21.02.2013 Views

The Canadian Army Journal

The Canadian Army Journal

The Canadian Army Journal

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

72<br />

One final element which will characterise specific close fire systems is their platform.<br />

Platforms range from one or two soldiers carrying weapons up to AFVs and helicopters.<br />

<strong>The</strong>se platforms are critical as they enable manoeuvre in close with the enemy.<br />

Interestingly, if one looks at the two close fire arms, infantry and armour, there are four<br />

characteristics in common and three of these must be balanced in development of the<br />

platform. Mobility, firepower and survivability34 must be balanced in each close fire<br />

platform. This concept, already established in AFV design, 35 can be shown to be<br />

applicable to soldiers as well. Increasing a soldier’s body armour will reduce mobility or<br />

limit the amount of firepower which can be carried. <strong>The</strong>refore, it is unlikely that all the<br />

capabilities required of a close fire system can be carried by a single omni-purpose<br />

platform without unacceptably sacrificing survivability or mobility. Instead, capabilities<br />

will have to be dispersed across a family of platforms consequently requiring that<br />

platforms be considered in the design of a close fire system<br />

Within the <strong>Army</strong>, there exist two close fire systems grouped around broad platform<br />

types: dismounted close fire and mounted close fire. A brief examination of these forms<br />

will draw out the significance of a system level view to designing a close fire system.<br />

M777 provides a far fire capability in Afghanistan<br />

Dismounted Close Fire<br />

In the concept and design phases, it is important that close fire be considered as a<br />

system as opposed to a collection of assorted weapons. Students of the Land Forces<br />

Technical Staff Course are regularly presented with anecdotal evidence that the<br />

Advanced Lightweight Anti-Armour Weapon System (ALAAWS) project suffered as a<br />

result of the <strong>Army</strong>’s inability to express a coherent dismountable anti-armour concept<br />

which showed a need for ALAAWS alongside TOW and the relatively new Eryx. While<br />

this judgement may be over-harsh, it is clear that ALAAWS approvals did demand an<br />

<strong>Army</strong> direct fire concept. A better illustration of the need for a system view can be found<br />

in the dismounted close fire capability.<br />

<strong>The</strong> dismounted close fire capability is all individual and crewed weapons which can<br />

be found in a dismounted infantry company. It is also every dismountable weapon in an<br />

<strong>Canadian</strong> <strong>Army</strong> <strong>Journal</strong> Vol. 11.1 Spring 2008<br />

Photo Source: Combat Camera

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!