US Army News and updates general discussion

[vonnoobie]

The artillery division concept is a very little used one. It was used first by the Soviets with the intent of using a s**t load of artillery to literally smash the front open (WWII) and since then has been taken up at various times by Iraq, India and Vietnam with only India still using it.

I have to ask with India's artillery divisions are they more mobile or fixed? If they are fixed (which I suspect) then they can possibly have an effect of use holding defined positions, But in a mobile force it's probably just too much artillery to command for a single unit effectively in the modern battle field.

 

[Feanor]

The artillery division concept is a very little used one. It was used first by the Soviets with the intent of using a s**t load of artillery to literally smash the front open (WWII) and since then has been taken up at various times by Iraq, India and Vietnam with only India still using it.

I have to ask with India's artillery divisions are they more mobile or fixed? If they are fixed (which I suspect) then they can possibly have an effect of use holding defined positions, But in a mobile force it's probably just too much artillery to command for a single unit effectively in the modern battle field.

I don't think that's true. Look at the use of Russian arty in the summer of '14. They annihilated the entire Ukrainian assault force in the Izvarino pocket with nothing but artillery, and massive quantities of it. Arty divisions themselves may no longer be a formation but massive quantities of artillery are still relevant in some situations. And the use of Russian arty in Syria, and US and French arty in Iraq, to support native infantry forces shows that the role of artillery is still very important.

 

[Toblerone]

With the proliferation of drones, indirect fire weapons gain value. Even "obsolete" soviet-era artillery equipment can wreak havoc if you can see the target area in realtime using a cheap drone.

Also you don't need disciplined or competent soldiers to do that.

 

[Volkodav]

With the proliferation of drones, indirect fire weapons gain value. Even "obsolete" soviet-era artillery equipment can wreak havoc if you can see the target area in realtime using a cheap drone.

Also you don't need disciplined or competent soldiers to do that.

Especially when the artillery is sitting over the border immune to retaliation or even a pre-emptive strike due to fear of escalation (ie direct Russian involvement instead of sniping from the sidelines). In a hot war such concentrations of artillery, especially towed and unarmoured truck mounted types would be obliterated in short order by tactical air and long range strikes by highly mobile, armoured rockets and tactical missiles, as well as dispersed tube SPGs using superior situational awareness to shoot and scoot.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Especially when the artillery is sitting over the border immune to retaliation or even a pre-emptive strike due to fear of escalation (ie direct Russian involvement instead of sniping from the sidelines). In a hot war such concentrations of artillery, especially towed and unarmoured truck mounted types would be obliterated in short order by tactical air and long range strikes by highly mobile, armoured rockets and tactical missiles, as well as dispersed tube SPGs using superior situational awareness to shoot and scoot.

the israelis are developing some spectacular platforms for tracking and targetting UAS.

you can imagine the benefits when that fidelity starts to assist larger TMS

 

[Volkodav]

the israelis are developing some spectacular platforms for tracking and targetting UAS.

you can imagine the benefits when that fidelity starts to assist larger TMS

People currently appear to have not only forgotten the lessons of WWII but the various Arab Israeli wars in the 60s and 70s as well as Desert Storm in 91 and the complete obliteration of the Iraqi military in 2003. Its not just in terms of what happens to concentrated forces, armoured or not, its the effect of having the best integrated picture.

Lets not forget LO either, crossing threads here but the current insanity on the F-35 thread is conveniently forgetting that LO opened the way for the 4th gen strike packages that pureed Sadams forces in 91. Now we get people thinking that teen series fighters can do alone what they couldn't 25 years ago when the truth is a future war will see F-35s taking down IADS then killing everything they see, which is a darn sight more than any other platform can see. Massed artillery divisions will just reduce the time taken and fuel burned to do the job.

 

[Feanor]

Especially when the artillery is sitting over the border immune to retaliation or even a pre-emptive strike due to fear of escalation (ie direct Russian involvement instead of sniping from the sidelines). In a hot war such concentrations of artillery, especially towed and unarmoured truck mounted types would be obliterated in short order by tactical air and long range strikes by highly mobile, armoured rockets and tactical missiles, as well as dispersed tube SPGs using superior situational awareness to shoot and scoot.

