Thanks Thanks:  120
Likes Likes:  287
Dislikes Dislikes:  9
Page 27 of 27 FirstFirst ... 17252627
Results 651 to 665 of 665
  1. #651
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    The quick fix was to buy the latest Leos but, of course, this had the daily mail readers in a lather and the "British jobs" was invoked. Allegedly, the CH2 can't be converted to smoothbore because of storage issues for fixed cartridges and other UK-only "issues"...

  2. Thanks Sparky42 thanked for this post
  3. #652
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like
    Back to a possible Scorpion replacement. What would the role be? Fire support? Can I be heretical and suggest AMOS/NEMO? That would give both an indirect fire and a direct fire capability.

  4. #653
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Back to a possible Scorpion replacement. What would the role be? Fire support? Can I be heretical and suggest AMOS/NEMO? That would give both an indirect fire and a direct fire capability.
    http://www.military.ie/army/organisa...corps/cavalry/

  5. Thanks Graylion thanked for this post
  6. #654
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like
    The page is cringe worthy reading.

    It reads like kingdom protecting propaganda. And another thing; surveillance, target acquisition and recce do NOT equal intelligence. Those four areas produce data and information FOR processing (hopefully) into intelligence. You can't go out and observe intelligence through a thermal imaging suite.

    If the defence forces were serious about ISTAR, they would merge the entire cavalry corps into one unit along with 1 MIC and join it with a dedicated Military Intelligence Company staffed with specialist analysts and a field Signals unit. Then and only then would you have something nearing the required mass, specialist knowledge and technological assets to perform Istar tasks remotely close to NATO level standards. And oh yeah don't forget about an entirely new Mechanised EW company bolted on and an MOU to the 5eyes nations about access to their Intel network. Other wise it's all talk and text in a Walting In house developed Istar doctrinal publication that is used as a door stop after printing.
    Last edited by TangoSierra; 22nd April 2017 at 15:10.

  7. Thanks na grohmití, pym, Graylion thanked for this post
    Likes ropebag, Graylion, Spark23, Tempest liked this post
  8. #655
    2/Lt X-RayOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    dublin
    Posts
    1,245
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Graylion View Post
    Back to a possible Scorpion replacement. What would the role be? Fire support? Can I be heretical and suggest AMOS/NEMO? That would give both an indirect fire and a direct fire capability.
    Not heresy......

    ...but more importantly ask:
    1. Now that Scorpion has been retired what loss in capability has been incurred?
    2. Where did Scorpion fit into current operational usage or doctrine?
    3. Would AMOS, etc. not be better for Arty Corps to keep indirect fire support somewhwere in range of Inf and Cav elements?

    .....and place all these answers in the context of recent, mechanised mobile overseas deployments and capability for similar future missions.
    The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete.....It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure.We are to-day not far from a disaster.

    T.E. Lawrence, 2 Aug 1920.

  9. #656
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Ref Scorpion replacement, Well what is 1 Armd Cav Sqns role?

    They are an element of the DF Reserve and armoured recce capability. It should also be capable of all the other Cav roles and delivering direct fire support.

    So to me that says they are on the right track with the MRV (direct fire with an armoured recce sized gun, dismountable element, armoured (probably should be uparmoured), good strategic and operational mobility (relatively good tactical). I'm not sure of its sensor fit (but a mast with radar and optics wouldn't hurt (or at least carry the kit internally). It is relatively cheap and have commonality with the remainder of the armoured fleet. It also would be no harm at all for it to have Javelin.

    You could also have a bigger gun (40-105mm on sum at least (in 1ACS) but if your talking some your probably talking max 10 for the whole DF).

    But IMHO it depends on what equipment the rest of the Corps has. You could have:

    Cav Sqns:
    Sqn HQ & HQ Tps: LTAVs or LTAVs & CRVs (you may also have APCs & Recovery APCs)
    Recce Tps: CRVs or MRVs & CRVs (it could be a mix in each Tp or not)
    Supp Tps: MRVs or MRVs & CRVs or CRVs or APCs

    Armd Cav Sqns:
    Sqn HQ & HQ Tps: LTAVs or LTAVs & MRVs (you may also have APCs & Recovery APCs)
    Recce Tps: MRVs (could include some upgunned)
    Supp Tp: MRVs or CRVs or APCs or upgunned MRVs

  10. Likes Galloglass, Graylion liked this post
  11. #657
    Lord Chief Bottlewasher trellheim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Cathal Brugha
    Posts
    8,950
    Post Thanks / Like
    TangoSierra thats an excellent post
    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

  12. #658
    Recruit
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Baltinglass
    Posts
    247
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    ... So to me that says they are on the right track with the MRV (direct fire with an armoured recce sized gun, dismountable element, armoured (probably should be uparmoured), good strategic and operational mobility (relatively good tactical). I'm not sure of its sensor fit (but a mast with radar and optics wouldn't hurt (or at least carry the kit internally). It is relatively cheap and have commonality with the remainder of the armoured fleet. It also would be no harm at all for it to have Javelin.

