Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[daftandbarmy]

Oh, in case anyone failed to notice, we are in our fifth year of combat with an obselete weapon that this will replace and supercede.  Funny, our Leopard C2s were found to be "lacking", and we were able to get Leopard 2A6M's in theatre, and purchased 100 or so other models of that same tank in 1/8 the time.

Funny that: a zippper head CDS rushes a new tank to the front in record time.  : 

If Hillier had been an Infantry officer you might have seen an AGL rushed into service, right after he introduced some boots that didn't cripple the owners first time out and a chest rig that was designed for something more than the Tim Horton's QRF "Double away for a double double, you lot!".  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

I don't think that is entirely fair to Gen Hillier, since he was also a huge advocate of getting a "Big Honking Ship", as well as heavy lift for the Air Force. Eventually, you discover you only have so much bungee cord (or whatever metaphore you want to use), so save it to lash down the really big items on the roof/in the trunk and try to tie off all the other things with leftover pieces of 550 cord you happen to have in your pocket.

My big hope is some future CDS blasts the bureaucracy and replaces it with a more streamlined structure that can respond in a reasonably swift manner. Don't forget that in WWII all sides were able to introduce entirely new technologies and generations of weapons to millions of troops across the globe using pens and paper rather than Blackberries and videoconferencing, so we know it can be done....

 

[SeanNewman]

The biggest problem all along has been that one does not have to be compared to the other.

IMO, a mortar and grenade machine gun are no more alike than an artillery gun and a tank, and then saying since the Artillery gun shoots airburst rounds we don't need a tank anymore.

The CASW/GMG/C16 is an awesome killing weapon system and has proven itself with our two closest allies already.  As a vehicle mount on smaller systems (LUVW cupola or LAV3 pintle) it would greatly increase our capabilities.

I am also of the impression that on a static defence position, if I were forced to choose one (which is again a dumb argument because we shouldn't have to choose one) I would go with the C16.  However, as I have granted all along it is far from man portable so it's moot.  If you're on foot a mortar it should be.

Straight from D Inf at yesterday's Inf Shl Leadership Symposium, but he has voiced our concerns and those who need to know have heard the calls of the troops who love the mortar.  Just because the C16 is great doesn't mean it has to replace a mortar anymore than it has to replace a C6.

That being said, the mortar as we know it is an antique and needed to go.  But rest assured that other options are being looked at, whether it's a newer/lighter mortar, a different calibre, or whatever else might fill the gap.  It might be just as simple as new tubes like the 84 got.

 

[vonGarvin]

The biggest problem all along has been that one has to be compared to the other.

Agreed 100%.  I would say 150%, but that's impossible.  ;D

That being said, the mortar as we know it is an antique and needed to go.  But rest assured that other options are being looked at, whether it's a newer/lighter mortar, a different calibre, or whatever else might fill the gap.  It might be just as simple as new tubes like the 84 got.

Yes, the pieces of metal we have (M19) is old, tired and needs to rest in peace, having done yeoman's service for way too long.  The capabilities it provides would be better served by a newer 60mm mortar. 

 

[dapaterson]

Good.  Let's buy new tubes (relatively cheap).  But we now have to support two systems with ammo, spares, training etc.  How are we going to pay for that?

We can't have one of everything.  We have to make choices about what to keep, what to buy, and what to scrap.  Hoarding everything like an old woman and cats doesn't work.

So, what should the Army divest? 

 

[medicineman]

So, what should the Army divest?

Some redundant HQ's and their associated staffs perhaps?

MM

 

[SeanNewman]

Good.  Let's buy new tubes (relatively cheap).  But we now have to support two systems with ammo, spares, training etc.  How are we going to pay for that?

You're missing the point.

The same way a platoon already has 9mm, grenades, 5.56, 7.62, 60mm, 84mm, M72s, etc.

A CASW/C16 is significantly different than a mortar and should not be seen in a one-or-the-other mindset.  Saying we can't have a mortar and a C16 in the CF is like saying we can't have a flashlight and night vision or we can't have a light and a medium truck. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Some All redundant HQ's and their associated staffs perhaps?

MM

There, fixed that for you.  ;D

Anyway, as Petamocto said, we have lots.  9mm.  5.56mm Ball.  5.56mm Belt.  7.62mm Belt.  25mm TPDS-T.  25mm HEI-T.  25mm APFSDS-T.  40mm Low Velocity M203  thingy (I forget the grenade launcher's nom du jour).  And on.  And for each, there are weapons, simulators, parts, tech training, etc and so forth.  I get it: things ain't cheap.  But as medicineman already alluded, reduntant HQs and their staffs are a drain.  We may not have a mortar/pioneer or anti-armour platoon anymore, but I'm certain we have a J-3-5-2 somewhere, whose only job is powerpoint, F T W.
But, if we need to divest something, divest the Eryx.

 

[dapaterson]

You're missing the point.

Nope.  You're missing it.  Things cost money. Money isn't unlimited.  Therefore, to stay within the money we have, we have to make choices about what to keep and what to scrap.

The same way a platoon already has 9mm, grenades, 5.56, 7.62, 60mm, 84mm, M72s, etc.

A CASW/C16 is significantly different than a mortar and should not be seen in a one-or-the-other mindset.  Saying we can't have a mortar and a C16 in the CF is like saying we can't have a flashlight and night vision or we can't have a light and a medium truck.

Guess what?  We're buying less trucks - no one for one exchange.  We're buying fewer fighter aircraft.  All because we have insufficient funds to acquire and sustain them.  Similarly, the Army can't afford everything it wants.

Petulant children demand "I want, I want, I want".  Parents have to temper those desires - what is needed, and what is affordable.  The Army's want list is unaffordable.  It's not a need list.  And thus requires rationalization.

Note that I am not saying "Mortars are useless" or that "The AGLS is useless".  I am saying that the Army needs to decide and prioritize capabilities and decide where to draw the line.  It won't be pretty.  It won't be popular.  But the current flowing taps of money are coming to an end, sooner rather than later, and the Army will have to readjust to lower rates of spare part availability.  Less ammo.  Less money for large-scale movements for training.  Maybe even return to using (gasp) water buffaloes instead of bottled water to save money.  Living within that reduced funding means choices have to be made; it's naive and foolish to wish it away.

Are there savings that could be made elsewhere?  Of course.  Do we have the institutional will to do it?  Probably not.  There's no well-defined requirement for the jump companies in the 3rd Bns.  (MAJAID up north?  Well, the Boxtop crash never used infantry to jump in).  Removing that role would save funds in training costs, para allowance, and would let us close CFLAWC, handing off the mountain warfare courses to the infantry school, and contracting out any residual para training to the US.  Millions in savings and dozens of PYs saved, even after sending a few to Gagetown.  Plus reduced hours on aircraft, permitting them to perform other tasks.  Much more savings than any minor HQ rationalization would provide.

So, how about it?  Lose the jump companies and CFLAWC and keep the mortars and the AGLS?  Or what other specific changes - in the art of the possible (no "close the Snowbirds", please) -  do you propose?  Which HQs will you eliminate?  Where will those functions go?

 

[Kirkhill]

OK DAP,

I'm feeling suicidal tonight.

Change 1 - Ditch 5.56 completely and, as the C7 family reaches the end of its service life re-issue a 7.62 family and forget all this talk about "junior snipers" with their own special weapons. 

Change 2 - Eryx does sound like a winner to lose - its soft launch was nice but virtually all the modern ATGMs feature that and that 600m range ......

How about the CG-84?  Is it being used effectively?  We never bought the full range of ammunition that would make that system sufficiently versatile to justify that weight.  If all we want is the AT capability in the 84mm calibre why not purchase the AT-4 and issue them as rounds as needed like the M72.

A civil cheer to you. 

 

[Infanteer]

Not being a budget guy, I seriously doubt small arms make a huge dent in the defence budget compared to the money tubes I see such as L1s with numerous directorates, daily frivolties (9,000 for an officer and his wife to fly to the UK for dinner comes to mind), or employing 20% of the Reserve Force so that you can get sloppy with you HR Management and use that 20% of the Reg Force to fill needless positions.

There's the money I'd cut - the money is (or should be) there so you don't have to choose between absolute basic capabilities (indirect/anti-armour fires) from the most basic fighting organizations.  And in trade, I'll be happy knowing that an infantry battalion won't get steamrolled by anyone with something bigger than pickup trucks (try doing an estimate with today's infantry battalion in the defensive; pretty sad).  What's the point of elaborate HQs, programs and computer systems if your F echelon is not able to do its job?

 

[ArmyRick]

DAP,

To echo what some of these other guys said, we do an estimate and work from mission requirements upwards.
We need both 40mm AGL and 60mm Mortar to be as combat effective as possible therefor we PRIORITIZE those systems and ditch something else of lower priority. Beleive me, there is plenty of waste to ditch...

 

[KevinB]

Infantry Weapons are a pretty insignificant budget part.
(well outside of LAV's)

AGL's and Mortars are compelmentart weapon systems, not replacement for each other.

 

[SeanNewman]

...Change 1 - Ditch 5.56 completely and, as the C7 family reaches the end of its service life re-issue a 7.62 family and forget all this talk about "junior snipers" with their own special weapons...

First, nobody is talking about junior snipers.  A designated sharpshooter/marksman is nothing at all like a sniper.  They are a soldier/rifleman/infanteer first, and they can also shoot up to 600m.  I would argue that a sniper is a covert reconnaissance platform first.

A sniper takes a hell of a long time to train and generate, where as a sharpshooter would only get a couple extra weeks training and a slightly different rifle.