Assuming they have superior situational awareness. The truth is that even if Ukraine had been willing to strike those artillery positions, they didn't have the means and were mostly unaware of them until the shells started falling. The massed Ukrainian Army vehicles parked in the open with no efforts to conceal or entrench them speak for themselves. Also I hope you're not suggesting that Ukraine has done a decent job suppressing the giant quantities of arty and mortars in the hands of the rebels in the east. Not all wars involve 1st world countries.

I'm not arguing that arty by itself is a game changer but I submit that large composite formations of artillery filling a role similar to the Arty Division, still have a place on today's battlefields. Keep in mind even with the availability of air power in Syria and Iraq, Russia, the US, and France have all opted to deploy arty in addition to that. And the Turks selected artillery to play a similar role to that of Russia, when they used it against the Kurds in cross-border fires. In that regard I think the US would do well to consider increasing the size of US indirect fire formations both mortar and artillery.

And the M109 is rather old and unimpressive these days. Something more in line with the Swedish Archer, or the Russian Coalition, I think is in order. If the M1 is going to remain the primary US MBT for decades to come, it would make sense to use its chassis. Either that or standardize it with either the M270 or the HIMARS (for something closer to the French CAESAR). While I understand the previous discussion focused much on towed guns, perhaps something like the CAESAR is the solution as it offers the mobility of an SPG with the lesser weight of a towed gun + truck, as well as the lower logistical burden of merely dealing with a truck rather then a dedicated heavy tracked chassis.

 

[Feanor]

People currently appear to have not only forgotten the lessons of WWII but the various Arab Israeli wars in the 60s and 70s as well as Desert Storm in 91 and the complete obliteration of the Iraqi military in 2003. Its not just in terms of what happens to concentrated forces, armoured or not, its the effect of having the best integrated picture.

Lets not forget LO either, crossing threads here but the current insanity on the F-35 thread is conveniently forgetting that LO opened the way for the 4th gen strike packages that pureed Sadams forces in 91. Now we get people thinking that teen series fighters can do alone what they couldn't 25 years ago when the truth is a future war will see F-35s taking down IADS then killing everything they see, which is a darn sight more than any other platform can see. Massed artillery divisions will just reduce the time taken and fuel burned to do the job.

But we're talking about the US here. Who is going to use F-35s against the US? Or are you suggesting the US will have trouble dealing with PAK-FA or J-31 type aircraft? I understand that Russia or India wouldn't be able to use artillery in this manner against the United States, but what prevents the US from doing so against it's enemies? I can't help but assume that the Iraqis would be much happier if instead of a single French battery supporting them, they had an entire arty btln or several, for taking Mosul. Given the trouble the difficulties they've had in breaking through ISIS defenses in those conditions, more and better artillery support seems like an obvious choice.

 

[Volkodav]

But we're talking about the US here. Who is going to use F-35s against the US? Or are you suggesting the US will have trouble dealing with PAK-FA or J-31 type aircraft? I understand that Russia or India wouldn't be able to use artillery in this manner against the United States, but what prevents the US from doing so against it's enemies? I can't help but assume that the Iraqis would be much happier if instead of a single French battery supporting them, they had an entire arty btln or several, for taking Mosul. Given the trouble the difficulties they've had in breaking through ISIS defenses in those conditions, more and better artillery support seems like an obvious choice.

No what I am saying is the tactics used in a permissive environment will not work in a high threat one. Yes Russia used massed artillery to destroy Ukraine's offensive but would it work against a coordinated NATO offensive that was preceded by an air campaign? What I am arguing is that traditional artillery massed into divisions is probably more a liability for the west as the collateral damage would be unacceptable in limited warfare while it would be too inflexible and vulnerable in total war. Once the battlefield has stabilised enough for artillery divisions to be employed without being destroyed it would most definitely be permissive enough to employ close air support as well, ie F-35 with wing mounted ordinance, as well as older types.

Yes the US could use more artillery but it could also be argued they need more of everything. I think they are moving in the right direction, especially in terms of increasing the versatility of their fires, Army missiles getting an anti shipping role, navy air defence missiles' getting an anti surface/land attack role.

 

[Feanor]

No what I am saying is the tactics used in a permissive environment will not work in a high threat one. Yes Russia used massed artillery to destroy Ukraine's offensive but would it work against a coordinated NATO offensive that was preceded by an air campaign?

Other then nuclear weapons, there's nothing that would work against a coordinated NATO offensive preceded by an air campaign. It's not really a relevant example. But imagine a situation where is no time for a traditional NATO air campaign because a Russian ground push threatens to render NATO action irrelevant politically in a time frame less then that which is necessary to properly roll back Russia's IADS. And you are the NATO commander. Now don't you wish you had a little more arty?

What I am arguing is that traditional artillery massed into divisions is probably more a liability for the west as the collateral damage would be unacceptable in limited warfare while it would be too inflexible and vulnerable in total war. Once the battlefield has stabilised enough for artillery divisions to be employed without being destroyed it would most definitely be permissive enough to employ close air support as well, ie F-35 with wing mounted ordinance, as well as older types.

Air support is expensive and as it stands artillery is being used anyway in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Again pointing to the current battle for Mosul, additional artillery employed by a professional western military would go a long way.

Yes the US could use more artillery but it could also be argued they need more of everything. I think they are moving in the right direction, especially in terms of increasing the versatility of their fires, Army missiles getting an anti shipping role, navy air defence missiles' getting an anti surface/land attack role.

I agree about the versatility and emerging multi-purpose capabilities. However I think the US is skewed very heavily in the direction of air power. Air power is superior to artillery in most ways but it's expensive and more limited in quantity. Recent conflicts both Ukraine, and the variety of conflicts across the Middle East, showcase that artillery is far from done with, and a robust indirect fire capability is often essential to successful offensive operations.

There's a reason I mention composite formations rather then actual TO&E divisions. Having enough artillery within infantry and armored formations to allow for a massed employment in cases where it's called for is what I'm suggesting.

 

[Ranger25]

Other then nuclear weapons, there's nothing that would work against a coordinated NATO offensive preceded by an air campaign. It's not really a relevant example. But imagine a situation where is no time for a traditional NATO air campaign because a Russian ground push threatens to render NATO action irrelevant politically in a time frame less then that which is necessary to properly roll back Russia's IADS. And you are the NATO commander. Now don't you wish you had a little more arty?



Air support is expensive and as it stands artillery is being used anyway in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Again pointing to the current battle for Mosul, additional artillery employed by a professional western military would go a long way.



I agree about the versatility and emerging multi-purpose capabilities. However I think the US is skewed very heavily in the direction of air power. Air power is superior to artillery in most ways but it's expensive and more limited in quantity. Recent conflicts both Ukraine, and the variety of conflicts across the Middle East, showcase that artillery is far from done with, and a robust indirect fire capability is often essential to successful offensive operations.

There's a reason I mention composite formations rather then actual TO&E divisions. Having enough artillery within infantry and armored formations to allow for a massed employment in cases where it's called for is what I'm suggesting.

I agree with FEANOR regarding price. The US Aramy has realized its behind with its Arty formations and is upgrading. The new M109A7 has far superior capabilities than the A6 and reaches IOC in early 2017

Paladin M109A7 155mm Artillery System - Army Technology

They are also working hard toward LRPF(long range protective fires) in an effort to extend the range of organic fire support assets out to the 499km range. Raytheon/Boeing are the leading contendorsl for the RFP where they are quad packing missiles into a standard HIMARS box


Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) | USAASC


I also think it's economics. In Mosul the US has had either a USMC or US Army 155 battery for some time.
Compare the costs of air dropped precision munitions vs even precision guided arty rounds. The cost delta is staggering.

The High Cost of Precision Attack | Defense Update:

And Excalibur used in both the M109A6 and m198

XM982 Excalibur 155mm Precision Guided Extended Range Artillery Projectile

The M982 Excalibur (previously XM982) is a 155 mm extended range guided artillery shell developed by Raytheon Missile Systems and BAE Systems AB. It is a GPS-guided munition capable of being used in close support situations within 150–75 metres (492–246 ft) of friendly troops. The United States plans to procure 7,474 rounds at a FY2015 program cost of $1,934.1m ($258,777 average cost per unit). As of September 2015, nearly 770 Excalibur shells had been fired in combat.[4][5

 

[FormerDirtDart]

...
They are also working hard toward LRPF(long range protective fires) in an effort to extend the range of organic fire support assets out to the 499km range. Raytheon/Boeing are the leading contendorsl for the RFP where they are quad packing missiles into a standard HIMARS box


Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) | USAASC

...

From what I can find, the LRPF missile would double the load out over the ATACMS with two weapons per missile pod. Thus, two weapons per LRPF equipped M148 HIMARS, and four per M270 MLRS.

Now, I would think that the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb is a system that should be further explored.
While it won't be able to engage targets at ranges of the ATACMS or possible LRPF, it does offer a potential range increase of ~78% over the current M31 GMLRS with a similarly weighted warhead.
Plus, it's all-angle/all-aspect targeting would allow it to engage targets unreachable by the typical ballistic trajectory of the M31 rockets.

Boeing and Saab Test GLSDB ( Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb )

 

[John Fedup]

Just heard a depressing statistic on CNN today, 22 veterans commit suicide every day in the US. We have the same PTSD issue here albeit to a lesser extent due to fewer deployments by Canadian forces. I see minimal effort by Canada's DND to properly fund treatment for mental issues, not that the civilian sector is any better. Most allied partners don't seem willing to factor in the cost for PTSD in their defence budgets.

 

[RSAX]

Just heard a depressing statistic on CNN today, 22 veterans commit suicide every day in the US. We have the same PTSD issue here albeit to a lesser extent due to fewer deployments by Canadian forces. I see minimal effort by Canada's DND to properly fund treatment for mental issues, not that the civilian sector is any better. Most allied partners don't seem willing to factor in the cost for PTSD in their defence budgets.

The 22 Rumor is still going around I see. These are bogus numbers from a limited questionable study that was done several years ago. They are commonly used by those with an agenda, reality is much different. For example, one VA study found the suicide rate was higher for those who DID NOT deploy compared to those who deployed to the middle East. It’s sad when anyone commits suicide, but US Veteran suicide rate in general is actually lower than what it is for the US public. CNN is not reliable source of information.

 

[John Fedup]

The 22 Rumor is still going around I see. These are bogus numbers from a limited questionable study that was done several years ago. They are commonly used by those with an agenda, reality is much different. For example, one VA study found the suicide rate was higher for those who DID NOT deploy compared to those who deployed to the middle East. It’s sad when anyone commits suicide, but US Veteran suicide rate in general is actually lower than what it is for the US public. CNN is not reliable source of information.

The comment was made by Tom Fuentes, a former FBI assistant director. Can't really see him with an "agenda" on such a sensitive issue but in the media environment WTF knows.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Just heard a depressing statistic on CNN today, 22 veterans commit suicide every day in the US. We have the same PTSD issue here albeit to a lesser extent due to fewer deployments by Canadian forces. I see minimal effort by Canada's DND to properly fund treatment for mental issues, not that the civilian sector is any better. Most allied partners don't seem willing to factor in the cost for PTSD in their defence budgets.

There is more current data, which used a more significant review.
Despite what some clowns say, it is still a troubling trend.

Press Release August 3, 2016: VA Releases Report on Nation’s Largest Analysis of Veteran Suicide
Excerpt:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) today released its findings from the nation’s most comprehensive analysis of Veteran suicide rates in the United States in which VA examined more than 55 million Veterans’ records from 1979 to 2014 from every state in the nation. The effort advances VA’s knowledge from the previous report in 2012, which was primarily limited to information on Veterans who used VHA health services or from mortality records obtained directly from 20 states and approximately 3 million records.. Compared to the data from the 2012 report, which estimated the number of Veteran deaths by suicide to be 22 per day, the current analysis indicates that in 2014, an average of 20 Veterans a day died from suicide.

Actual Study:
Suicide Among Veterans and Other Americans 2001–2014
Executive Summary of Study:

Key findings from this year’s report include:
 In 2014, an average of 20 Veterans died by suicide each day. Six of the 20 were users of VHA services.

 In 2014, Veterans accounted for 18 percent of all deaths by suicide among U.S. adults and constituted 8.5 percent of the U.S. adult population (ages 18+). In 2010, Veterans accounted for 20.2 percent of all deaths by suicide and represented 9.7 percent of the U.S. adult population.

 The burden of suicide resulting from firearm injuries remains high. In 2014, about 67 percent of all Veteran deaths by suicide were the result of firearm injuries.

 There is continued evidence of a high burden of suicide among middle-aged and older Veterans. In 2014, about 65 percent of all Veterans who died by suicide were age 50 or older.

 After adjusting for differences in age and gender, risk for suicide was 21 percent higher among Veterans when compared with U.S. civilian adults. (2014)

 After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide was 18 percent higher among male Veterans when compared with U.S. civilian adult males. (2014)

 After adjusting for differences in age, risk for suicide was 2.4 times higher among female Veterans when compared with U.S. civilian adult females. (2014)

 In 2014, rates of suicide were highest among younger Veterans (ages 18–29) and lowest among older Veterans (ages 60+). Furthermore, rates of suicide among Veterans age 70 and older were lower than rates of suicide among civilians in the same age group.]

 

[Cadredave]

The comment was made by Tom Fuentes, a former FBI assistant director. Can't really see him with an "agenda" on such a sensitive issue but in the media environment WTF knows.

That assessment for 22 vets a day left out the two biggest states that deployed soldiers into both theatres John, the report is not taken seriously by any contemporary veteran groups in the USA who are dealing daily with issues of PTSD in vets. We had that statistic being used here by some of our pollies who did there research off Facebook (22 press-ups a day for 22 Days challenge) made me cringe with embarrassment.

CD

 

[Ranger25]

US Army deploys additional Anti UAV systems

Unknown number now operational. I was pleasantly surprised at the engagement range of 10km(most likely more for classified reasons )



According to the companies, the system is able to detect a target at a distance of 10 km and enact the full process of detect, track, and defeat in around 8-15 seconds; the operator is able to take control of the aircraft and force it to land.


More here
AUDS achieves TRL 9, deploys with US forces | IHS Jane's 360

 

[Ranger25]

Mattis First Message to DOD

Message to the Department of Defense from Secretary of Defense James Mattis

***
It’s good to be back and I’m grateful to serve alongside you as Secretary of Defense.

Together with the Intelligence Community we are the sentinels and guardians of our nation. We need only look to you, the uniformed and civilian members of the Department and your families, to see the fundamental unity of our country. You represent an America committed to the common good; an America that is never complacent about defending its freedoms; and an America that remains a steady beacon of hope for all mankind.

Every action we take will be designed to ensure our military is ready to fight today and in the future. Recognizing that no nation is secure without friends, we will work with the State Department to strengthen our alliances. Further, we are devoted to gaining full value from every taxpayer dollar spent on defense, thereby earning the trust of Congress and the American people.

I am confident you will do your part. I pledge to you I’ll do my best as your Secretary.

MATTIS SENDS

 

[Ranger25]

US Army working on APS

The US Army is moving to more rapidly evaluate several APS. The three vehicles being evaluated are the M1, M2/3, and the Styker family. Three companies are being evaluated concurrently. The goal,is to make decisions by 2018.


Interesting IMO is how they're trying to take more of an open architecture approach that will also systems to easily upgrade etc.


Army speeds up future Modular Active Protection System for combat vehicles