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

Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc22
  • Start date Start date
Bruce Monkhouse said:
More tools are always nice, except when they sit in the garage not being used for lack of available time.
Bitching about work-up times now?,... just add a few more weapons, that one see's a few time a year, and throw it into the mix.

Come on be real, if they do not add troops to go with a new system than something is being relegated.[ or at least the skill set diminished]

Specific weapons take up very little of the work-up time and they are not a problem to run.  Muscle memory and a good small unit training plan will ensure soldiers are ready for range time.  If you know your going to use the weapon system then you train on it.  No use on doing it if you are not going to use it.  I don't see a problem with a "tool" sitting in the box for a while if it doesn't meet the requirement for the task/mission.

The real killer is getting ready for, waiting for and then going through all your level 2-6 live fires.  Then you add in your non-kenetic scenario based training and you start to get a ton of Exercise creep.  Not to mention all the "DLOC" training done in garrison.

TF3-09 will try and mitigate the long work-up times by not standing up until next Jan(ish).  This puts more of the onus on units to prepare troops through PCF and various weapons ranges so the TF can kick off into it's own training cycle.  If it works it certainly means a lot shorter of a work-up time.  We will see though.

Sorry for the hijack

 
If I understand Arius correctly then he seems to also be saying that "training" comes out of the National Procurement budget, or at very least is factored into the Life Cycle costing.

If that is the case then I believe that the Army and I have a similar problem.  I am dealing with putting together a new plant in an environment where labour is scarce and turnover is high.  Also the conditions of service are not the greatest here for the guys on the floor so lets just say we don't get too many Medical School candidates applying.  Traditionally we have been able to tailor processes based on having long-service employees that learned the ins and outs of very complicated processes and how to handle problems with very simple tools.  Alternatively we could rely on one good supervisor to direct the activities of a handful of strong backs.

Now we don't have the strong backs and the supervisors are hard to come by.  Fortunately electric motors can replace most of the strong backs and computers can do some of the supervision.  But we can't eliminate people entirely.  The best we can do is make systems that look after themselves, conduct self-diagnoses and let the guy on the button at 0300 know which part needs to be fed or changed.  Whenever possible we try to make one post look like all the others so that people can be moved around easily. With simple Microsoft-type "Start" instructions then we can start getting useful work out of a newby fairly quickly.  Otherwise we spend 6 months training somebody who immediately shops his resume around as a "trained operator".  No 3 years of guaranteed service for us.  We get what the market supplies with Militia terms of service.

Assuming that this is what the Army is facing as well, if slightly more predictable, I would think that one of the "advantages " of the CASW over the 60mm is that, as has been noted, the CASW is basically a Machine Gun firing a heavy round at superelevation.  Thus anybody familiar with the drills and sights for the C7/C9/C6/M2 shouldn't have much trouble picking up the CASW.  That sight system would be very similar, I believe, to the CLASS system developed by CDC which could be applied to any Direct Fire weapon, including the Carl Gustaf.  One training course would take you from C7 to AGL with iron sights. Another would take you through the same weapons with the FCS.

Meanwhile I seem to recall long discussions both here and in Ducimus about whether normal range safety procedures were necessary for something as simple as the 60mm with the Company Infantry saying procedures necessary for 81s and 155s weren't appropriate for their personal arty.  I am pretty sure that goes back to the issue of training and how much training and what kind of training and who to train - gunners or riflemen.

The CASW may not make a great mortar but I am guessing that it will successfully engage many of the targets that a mortar can.  Meanwhile, in my opinion, it would seem that a better discussion would still be how to get 81s or 120s into the Battalion Support. Leave the OC and CSM responsible ONLY for the training, maintenance and deployment of DF weapons.  Other weapons to be brought in by specialists according to situation and operational need.

Another unwanted 2 cents worth.

Cheers.

 
You lack a little quality with phone cameras, but here is one potential CASW in a high angle firing position:
 
Looks nice.  Doesn't look too portable (eg: where does it fit in the back of a LAV?)
Did they have any with it mounted on a vehicle?
 
IIRC - it has a very limited arc when in high angle...

Then you have to unbed it and move the whole kit and kaboodle
 
It’s a done deal.  The Treasury Board has approved the CASW submission on 29 May 2008 without conditions.  This summer, the CASW project will put out a request for proposal to industry in order to buy 304 systems.
 
Arius said:
.....in order to buy 304 systems.

Say again all after "in order to buy", Over.

2 CASW/Coy = 152 Coys???
 
The original GWagon 8-car recce troop loadout was 4x GPMG, 2x ATGM, 2x AGL. So. 2 per RegInf coy, + 2 per ResArmd tp = ... ?  ;D

(Yes, I'm being completely facetious. We can barely get AMUs for these things. I really can't see a full-FCS DF/IF weapon going in.)  ::)
 
Kirkhill said:
Say again all after "in order to buy", Over.

2 CASW/Coy = 152 Coys???

Inf Bn:  144 (4 per coy + some with recce)
Armd Recce:  21
Arty Regt:  42
GBAD:  12
SVC Bn:  18
CMTC:  18
Inf School:  12
CFSEME:  8
Log Stocks:  29

Total :  304

Tentative, DLFR has the last say on the exact distribution plan.
 
Is Log Stock = Op Stock in this case, or is the plan to take from units to equip operations?
 
Many thanks Arius.

Does that mean that the CASW project was fused with the AGL/ROWS requirement or are all of the systems intended for Ground Mount vice Vehicular Mount?
 
MCG said:
Is Log Stock = Op Stock in this case, or is the plan to take from units to equip operations?

Short answer:  Initially the ops weapons will be from the units.

Long Answer:  In theory each unit would deploy with the CASWs assigned to them.  This is one of the reasons why the numbers were increased from 179 to 304 - To avoid the "whole fleet management" of what is basically a platoon crew-served weapon.  What will most likely happen though is that 20-30 systems will be assigned to the theatre and stay there... Screwing up the distribution plan.  DLFR and DLR don't see eye to eye on this but Ops trump all so DLFR has the final say.  We can't set aside weapons only for operations since there is a need to assign the weapon to a hard UIC to justify all the associated costs (let's not get into the NP discussion) and ops are temporary.  The log/op stock is a % of that number and not a discretionary or contingency lot.  The way to reconcile (or go around) this and assign weapons to missions is to call up the contract option for extra systems and have the Army pay for the guns and FCS through the ops budget.  You need to have the weapons in service first to do that.
 
Kirkhill said:
Many thanks Arius.

Does that mean that the CASW project was fused with the AGL/ROWS requirement or are all of the systems intended for Ground Mount vice Vehicular Mount?

No.  The CASW project is a stand-alone project since it has to integrate the AGL, advanced FCS and thermal imagery in one package specifically to operate as a dismounted system.  Just the power management of the computer-viewer-imagery-actuators is a challenge in itself.

A lot of people would like to see the same gun that will be acquired by the CASW project also be purchased by the RWS project – It would make sense to have only one type of AGL in service.  But its not a given…  Public Works could force the RWS project to go out for bids if the contract is substantial.

If an AGL is chosen as a solution for the RWS, it will be as separate project and contract.  They will buy the RWS AGL, and it will probably come with a basic tripod and reflex sight that will be strapped inside the vehicle in case you need to dismount the gun from the RWS.  The electronic ballistic tables of the RWS could be purchased as a license from the makers of the CASW FCS or it they could develop their own.  This is the only linkage between the CASW and all the RWS initiatives.  I don’t see the RWS going for the airburst capabilities of the CASW since it requires a physical ammo swap from the HEDP.

I just hope we get a twin RWS that can accommodate a two weapons configuration whatever it may be.  If there is an AGL on this we need to have a machine gun with lots of bullets for close quarters and general suppression.  Otherwise we will be burning through even the big box of 96 40mm rounds in no time.

There are some ideas floating around where CASW-type systems would be deployed and operated remotely in area-denial and observation roles.  Ground RWS concepts may be around the corner.
 
Ok so where buying 304 systems, but which one ( HK GMG, MK47, ?????? )
 
421 EME said:
Ok so where buying 304 systems, but which one ( HK GMG, MK47, ?????? )
You'll have to wait for the competitive process to decide that.  There are restrictions on sole-sourcing that prevent us from just selecting brand X.

Arius said:
We can't set aside weapons only for operations since there is a need to assign the weapon to a hard UIC to justify all the associated costs (let's not get into the NP discussion) and ops are temporary. 
That is unfortunate.  I guess this is a restriction unique to weapons as I am aware of other capital purchases that procured specific log & ops stock systems (though Kabul day predicted scales for 2 lines of operations have turned out to be lower than what we want in Kandahar alone today).
 
Arius said:
The Army also wants to ensure the grenade launchers can be mounted and operated from a remote weapons station on its vehicles.
... interesting disagreement with the view we've been told the CASW project has of the system.
 
Back
Top