On a bigger note, inside the fight of 0-300m 7.62 is not the right choice.  You can tell me I'm wrong, but you'd be arguing with NATO, too.

I am not saying that 5.56 is the answer to everything, but as an Army we must look at what the group can do and not the individual.  As a group, you will kill more enemy with 5.56 than you will with 7.62 for reasons already listed.  When you need more lethal area effects past 400m you have a C6.  When you need more lethal precision effects past 400m you have a sharpshooter.

PS - Saying that we should change our entire stock of newly refurbished C7A2s in order to save money is quite an ironic suggestion.  How much is it to replace those rifles?  How much more does it cost to fire every single live or blank round with 7.62 instead of 5.56 would immediately double the cost of everything we do.

 

[ArmyRick]

One issue I had with someone who voiced "this system or that system" is what expertise does said individual have on small arms requirements for the infantry?

On this thread in particular, you can tell the grunts apart from the civies or "other trades". The more remarks I read from people who clearly lack expirience in handling small arms and the use of infantry weapons, the less I take then seriously.

So for those who don't have a clue, keep chirping, we can better identify you as an amateur.

BTW, I can't wait to my hands on the 40mm AGLS! I first said that in 2005 or 2006. Oh well, 2016 will be here before you know it and so will the 40mm AGLS!

Yeah, I am in beligerent mood today...

 

[SeanNewman]

Just out of curiosity, who is it that you're writing about?  I did a quick "Control + F" for "system" and found several results; all of which seemed to be generally Infantry-type people.

 

[Kirkhill]

This equally belligerent civilian amateur is not arguing that it should be 7.62 or 5.56.  He is responding to the challenge set forth by DAP that something has to give to get the "job", whatever that may be, done. 

I won't say that 5.56 doesn't get the job done within 300m.  I will say that you apparently need 7.62 to get the job done over 300m.  I will also say that 7.62 will also get the job done within 300m.  It got the job done when I was a weekend warrior in the Molitia.  It got the job done in the Falklands.  It got the job done all around the Commonwealth, including India, Oman etc.  It also got the job done when employed by guys carrying M14s.

Can I carry 5 rounds of 5.56 for every 2 rounds of 7.62? Yes.  Which is going to result in a more effectively, and permanently, neutralized target in the greatest variety of situations?  I would argue that your current search for heavier weapons (7.62 SS, .338 Lapuas, 12.7 LRSS) suggests to this observer the 7.62.

And yes, I do know that the Sniper is the guy in the Ghillie suit and binoculars whose primary role is (or at least was) to be at the forward edge of the battalion screen supplying more information than he did covering fire.  I also understand that there is a need for the section to generate aimed fire on a battlefield crowded with bystanders.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further (and my apologies for the split post - having difficulties with the computer on longer posts) I would argue that within the battalion the issue is not whether or not you always have all the weapons necessary to confront all the threats in all environments but.....can your battalion officers coordinate the following four types of fire: 

low angle - line of sight
high angle - plunging
direct - shooter adjusts for fall of shot
indirect - third party adjustst for fall of shot

so as to achieve the desired effect, namely recreate that photograph from the Oka crisis where a lowly private, acting as the government's armed ambassador, went nose to nose with an armed insurgent and convinced the insurgent to walk away from the fight.

If they can coordinate rifles supplying all those types of fire then they have to tools to coordinate all weapons on the battlefield.

Beyond that, as in the case of the Eryx and the CG-84, I would argue that the training necessary to familiarize  an individual to put rounds on target with any low angle, direct fired ATGM is  sufficiently short that those types of weapons system can reasonably be purchased on a theater specific, as required, UOR,basis and moneye saved directed towards crew served systems, like the mortars, that need time develop a co-ordinated team.

 

[ArmyRick]

ummm...yeah...no.

Do you not find it suspicious that all the nations you refer to have all switched over to 5.56mm as their primary caliber.

Yes, we know the 7.62 was great in the falklands and the .303 was great in WWI and II, etc, etc.

You want to talk small arms calibers?

5.56 primary, for the close fight (300m and forward)
7.62 for stand off fight (C6 and I would love to see 2 marksman armed with HK417 in every platoon)

This whole argument that DAP put forth is out to lunch. Yes I realize there are only XXXX defence dollars but thats why we got 100 Leopard 2 and not 200, thats why we only got 600 some odd LAVIIIs when the original plan called for over a thousand.

When it comes to infantry small arms, they are cheap (compared to tanks, fighter aircraft, new ships). Deciding we only we need one caliber is ridicolous.

Nuff said?

 

[ArmyRick]

Kirkhill,

Can you translate that last paragraph or get to your point? I feel like I am getting dumber reading your post.

As far officers Co-ordinating fire (economy of effort?) it is taught. I don't think you have a real understanding of our current operations (COIN) and I think you under estimate the abilities of our infantry officers. Assuming I comprehended your post correctly.