV combat team might look the same, with a gun or DF missile armed MMEV where the TOW platoon is, and a mortar or FOG-M platoon one bound behind them. Other variations are possible.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,777
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #30 on: November 17, 2004, 22:51:22 »
We seem to agree on where we would find the NLOS missile systems, however I still see this as being a part of the MMEV package.  I think we both see LOSAT where TOW is now, possibly with a cannon based DFSV that employs smart munitions.

Maybe our only difference is the vehicle we choose to call MMEV?

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #31 on: November 17, 2004, 23:09:40 »
We seem to agree on where we would find the NLOS missile systems, however I still see this as being a part of the MMEV package. I think we both see LOSAT where TOW is now, possibly with a cannon based DFSV that employs smart munitions.

Maybe our only difference is the vehicle we choose to call MMEV?

The real reason we can find areas to disagree is there is no "real" definition of the MMEV, so we are  projecting our desires onto a faintly sketched in canvas.

One big issue that I am thinking about is logistics. It seems much simpler to a mere Infantryman like myself to supply the right kind of ammo for the job, rather than trying to find the right vehicle (as well as parts and ammo). A here and now analogy is the venerable "Carl G". I can use HEAT-RAP against armoured targets, or HEDP (High Explosive-Dual Purpose) rounds to defeat bunkers, breach walls or even take out APC's and the like in an emergency. A gun MMEV solution seems the simpler and more effective way of doing business.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #32 on: November 17, 2004, 23:21:00 »
Given that all systems are trying to do a number of different things these days is there merit to looking at TUA/DFSV/MMEV/Arty systems just as Short/Medium/Long Range Fire Support Vehicles that may be mounted on Light/Medium/Heavy platforms? All of them could/would mount combinations of weapons systems that could be adjusted to meet different battlefield requirements.

Ground based versions of Fixed Air and Helos.  Attach necessary impedimenta for each mission.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2004, 10:00:37 »
Given that all systems are trying to do a number of different things these days is there merit to looking at TUA/DFSV/MMEV/Arty systems just as Short/Medium/Long Range Fire Support Vehicles that may be mounted on Light/Medium/Heavy platforms? All of them could/would mount combinations of weapons systems that could be adjusted to meet different battlefield requirements.

Ground based versions of Fixed Air and Helos. Attach necessary impedimenta for each mission.

Exactly so! Since we are going to a medium platform by default, then we need a flexible weapons system(s) to cover the short/medium/long range fire support missions. A Gun-LAV is one possible solution, which I think might be flexible enough to meet many of these goals, but I can also see missile carriers as well. If we want to go the missile route, then a DF missile system like LOSAT is needed to cover the point targets and "snap shooting" needs, while FOG-M type missiles can cover the medium/long range needs.

Guns or fast missiles are a must simply because I can't wait ten minutes for a FOG-M launched 60 km away to arrive. That sort of weapon is designed for the defense or deliberate assault. Various hybrid solutions can and should also be examined. I made a speculative post on Combat team of tomorrow where the MMEV troop would be one bound behind the Infantry with a mix of LOSAT and FOG-M, while a mortar platoon operates another bound behind, but is only loaded out for area support (HE, Smk, Illum), leaving the point targets to the MMEV. Substitute "Gun" for LOSAT/FOG-M and we arrive at a similar solution.

The MMEV, or Fire Support Vehicle (since our speculations have really changed the LAV/ADATS idea) is not, and should never be considered, a tank substitute. If it is flexible, capable of fire on the move and has at least the same cross country mobility as the rest of the LAV family, then we can start to reorient the Army's mech formations into a "Cavalry" type organization, capable of performing patrolling, flanking, screening and economy of force tasks. Digging people out of prepared positions and urban strong points may end up being the task of dismounted Infantry in the style of Ortona or battling through the Netherlands, rather than "thunder runs" to disrupt and demoralize the enemy. As long as we are stuck with the "troika" and the sort of thinking behind that idea, we will be a defense only formation, and probably not welcomed on coallition or PSO type operations which require more.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2004, 12:42:14 »
I agree with you and others on the need for a gun in the short range role.  Nothing seems to beat the gun for accuracy and speed of response in the Direct Fire role in the 1- 5 km range.  As well as the ability to get off multiple observed rounds and adjust rapidly.