    You could also have a bigger gun (40-105mm on sum at least (in 1ACS) but if your talking some your probably talking max 10 for the whole DF).
    As ST said, the Cav should reorient and refocus and get serious sensor kit. And I'd arm everything with a 40mm CTA unmanned turret (secondary HMG, optional [FFBNW] ATGM). I do not think anything bigger is needed. Ideally tracks to avoid easily mined roads. Uparmourable. Lynx anybody?

  13. #659
    Brigadier General
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,891
    Post Thanks / Like
    You seem to be keen to retain tracks when the best international practice is wheels. Modern AWD afvs have as good, if not better offroad performance as those with tracks.
    This is not an opinion, it is an experience. If tracks were better at avoiding mined routes, then both the US and UK armed forces would not have spent so much time, effort and money on wheeled AFVs for use in Iraq and Afghanistan, where landmines on all main routes was a regular occurrence.
    Tracks have their place, don't get me wrong, but not for a force that will spend most of its time traversing mine cleared routes.
    Well, there's good news and bad news. The bad news is that Neil will be taking over both branches, and some of you will lose your jobs. Those of you who are kept on will have to relocate to Swindon, if you wanna stay. I know, gutting. On a more positive note, the good news is, I've been promoted, so... every cloud. You're still thinking about the bad news aren't you?

  14. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV liked this post
    Dislikes jock disliked this post
  15. #660
    C/S
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    6,204
    Post Thanks / Like
    As someone pointed out here before, all you get with tracks is practise at fixing broken ones and practise for ARVs to drag tanks back to the Depot.....the loss of Scorpion is the loss of a mobile main gun and unless you can drag the present DF artillery out of their beds and get them to bring their toys on tour, then you are dependent on your friends bringing their big guns or the enemy conveniently having none. ATGWs and 30mm are not a whole fix for the lack of a good main gun and an unwillingness to bring the 105s on tour. Finance would have a fit if the DF started blasting off Javs and so on at the rate the UK does. If you don't want 90s or 105mm main guns on the Mowags, then get the wheeled guns or towed mortars brought into play.

  16. Thanks DeV thanked for this post
    Likes DeV, ODIN, X-RayOne liked this post
  17. #661
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    The page is cringe worthy reading.

    It reads like kingdom protecting propaganda. And another thing; surveillance, target acquisition and recce do NOT equal intelligence. Those four areas produce data and information FOR processing (hopefully) into intelligence. You can't go out and observe intelligence through a thermal imaging suite.

    If the defence forces were serious about ISTAR, they would merge the entire cavalry corps into one unit along with 1 MIC and join it with a dedicated Military Intelligence Company staffed with specialist analysts and a field Signals unit. Then and only then would you have something nearing the required mass, specialist knowledge and technological assets to perform Istar tasks remotely close to NATO level standards. And oh yeah don't forget about an entirely new Mechanised EW company bolted on and an MOU to the 5eyes nations about access to their Intel network. Other wise it's all talk and text in a Walting In house developed Istar doctrinal publication that is used as a door stop after printing.
    Which is of course why the EUBG battlegroup IRCON is all arms.

    The EUBG ISTAR TF has:
    TF HQ, ISTAR Coy, EW Pln & Fd HUMINT Teams

    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteass...cification.pdf
    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteass...-master-es.pdf
    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteass...r_master-f.pdf

  18. #662
    C/S
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    2,990
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by DeV View Post
    Which is of course why the EUBG battlegroup IRCON is all arms.

