Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[vonGarvin]

We shouldn't compared the CASW with the 60.  Apples to shopping carts: both are found in shopping malls, but you don't send your kid to school with a shopping cart.
First round hits, at night, are awesome, and for that a definite niche exists for a CASW-type weapon.  Perhaps in the echelons mounted on an RWS.  For LAV Companies, the first shot hit at night on the move is the specialty of the M 242.  No need for another expensive direct fire weapon in the LAV Coy (IMPO)

 

[tomahawk6]

Can you imagine the ROE for units with the CASW ? They might need to call NDHQ just to be able to fire the damn thing all the while under attack from an enemy with no worries about ROE.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We shouldn't compared the CASW with the 60. 

Especially since it can't fire illum or smoke

 

[vonGarvin]

Not only the illum/smoke, which are also good points, but also we should not compare the direct fire, hand held mode of the 60 vs the various firing modes of the CASW.  Just because we choose to not employ the weapon to its full potential is not to fault the weapon, instead, we are to blame if that's what we do. 

But, anyway, the CASW certainly does have a role (IMPO), but it's not with the mechanised infantry.

 

[Michael OLeary]

What about first shot hit at night?  There is video of a Mk47 with thermal engaging 5 targets (wrecks) between 300-700m twice (10 lase/fire engagements) and hitting 100% under a minute – And the CASW is huge leap ahead of the Mk47.  Can a 60mm do this?  Lets not lie to each other here: All engagements with the 60mm are line of sight and 90% are within 800m. So why advertise ourselves with bedding shot or illumination?  Close Area Suppression be damned, its just an lousy acronym.  Lets take them out with the very first burst.

We may not be lying to one another, but it would appear that a situated estimate is fine for presenting to those without experience on either type of weapon.

I know you've already said that the idea of comparison to modern 60 mm mortar systems was brushed aside early in the process, but why continue to return to comparing a new AGL to the 50-year old M19 60 mm mortar in the handheld only? (Oh right, because that was our only published doctrinal role.)

If we're going to create an argument to buy a modern AGL technology, let's at least compare it to capabilities of a modern 60 mm system.  Where is the realistic examination of modern 60 mm systems with improved laying and sight capabilities? We could even design a sighting system (mounted or separate from the mortar to minimize shock) that uses a laser to determine range and change of elevation to automatically calculate charge and elevation.  That should be no more complicated than the CLASS sight trialed for the Carl G.

If we assume the AGL won't be man-packed, we can compare it to a similarly weighted 60 mm system with bipod and baseplate.

With a larger baseplate on a 60, bedding in is less of an issue, too many people are stuck on the image of the 60 on its little spade baseplate, or the 81 bedding-in on high elevation and charge.

I've been doing my best to stay out of this thread, but more and more it sounds like the case for the Thomson-Brandt RT-61 in the mid-80s.  If you don't bring in realistic competition, then they desired system wins every time.  And, once you dispense with the need to match a doctrine, since you've told us we don't have an effective doctrine-weapon system approach, it just seems to lack a certain element of balance in the argument.  Now, I'm quite sure there's more information that you can't post here, but the appearance of an incomplete estimate is bothersome.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Slightly off track, but I'm wondering if this rationale and process is similar process to the one we used to come up with the Eryx? You know, kind of like: 'there's a cool system that another country uses, so let's situate the estimate so we can get it'.

Oh, and I used a Brandt Mortar in the 80s, without the bipod, on a loaner from the Omani army. Highly impressed. As I recall, one of my guys was dropping bombs through the top of an old APC at about 900m after about 3 or 4 rounds. Me, being an officer of course, took a bit longer but got similar accuracy. The troops loved it so we took it everywhere, used it alot in live firing in the desert in Oman and took it on ambushes at night etc. Great for reaching into wadis and other nooks and crannies. Wonderful illum.

I seem to remember that it was a bit heavier and longer than the old 60mm MOR.

 

[tomahawk6]

This concept must have come from the troops are dumb school of procurement. Mortarmen require alot of practice and skill so lets buy a weapon that can be operated by anyone with machine gun training. 

As an infantry officer I would never even consider replacing my company mortars with an AGL. Its a step backward in capability as it is more akin to the machine gun in how its employed. The range of the mortar excedes that of the AGL. The fragmentation is certainly more lethal as one 60mm shell will create 2000 fragments. The 81mm and 120mm shells will create 5000-7000 fragments but lets leave them out of this discussion.The M224 can fire 120 rounds in 4 minutes. While the rate of fire is lower than with an AGL it is alot more lethal considering the fragments. If your unit is taking enemy rocket or mortar fire you arent going to get them with an AGL. If all you have is your AGL you better hope fire support is available.

The Russian AGL in Chechnya.Fast forward to 3:53.The troops had to run a gauntlet of enemy fire carrying their AGL.

http://russianremote.com/710.html

http://russianremote.com/710.html

 

[McG]

We shouldn't compared the CASW with the 60.  ...  Perhaps in the echelons mounted on an RWS.  For LAV Companies, the first shot hit at night on the move is the specialty of the M 242.

To be fair, it is like you, in an effort to save the apple, are trying to turn an appls vs oranges into an oranges vs pears debate.

• While the HEI-T is proving to be an adequate people killer, the 25 mm is really a KE system while CASW will be CE.  With the 25 mm, there is nothing of the likes of HEDP (which brings together elements of HEAT and HE Frag).
• You cannot dismount the 25 mm (Reply 195)
• An AGL in an RWS is not a CASW (Reply 202)
• The Bushmaster does not have an airburst capability
• The Bushmaster is direct fire, line-of-sight, flat trajectory only

No need for another expensive direct fire weapon in the LAV Coy (IMPO)

Maybe, but it has been pointed out that CASW will be both direct & indirect, line-of-sight & non-line-of-sight, and flat trajectory & high trajectory.

As an infantry officer I would never even consider replacing my company mortars with an AGL. Its a step backward in capability as it is more akin to the machine gun in how its employed. The range of the mortar excedes that of the AGL. The fragmentation is certainly more lethal as one 60mm shell will create 2000 fragments. The 81mm and 120mm shells will create 5000-7000 fragments but lets leave them out of this discussion.

The 81 mm & 120 mm are a distraction from this debate.  Neither one is being considered as an offset to allow for the CASW.  The 120 mm has never been in Canadian service and the 81 mm still is (though no longer with the infantry).  You can talk about these mortars here: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/22545.0.html

This concept must have come from the troops are dumb school of procurement. Mortarmen require alot of practice and skill so lets buy a weapon that can be operated by anyone with machine gun training. 

Maybe it came from a school of thought that msoldiers are smart enough that we shouldn't be limiting them to  a weapon that only does just simple automatic line of sight engagements.  Everything I'm reading tells me that CASW must be more than just an AGL/GMG.

You know, kind of like: 'there's a cool system that another country uses, so let's situate the estimate so we can get it'.

Many countries have AGLs, but does anybody have a CASW?

 

[tomahawk6]

MCG said:

Many countries have AGLs, but does anybody have a CASW?

I reviewed the CASW web site and saw that two of the systems being evaluated are the US Mk19 and Mk 47. The CASW is a role not a weapon at least as I understand it.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-casw2.htm
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-casw1.htm

 

[Kirkhill]

I note that the CASW, as referenced in the title of this thread is a CLOSE AREA SUPPRESSION Weapon.

What is the clinical definition of SUPPRESSION these days?  IIRC it used to mean force the other guy to keep his head down....not necessarily kill (DESTROY) or render ineffective (NEUTRALIZE).

Also, wrt the PGM aspect, as an AREA weapon isn't a lack of precision an advantage?  One of the knocks against the old Bren/L4 as an LMG, in addition to its poor magazine capacity, was that it was less effective in suppressing the enemy because of its lack of an effective beaten zone. It was too precise.  MGs in indirect mode are expected to create a large beaten zone aren't they?  And this particular MG is chucking airbursting grenades all over a large area creating a storm of many slivers.  Would that not tend to keep heads down?

Finally, to clarify for this fella, CLOSE/Company area: are we talking 800m, as with most Platoon weapons or 2000 m as with other Company Weapons (in other armies) like Javelin (ALAAWS)?

 

[tomahawk6]

I would think you are on track any target engaged from the position out to 2000 meters. I view the AGL as the same role as the heavy machine gun but with a bit more punch maybe. Both weapons saturate the target area and are great in the defense in the attack with some limitations for the AGL.

 

[McG]

MCG said:

Many countries have AGLs, but does anybody have a CASW?

I reviewed the CASW web site and saw that two of the systems being evaluated are the US Mk19 and Mk 47. The CASW is a role not a weapon at least as I understand it.

CASR is not an official site though.  I'd agree that CASW is a name given to a not-yet specified item of kit that will deliver a specific capability.  However, the conversation in this thread & information on various links (official & not) suggests that

CASW = AGL + advanced FCS + ground mount for flat & high trajectory fire

I know there are several AGL in service with many nations.  Does any nation have the other two components of CASW?

 

[tomahawk6]

I'd say that Mk 47 does.I have to add that when you add the FCS to the equation you also add weight which limits mobility when used in a dismounted role. In our service these AGL's are vehicle mounted and I havent seen anyone lug one in a dismounted role. I agree the FCS is the key to most of these weapons systems which enhances the basic weapon system.Mortars havent changed much through the decades but technology has added tweaks that make them lighter and more lethal with metals technology that make the rounds more lethal by increasing fragmentation.

Same is true of the AGL. We first used the Mk19 in Vietnam.Technology has enhanced the lethality of the grenade it fires but has lacked a FCS. The MK47 is a leap ahead by being lighter but the weight saving is offset by a FCS that makes the system alot more effective.

http://www.defense-update.com/products/m/M47striker40.htm

 

[MedCorps]

Mk 47 --> complete with Mk 108 Tripod and AN/PWG-1 video sight = 90 lbs.

As you say it limits mobility <smile>

MC   

 

[tomahawk6]

Mk 47 --> complete with Mk 108 Tripod and AN/PWG-1 video sight = 90 lbs.

As you say it limits mobility <smile>

MC   

The Russians use the AGL without a sophisticated FCS which is certainly more deployable by dismounted infantry.I think when the CF obtains this weapon system it will most likely be in the mounted role where the superior FCS and weight issues arent as important as they are in the dismounted role.

Russian Marines:

Video of the AGS-17 and AGS-30 [Russian AGLs fire 30mm grenade]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK0pHsoZXug

 

[McG]

What is the clinical definition of SUPPRESSION these days?

... and how many light mortars are required to achieve a suppressive rate of fire?

 

[tomahawk6]

... and how many light mortars are required to achieve a suppressive rate of fire?

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

The number of light mortars you need to degrade a target depends I guess on the nature and size of the target. I would say in platoon and company operations one or two 60mm mortars can be a difference maker. A single 60mm mortar can put out 120 rounds in 4 minutes.Each shell can create over 2000 fragments. The larger the mortar obviously the more fragments craeted.An 81mm shell can create over 5000 fragments. Set the fuze to either burst 3 feet above the ground for maximum effect or if they are dug in set to burst on impact.
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=157044

 

[daftandbarmy]

Holy cr*p. I would not want to be on the receiving end of that fire misson.

 

[vonGarvin]

Never look at a weapon in isolation.  If a platoon needs to suppress something with its own firepower, then consider everything from rifles to Gustavs.  Considering all the weapons in a platoon, the CASW fills no niche.  From the GPMG reaching out beyond 2000 m (SF "Indirect" role...that's no typo.  If you have the DIN, check out the actual figure), to the C7's firing suppressive out to 600 (section level), the platoon packs quite a punch.  Right now, the only weapon that can hit bad guys who don't want to be hit (generally most bad guys) is the 60 mm.  The CASW, as advertised, can hit "some" of those guys with its airburst round.  That's if the computer doesn't fail.  Granted it takes a few minutes to set up the 60, but once done, the only failure would be a catastrophic failure of the rounds in the breech. 
As for training, if we wish to train people to use the CASW, then why not train them to use a mortar in indirect role?  We have that capability right now.  DP 3A teaches (taught at one time, anyway) indirect fire with the GPMG, and the procedure is quite similar.  One "det" commander could calculate data in a similar method. 
I would also argue that a CASW would also require a few minutes to set up.
At the company level, the story is similar, but the ranges are longer.  The CASW has even less to add as part of the LAV company.  Light company, maybe, to supplement the .50.  But given that a vehicle is required to get it into the fight....not very light


But, I digress...

 

[KevinB]

Any idiot can use the 60mm on the bipod in indirect -- I ran a tube/det for a demo in '04 -- I simply recorded a aiming point - and gave corrections to my two young Pte's on the tube while I observed the tgt and the mortar was hiding in the pit (okay a bit more involved - but you get the jist).  Using my trusty Vector and MJP's mortar book (I may have forgot one thing for the shoot  :-[ )  it went off no problem (even with a young Pte using drop fire).

Given a brief (and IMHO inadequate) idea on MFC'ing is on the PSWQ - add a few more days and the guys should have no worries.