I would question point a direct fire missile like the 5km LOSAT/CKEM or even the 4km TOW on the same platform as the 10-15km EFOGM though.  To me it makes more sense to group the EFOGM type of missile with 120mm mortars or 105mm guns (current generation).  They all operate out to 15 km or so and the EFOGM gives both a precision kill capability to the Arty as well as a real time recce/taget verification capability as the gunner can see the target he is hitting.

Similarly the notion of marrying the Polyphem 60km Fibre Optic Missile with the MRLS/GMRLS or even Long Range 155mm/Naval Gunfire makes sense.

I take it as a given that all arms will be operating various UAVs.

The question is what to do with direct fire missiles and a related question is what about missiles like the Hellfire/Brimstone that can be used in both Direct Fire Fire&Forget mode as well as Designated and Self Targeting modes.

I would suggest that the Gun/CKEM-LOSAT-TOW combination is the Short range 1-5 km vehicle mounted solution, thickened by Javelin/ALAAWS man-portable systems.

The next layer of cover would be 105mm C3s /120mm AMOS-type mortars /EFOGM at 10-15 km.

The next bound back is the 105mm Denel - 155mm / Brimstone / MRLS at 30-40 km

Behind that is Naval Gunfire / Polyphem / GMRLS at 60-70 km.

The 8 km Hellfire presents me with a bit of a problem because its range is intermediate between my short range band and my medium range band.  Also it is capable of both direct and indirect fire. So who to use it?

I am going to suggest that we have a good basis for both fighting and understanding the short-range battle.  That is the infantry/armoured model that is virtually unchanged since the introduction of the SS-11 into the Canadian mechanized brigade group.  It is the direct-fire, close combat fight.  And I will stipulate right here, right now, that when lots of metal is flying around the battlefield and you have no place to hide a lot of solid metal between me and all that flying metal would be a comforting thing.  Tracks can carry a greater weight of protective metal than wheels. Tracks, protective metal, a gun - sounds like a tank. 

Thing is, infanteers trying to get to the same place the tank is shooting at would probably like the same amount of metal surrounding them that surrounds the tankers.  That protection is more important to them and their ability to conduct operations than a gun/gun crew/ammunition taking up space.  I am a real fan of the Elgins converted RAMS for an APC.  It supplied the infantry with the exact same protection and mobility as the tanks it accompanied.  It had no other role other than to transport troops.

If we are going to have 70 tonne tanks then supply the infantry with 70 tonne armoured trucks on tracks.

I stipulate all of the above. But lets move on from there.

It seems to me that it is in the area of fire support that the CF is most deficient.  Not just in terms of number of tubes but in terms of types of ammunition for the tubes, in terms of types of launchers, in terms of types of platforms (man-portable, towed, wheeled, tracked, naval, helo, fast air), in terms of experience working with them and in terms of a comprehensive doctrine that encompasses not just what is currently available and what is "on the drawing-boards".   The Canadian artillery doesn't seem to have changed much in practice since WWII and maybe even WWI.  My sense is that the Arty is perceived solely as a method of dumping large quantities of HE over large areas and creating large holes in the ground.  From where I sit it is actually in terms of fire support, Arty's principal function, that the Revolution in Military Affairs has its most effect.  Perversely this increasing effectiveness is seen in decreasing numbers of gunners and airmen as one gun/one aircraft is capable of doing more with one round than ever before, with fewer operators, fewer maintainers and fewer truck drivers.

But it seems that few of the combat arms types here, both Arty and Inf/Armd are looking at how Future Arty can be exploited and how it might shape the battlefield in the future.  I believe, at least in the CF, that is because of lack of exposure to Arty in training and lack of attention to that most war-like of arms.  If you don't think the Government likes tanks because of their war-like aura what must it think of the Guns and DPICMs and Flechettes, not to mention Gas and Nukes?  The Government has only reluctantly supplied WWII capabilities in this field.

I believe that Arty, and the Air Force, can do a lot more in terms of offering fire support than most folks here seem to credit.  I believe that those capabilities that are being exploited by the Yanks and the Brits, amongst others are the reason that they are comfortable reducing - not eliminating - the numbers of tanks that they field.  Effectively they feel that Arty can make the battlefield a safer place for Own Forces to operate. 

Because of increased ranges and increased precision it also means that one battery can supply fire support over a much larger area.  I believe that wheels are better suited than tracks to dominate large areas due to speed and low wear and tear.  This is especially true in relatively low intensity environments like the current situation in Iraq.  The pattern of employment of the Stryker Battalions seems to support that view.  They are effective in Mosul on standing patrols and they have been rapidly redeployed to Najaf, Samarra, Fallujah and back numerous times, relocating hundreds of kilometers a night.

LAVs and improved arty support will give the CF a significant set of deployable capabilities that are useful nationally and to our allies.

As an aside, if gunners were viewed as infanteers that serve guns and included in the combat arms mix rather than being relegated to combat support, it would give the CF another 3 or 4 deployable units.

To conclude, I am not saying we should do without tanks.  I would like you to have tanks, and for that matter heavy, tracked APCs.  We can debate from here to kingdom come how many tanks are needed and/or are affordable.  That's a separate discussion.  I am saying that LAVs, with an appropriate RANGE of fire support capabilities mounted on various platforms including MMEVs can safely cover many tasks that previously require a tank crew to stand in an open field and slug it out toe-to-toe with an opposing tank, relying on their skills and those of the engineering that designed and built their tank at least cost.

Can we all at least agree that at least this maxim is outdated?  "The best anti-tank weapon is another tank".
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #35 on: November 18, 2004, 14:47:58 »
A heavy assault battlegroup would be nice for "nutcracker" operations, with a MERKAVA type gun tank, and either a MERKAVA derivative hull for the assault carrier and CEV, or an ACHZARIT to serve the same purpose. The IDF likes this just fine, since they have the ability to shrug off most small arms fire and bring heavy firepower right up to the target whenever needed. Perhaps a heavy assault group thread should be started for that discussion. Given the "medium" bias of our purchases and plans, we will need to stipulate the Canadian Army will not perform as the "nutcracker" in a coalition (and hope like hell it doesn't come to that in a Canadian only operation).

Quote
The 8 km Hellfire presents me with a bit of a problem because its range is intermediate between my short range band and my medium range band.   Also it is capable of both direct and indirect fire. So who to use it?

This sort of weapon blurs the distinction between the traditional arms, my solution would be to have combined arms "Manoeuvre Battalions" with everyone wearing the same cap badge. Longer range missiles like FOG-M still have utility in the combat team solution I have described. The recce troop, or a platoon of mounted Infantry will be operating one or two bounds up from the main body, so if they run into trouble, the Fire Support Troop will be able to respond without a long delay, either with Hellfire/Brimstone missiles being guided in by the recce or lead Infantry platoon, or FOG-M flying overhead and missile operators dropping them on targets. With EFOG-M, the combat teams can do lateral support to flanking teams as well. At closer ranges, the MMEV's can input target data from many sources and volley fire their LOSAT type missiles, taking out multiple targets in a matter of seconds rather than engaging in a protracted slugfest, or playing hide and seek while trying to "snipe" targets. (This is not to say serial engagements are impossible, but if the circumstances permit, the "shock and awe" effect of several bunkers or AFV's being destroyed almost at once will certainly have a demoralizing effect on the enemy). A weapon combining the speed and kinetic energy attack of LOSAT with the range and versatility of Hellfire/Brimestone will be a real winner on the battlefield.

Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets. Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #36 on: November 18, 2004, 16:57:12 »
I agree with almost everything you say but.............

Quote
(and hope like heck it doesn't come to that in a Canadian only operation).

a fool's bet


Quote
At closer ranges, the MMEV's can input target data from many sources and volley fire their LOSAT type missiles, taking out multiple targets in a matter of seconds rather than engaging in a protracted slugfest, or playing hide and seek while trying to "snipe" targets.

That makes the LOSAT/CKEM.....type of system a natural for an Anti-Tank Tp/Pl used in the same way that the TUA is currently (Note- I always liked the Swingfire concept of being able to have the crew dismount and launch the missiles while having retired a discrete distance from "the blue touch paper")


Quote
Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets.

Here I have my greatest difficulty.  Real missiles, rockets and rounds will be required.  They will be launched from real tubes and racks.  They will require real platforms.  All of which will require real people.  Arty has the historical and contemporary corporate knowledge to effectively employ these systems.  Infantry and Armoured are going to have their hands full on the close-combat, short range direct fire battle.  Let the Arty handle what they do very well the indirect, long-range battle.  And the fact that one system can be used in two different roles by two different arms doesn't seem to me to be a problem.  Its a logistical  advantage.

Quote
Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.

I have doubts as well about using the LAV in direct assaults.  But I do think that with more and more effective artillery fire there will be more areas of the battlefield that the LAVs can roam without having to commit to a direct assault.  And in my mind that is ultimately what all of these discussions are about - how do you eliminate those obstacles that prevent people from getting out of their vehicles and putting their muddy size 12s on the ground and claiming it.

Cheers,  :) :salute:






"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,777
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2004, 00:13:28 »
There is no reason that we should not look to integrating targeting & surviellance systems to allow an MMEV to employ NLOS missiles in a volley fire attack.   Once over the target area the missiles could be guided in by target designators or vehicle recognition capabilities of the missiles.

LOSAT need not hold a monopoly on the volley fire capability.

As far as the short/medium/long/very-long range spectrum, I see the following break down:

Very-short (0 - 1000 m):   Infantry manportable weapons
Short range (1000 - 4000 m):   LOSAT and DFSV (employing variety of advanced munitions)
Med range: (5000 -15000 m):   Mortar and MMEV missile platform (primarilly NLOS but also AD and "longer" range direct fire out to 10 km)
Long range + (15000 m +): Arty fires.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2004, 01:12:58 »
Looks good to me McG, I think you're very right on the volley fire issue and on the surveillance and targeting.   Maybe the basic principle is that the firers should have the ability to see their target.   They could also continue to fire indirectly bu seeing as how the technology is available to let them see where there rounds are landing why not give it to them?

One slight quibble, if you extend your very short range out to 2000m you will also include the 60mm mortar and the Javelin (2500m).

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2004, 01:56:05 »

Artillery may become a "virtual" trade, no longer having dedicated platforms (although the idea of 60Km + engagements is certainly an "artillery" platform) but rather managing fire effects in the battlespace by identifying targets, matching them to the appropriate weapons and coordinating assets. Perhaps this will allow direct assaults with LAV type vehicles moving forward under the cover of PGM fire, although I have doubts.

I see I wasn't entirely clear. There would of course be "real" artillery with real gunners and real weapons systems. The more important role of Artillery will be resource management, for lack of a better term. Not only will shells or rockets or FOG-Ms be raining down on the enemy, but aircraft, helicopters, armed UAV's and the indirect fire assets of the combat team and battle group will also be there, ready to use. The "virtual artillery" would be able to use those assets, rather than their own dedicated platforms.

In the context of this thread, if a fire support troop is not in direct fire range of the target, the virtual artillery would be feeding target data to the MMEV so they could use FOG-M or guns in the indirect fire mode. Missile armed MMEVs would have the option of volley fire, and I am ashamed to admit I had not thought of this possibility, but now that McG has brought this up, I can see the "shock and awe" effect would be even greater ("where did that come from!"). The enemy would get another dose as the MMEVs closed to direct fire range and a volley of KE missiles slammed into the position at Mach 5, followed by dismounted Infantry.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2004, 12:07:57 »
Before commenting further I wanted to post this information.   It is from the New Zealand Defence Plan Update.   I was particularly taken by the Area to be covered.

Quote
Land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR)
Description

8.1      This project proposes to equip the Army with an improved land Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) capability.

Policy Value

8.2      An improved land ISR capability will provide land forces with the ability to detect threats at greater distances and with greater certainty. An improved land ISR capability is an important element in operations where land forces face a demanding threat environment and need to know what is happening around them.

Capability Gap

8.3      Land forces require integral capabilities to identify personnel and vehicles, both static and moving. Current ISR capabilities are limited to foot, vehicle and motorcycle patrols and include night vision and some ground sensors. A significantly larger area, up to 100 by 60 square kilometres, will need to be observed when the LAV is introduced into service.

Links to other Capabilities

8.4      This project has links to the following projects and capabilities:

Special Operations Capability

Light Operational Vehicle  

Light Armoured Vehicle

P-3 Upgrade

NZDF Helicopter Capability

Timing

8.5      Implementation is expected in 2006 - 2007.

Current Status

8.6      Preliminary work has been completed to determine how the land ISR needs fit within the broader NZDF ISR requirements. Work will now commence on developing options to meet specific land ISR requirements.

Costs

8.7      This project is expected to cost $25 million - $52 million.

The New Zealanders have aquired 105 LAV IIIs with 25mm Bushmasters. Just like ours.  

Is it safe to assume that the area 100 km x 60 km would be a Battle Group Area of Operations? The KIWIs are probably not considering a Brigade AO with only 105 LAVs available to them totally and it seems unlikely to me that this would be the AO for a Company Combat Team.   If so what does that do this discussion of necessary fire support and the MMEVs?


As to your comment on the virtual Arty, thanks for clearing that up.   Put the way that you have now I can see it.   Need some Arty types to weigh in on this I guess but perhaps your needs would be met if each Arty regiment were to congregate all the FOOs and FDCs along with the ISTAR kit in one Battery and make pure Firing Batteries out of the rest of the unit.   As I understand it now the FOOs and the FDCs are integral to the Batteries - I believe part of the reason is it provides a direct link between the gunners doing the firing and the units they are supporting by having one of their own on the receiving end of their fire support.   The counter is the USMC has its ANGLICO companies and the Royal Artillery has its STA batteries, both dedicated to the type of tasking I think you are suggesting.

With respect to the MMEV and LOSAT/FOG-M, I think the problem that I am having is that all of the info that I have seen on the LOSAT is that it is a direct fired missile launched horizontally from a rail.   The FOG-M/EFOG-M/Polyphem missiles all seem to vertically launched from boxes.   It doesn't seem to me that both missiles would be compatible with the same vehicle, not on an interchangeable basis.
That doesn't mean that one unit couldn't be equipped with both systems, and the fact that both systems ultimately have the same job, the destruction of hard targets with precision fire, certainly suggests this as a possibility.   On the other hand the discrepancy in ranges suggests to me that they might be best treated as two separate entities as McG has also proposed.

Now, alternatively, if you want to look at one missile that could operate from the MMEVs in the way that you are thinking then perhaps we would be better off looking at the Hellfire/Brimstone missiles which can be fired in direct mode, in designated mode or self-targeted mode.   Hellfire again has a range of about 8 km while Brimstone can stand back 32 km - not a bad capability if a Battlegroup is to be responsible for a 100x60 km AO.

Interestingly a mock-up photo of the MMEV that McG posted some time ago (perhaps you could re-post that McG) showed it, IIRC, equipped with 70mm rocket pods, anti-aircraft missiles and Hellfire/Brimstone missiles.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2004, 19:31:14 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2004, 19:24:45 »
Art, Kirkhill and McG you guys bring some really good points to the table.. I like the ranging and dividing responsibilities (it keeps ALL our branches alive and it gives us some valuable purposes)..
How about idirect be both volley (traditional HE, WP and ILLUM rounds) and precision (like swiss STRIX 120mm guided mortar munitions)?
What do you guys think of splicing this into the new system of systems in the CF ?
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2004, 20:01:07 »
I think the 120mm mortar system is a great example of a MME capability.  As you point out it handles traditional HE Smk Ill tasks as well as having an Anti-tank PGM role with the Strix (I think you will find that that is manufactured in Sweden).  As well there are DPICM rounds for the 120mm and I have even heard tell of a FOG round - propulsion is just like any other mortar round, charges around the base, but it trails a Fibre Optic link and is supposed to be guidable.

Another advantage of the 120mm rounds are that launchers can vary from really lightweight towed launchers to the AMOS twin-barrelled turret with auto loader.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/pgmm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m971.htm

These are American requirements for 120mm Mortar rounds, can't find the FOG version just now.


http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hatm.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/losat.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ckem.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mgm-157.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/net-fires.htm

These are the LOSAT and  NLOS systems currently either in production or in testing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_missile

And finally Hellfire and Brimstone - I love that name.... ;D

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,957
  • What the????
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2004, 21:09:45 »
What's brimstone?
I am NOT a privileged white man by virtue of being male or white. I am privileged because I am alive and exercising my right to be who I am!

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 195,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,741
  • Freespeecher
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2004, 21:36:04 »
Brimestone is the traditional name for sulphur, and has biblical connotations ( God raining "Fire and Brimestone" on unbelievers). If you think back to your high school chemistry classes, you will remember the god awful smell of burning sulphur....

100 X 60 km is larger than many WW I battlefields, amazing how technology advances. Long range indirect fire assets can be missiles, smart mortar rounds artillery shells or whatever can come flying through the air. I use FOG-M because I think it is very versatile technology, a "FOG-P" (Fiber Optic Guided Projectile) is something I have never heard of before, but it would be interesting to see how it works. Even farther out ideas include electro-magnetic rail guns firing from DD-X ships, the round is projected right out of the atmosphere towards targets several hundred kilometers away. A satellite could theoretically be designed to de-orbit on command; if a few ounces of metal in a shaped charge warhead moving at @Mach 25 can destroy a tank, then a few kilograms of satellite moving at Mach 27 = "look out". Perhaps we need to start a fire support thread?

The actual size and shape of the missiles is really a technical issue. If we want or need to, we could design a common launcher for the DF and IF missiles or weapons, or design the missile characteristics into a common airframe, or have an "all in one" weapon like Brimestone. Looking at the capabilities, it would seem to be an excellent choice, especially if the fire control system can be adapted for individual (serial) engagements as well as volley (parallel) engagements. If future developments pushed its speed into LOSAT territory, then even the need for snap shooting DF targets can be met.


Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2004, 23:10:34 »
Agreed on all points.

Another critical question in this discussion though is timeline.  When could we implement some of the things we are talking about?  I have been trying to stick with systems that are already in production or are in prototype-low rate initial production phases and are expected to be deployed in the next two years or so.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Lance Wiebe

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 5,275
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 925
  • Retired WO
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #46 on: November 20, 2004, 08:59:10 »
Last I heard from the Ottawa crowd is that they are looking at the 2012-2015 timeframe to implement the LAV-MMEV.  That's because no other army in the world is interested in such a vehicle, preferring to keep tracks.  So a lot of money is required for development. 
"It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who served beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag." - Charles M. Province

Offline AmmoTech90

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,104
    • Catching Bullets
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #47 on: November 20, 2004, 12:15:52 »
Brimstone is a British version of the Hellfire.  It is fire and forget with a tandem warhead, designed to be launched from fast air rather than attack helocopters.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

The fragrance of Afghanistan
Rewards a long day's toil
A Passage to Bangkok- Rush

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,781
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2004, 12:34:00 »
Ammotech 90:

Can you confirm these manufacturer's claims?

Quote
Advanced Anti-Armour Weapon.


Operational requirement
Around 30 countries now have more than 1,000 main battle tanks and 4,000 armoured vehicles of all types in operation or reserve.

To counter this threat, a range of anti-armour weapon systems is needed at all levels of the conflict. Direct fire weapons with support from attack helicopters can counter the short and medium engagement, but a flexible, highly accurate fast jet launched weapon is needed to counter the deep battlefield requirement and to provide immediate close air support, anywhere. The Brimstone advance anti-armour weapon has been developed to meet this requirement.


The MBDA solution
Modern main battle tanks are capable of sustaining the high rate of combat orders they receive in an optimal manner. Today, armoured combat units are more mobile and more discrete. They can be deployed more rapidly and can escape from the opponent's detection systems while benefiting from passive and active protection systems that are likely to put today's anti-tank systems in a no-win situation. The BRIMSTONE missile takes into account all these parameters. It has been designed in answer to the UK MoD's requirement for an air-to-surface stand-off anti-tank missile of the fire and forget type capable of being engaged from far inside the opponent's combat system. BRIMSTONE's high flexibility of use is unique in the world. It can be launched from combat aircraft, light armoured vehicles and from the ground. Its millimetric Wave radar seeker ensures target searching and identification 24 hours a day, in all weathers, and is not affected by the smoke and obscurants of today's modern battlefield.
Brimstone is a fully autonomous, fire and forget anti-armour weapon, effective against all known and projected armoured threats. .


MAIN FEATURES and ADVANTAGES

Launch Modes
Indirect Mode is used when the targets are known and are out of sight of the attacking aircraft. The attack will usually have been planned in advance. If the aircraft has a databus between the cockpit and the weapons pylon, the aircrew can carry out mission planning or amendments en route to the release point. The engagement is set up so that the aircraft releases BRIMSTONE from a safe position, ensuring aircraft and aircrew survivability. The missile can be fired off boresight to facilitate use of terrain masking.

Direct Mode is where the pilot usually visually selects the target prior to weapon release, which may be assisted by an on-board sighting system. This mode is primarily intended for targets of opportunity or for self-defence against suddenly uncovered targets.

In both modes, BRIMSTONE supports off bore sight operation so the aircraft does not have to carry out any special manoeuvre prior to launch.

Once launched, BRIMSTONE is fully fire and forget. Autonomous on-board targeting algorithms means that there is no need for post launch target designation, allowing the attacking aircraft to retreat to a safe position. On leaving the launcher, the missiles are boosted to supersonic speed by the solid propellant rocket motor. The short burn time, minimum smoke design of the motor gives a reduced optical and infrared signature minimising the chance of Brimstone's detection by the target's Defensive Aids Suite (DAS).
BRIMSTONE's millimetric Wave (mmW) radar seeker is able to operate in allweathers and throughout the 24 hour day. It is also not susceptible to battlefield obscurants such as smoke, dust, flares or chaff. A second function of the seeker is to give Brimstone a terrain avoidance capability, allowing it to cruise at a fixed height above the ground. It can be launched from ultra-low to high altitudes, allowing the pilot to select the launch altitude that avoids the possibility of successful attack from SAM systems. When launched from medium or high altitude, BRIMSTONE goes into a steep dive until it detects the ground below. The missile then pulls out to the cruise height.

Mid-course guidance is controlled by a digital autopilot and a highly accurate digital inertial measurement unit, giving the necessary high performance navigation required to locate the targets at long range and off-boresight operations.


Salvo Firing
When the target is a group or array of armoured vehicles, a broad attack front is required to engage the maximum number of vehicles. In such cases, multiple BRIMSTONE missiles can be fired in salvo, up to the entire platform load.

The missiles fly on separate paths that are spread out to cover the largest area.

Alternatively, missiles can be flown down the same corridor for the attack of in-line formations. A variety of engagement algorithms are used to eliminate the probability of hitting the same target more than once. For example, individual missiles can be commanded to hit sequentially numbered valid targets according to information passed from the aircraft before launch.

Target Engagement
During the search phase of the engagement, BRIMSTONE's mmW seeker performs a comprehensive sweep on the ground directly ahead and to each side, searching for targets in its path. The advance mmW seeker constantly monitors the received radar signal, comparing it to a known target signature in its memory.
It automatically rejects returns which do match (i.e. cars, buses, buildings) and continues searching and comparing until it identifies a valid target.
The missiles can be programmed not to search for targets until they reach a given point, allowing them to safely overfly friendly forces. They can also be programmed to stop searching beyond the safe engagement area or to only accept a target in a restricted box area. This provides collateral damage control.

The BRIMSTONE seeker operates in the high mmW band providing a high-resolution radar return image of the target, allowing real time target recognition and classification using on-board algorithms.

Once identified, BRIMSTONE scans the target to optimise its aimpoint and to maximise its lethality.

BRIMSTONE emits a low power signal as it searches the ground just ahead of itself. Should the armoured target have a Defensive Aid Suite it will have little opportunity for successful deployment of countermeasures against the supersonic missile.

The BRIMSTONE warhead is a tandem shaped charge High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) warhead. The front charge initiates any reactive armour on the Main Battle Tank and clears the path for the main charge. The warhead is capable of defeating all known and projected armoured threats.


Launch Platforms
BRIMSTONE has been designed to operate from all fast jet aircraft, such as the Harrier, Tornado, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, F/A-18 and Gripen. It is also suitable for operation on light attack aircraft such as the Hawk, F-5 and L-159.

BRIMSTONE is suitable for operational deployment on helicopters, armoured vehicles and ground-based launchers. These launchers can be adapted to carry a mix of both BRIMSTONE and Hellfire missiles. Such a deployment is being offered to the British Army on the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle programme
Status of programme
In November 1996 the UK MoD awarded MBDA the development and production contract for Brimstone. In October 2003, a successful series of test firings were carried out as part of the final stages of Brimstone's development phase. During one of these tests, a ripple test firing, three missiles successfully impacted on three different targets with an array of armoured vehicles.
Brimstone will enter into service during the course of 2004.

http://www.mbda.co.uk/
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline AmmoTech90

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,104
    • Catching Bullets
Re: MMEV (Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle)
« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2004, 16:19:37 »
Sure, you can lauch almost any weapon from almost any platform.  Some work better from other, for example a CRV7 rocket launched from fast air is going to have significantly higher velocity and therefore a bit more accuracy and shorter time of flight than one launched from the ground.   It also depends on the data bus used on the pylon.  Most US/NATO smart weapons use the MIL-STD-1760 bus I believe to pass info between the weapon and launch platform.  If the weapon is designed for that and has compatible rails/dispensers it should be fine.  For aircraft there is also seperation concerns.  I am not sure why Hellfire is not used on fast air.  Could be technical or it could be because the US has Maverick that fills a very similar niche but for fast air.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

The fragrance of Afghanistan
Rewards a long day's toil
A Passage to Bangkok- Rush