    The EUBG ISTAR TF has:
    TF HQ, ISTAR Coy, EW Pln & Fd HUMINT Teams

    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteass...cification.pdf
    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteass...-master-es.pdf
    http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/siteass...r_master-f.pdf
    I’m a bit mystified by the assertion that the intelligence is missing from the DF ISTAR, as its far from the situation. The intelligence gathering systems used by ISTAR company are on a par with those in NATO countries of a comparable size (foxtrack, Orbiter, Sophie, mowag MRV/CRV ands the LTAV STA). A Dev rightly points out the ISTAR task force has field humint teams, one of which is supplied by the defence forces, and the DF has put a lot of effort into developing a joint common operational picture using sitaware software. For those who might want to do a bit of research, its interesting as a tactical intel system it’s the best out there, and at a tactical level at Battlegroup or battalion level the Df have in place for the past year an intelligence network that the us army is only now adopting.

    EW is a task that is given to the swedes in the istar task force, its an area that the DF ignored before 2008, but then so did virtually every other western country, I’d expect to see more effort put into this area over the coming decade. But the JCOP provided by sitaware means that information can be provided by partner units like the Swedish electronic warfare unit attached and the local air picture unit’s giraffe radar, and processed into tactical intelligence by ther TF HQ.

    As for the level of training of the intelligence analysts at istar Taskforce HQ, a significant proportion if not all have been on courses in nato countries
    Last edited by paul g; 24th April 2017 at 23:09.

  19. #663
    BQMS
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    575
    Post Thanks / Like
    Please don't fall for the propaganda. It looks great on paper but the reality is that none of the systems you mention have been integrated into a Common Operational Picture. The software you speak of relies on skilled personnel to implement it who are leaving in droves and just because you sent someone on a course does not mean they will have an effect if the function is not resourced. Which it ain't.

  20. Likes northie liked this post
  21. #664
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by paul g View Post
    I’m a bit mystified by the assertion that the intelligence is missing from the DF ISTAR, as its far from the situation. The intelligence gathering systems used by ISTAR company are on a par with those in NATO countries of a comparable size (foxtrack, Orbiter, Sophie, mowag MRV/CRV ands the LTAV STA). A Dev rightly points out the ISTAR task force has field humint teams, one of which is supplied by the defence forces, and the DF has put a lot of effort into developing a joint common operational picture using sitaware software. For those who might want to do a bit of research, its interesting as a tactical intel system it’s the best out there, and at a tactical level at Battlegroup or battalion level the Df have in place for the past year an intelligence network that the us army is only now adopting.

    EW is a task that is given to the swedes in the istar task force, its an area that the DF ignored before 2008, but then so did virtually every other western country, I’d expect to see more effort put into this area over the coming decade. But the JCOP provided by sitaware means that information can be provided by partner units like the Swedish electronic warfare unit attached and the local air picture unit’s giraffe radar, and processed into tactical intelligence by ther TF HQ.

    As for the level of training of the intelligence analysts at istar Taskforce HQ, a significant proportion if not all have been on courses in nato countries
    Quote Originally Posted by TangoSierra View Post
    Please don't fall for the propaganda. It looks great on paper but the reality is that none of the systems you mention have been integrated into a Common Operational Picture. The software you speak of relies on skilled personnel to implement it who are leaving in droves and just because you sent someone on a course does not mean they will have an effect if the function is not resourced. Which it ain't.
    oh the Int Cycle and IPB, such fun

    ISTAR assets (eg the CTR, the sniper, the UAVs, the recce patrol etc) generally collect, it would be up to the HQ and/or Int staff to do the other jobs

    SITAWARE is a brilliant tool, it appears very user friendly and not all the people using it are PDF

    The point we are trying to make is that the Cav Corps needs to be reorganised and requipped:
    - they don't have enough LTAVs, APCs, CRVs or MRVs
    - they don't have a Scorpion replacement (be that one of the above or something new)

    Like the rest of the DF they are suffering personnel retention issues but is there a point recruiting them if you don't have the equipment for them to do the job ?!

    A lot of the current equipment is being paid for by keeping numbers low ..... Unfortunately
    Last edited by DeV; Yesterday at 12:29.

  22. #665
    Moderator DeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    East
    Posts
    18,917
    Post Thanks / Like
    Personnally I would probably reorg Cav as follows:

    Cav Sqns:
    Sqn HQ & HQ Tps - not 100% maybe 2 X APC Comd, 1 X APC Ambulance & 1 X APC Recovery
    Recce Tps - 4 X CRV
    Supp Tps - 4 X MRV

    Armd Cav Sqn:
    See above but Recce Tps to have 4 X MRVs and Supp Tp to have possibly a 90/105mm MOWAG

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •