Dominant Logistics
Soldier Combat Systems - Lightening the Load
Most logisticians are too interested in planes, trains, and trucks to concern themselves with individual soldier equipment. This is an extremely naive position and is largely responsible for why it currently takes so long to get forces into a combat location. The typical log officer can talk all day about C-130 loads but never bothers to stop and understand just how critical the individual soldier's load is to the big deployment picture.
Let's start with a little bit of math. The typical load for all of a given soldier's needed field gear and clothing comes in at around 150lbs in total (ruck, LBE, weapons, duffle, etc.). Now then, if we multiply this across a very modest size ground force of 40,000 troops, we get a total weight in personal gear alone of 6,000,000lbs or 3000 tons. Now then, let's stop right there and let that number sink in a little bit - 3000 tons, that's a lot of weight to be moving from ANY point A to point B, that's the equivalent of an entire battalion of Abrams tanks. And that's for a force of only 40,000 troops. Obviously, even small improvements to the soldier's load can add up to HUGE gains in the bigger logistics picture.
Conversely, we must also recognize the impact of programs like Land Warrior on the overall logistics picture. With Land Warrior, we are basically adding about 50lbs of additional gear to the soldier's load in the form of computers, thermal sights, GPS systems, and radios. Currently, the weight of this gear is significantly higher, but let's look at this in the context of 50lbs for now. This increase would put the total individual weight of soldier plus gear at roughly 400lbs per soldier. Now, the individual isn't expected to bear this weight alone, but what about the vehicles that ARE expected to carry these troops and their gear. The basic HMMWV is designed to carry a load of 2500lbs - in this case, the HMMWV could only carry 6 troops plus gear before becoming overloaded, and this doesn't even allow for room for additional squad equipment and ammunition. Even more critical is the case for the FMTV with it's 5000lb maximum payload - one squad plus their gear puts the FMTV beyond its normal capabilities.
Now, this is being overly simplistic but the point is that when we are talking about a given material being obtained and transported in very large quantities, small changes add up to big impacts. While increases in personal gear weight may not actually translate into sorties, it does impact fuel requirements and wear and tear on vehicles, not to mention wear and tear on the soldiers carrying the gear. Consequently, every effort should be made to reduce the soldier's load.
Standard Issue Rifle
It is no secret that the current M16A2 leaves much to be desired as a combat weapon. The primary problems are that it fouls too easily and the round fired is too small for many situations. To remedy these problems, there are some intriguing options that should be considered and adopted. Phil West has outlined some characteristics that should be included in a future assault rifle and these are good guidelines:
Ideally, these features should be designed into a weapon firing the M2030 assault rifle round. For those not familiar with this round, it involves using a case similar in size to a 5.56mm round but firing a 9mm projectile instead. The concept is that we use a larger shell to fire saboted or even multiple projectiles at higher speeds and with improved ballistics. Converting to this round would allow all standard issue rifles to fire standard rounds, multi-shot rounds, full caliber subsonic (silencer) rounds, underwater rounds, or even reduced lethality rounds for peacekeeping.
Using the M2030 round would allow the standard rifle to serve as an effective suppresive fire weapon as well. The M2030 is based on a blowback operating design (instead of the typical gas operation) so we would need to tinker with powder mixes to get our desired reduction in rate of fire with the multi-shot round. But the blowback design gives us a more reliable and less costly weapon that should also be of lighter weight and more useful in the field.
Grenades
The best concept I have seen for future grenade design is the combination rifle/hand grenade. In short, this design replaces the conventional hand grenade with a design that can be effectively used by hand or fired from the standard issue rifle to ranges of up to 300 meters. This allows any infantryman to function as a grenadier when the bullets get to flying. More importantly, practice grenades can be fired using blanks, allowing for cheap and virtually unlimited training opprtunities to maximize effectiveness of the system. This is a much better option than the OICW plan to use a small 20mm grenade with a high tech fuse, that like the current 40mm will probably be too expensive to ever train with (current estimates are that the new rounds cost about 50% more than the 40mm).
The other key grenade concept is the use of disposable grenade launchers. This concept replaces the M203 grenade launcher with a tube that mounts on a standard Picatinny rail and can be used in any of a variety of means. You could fire grenades as with the existing M203 but you could also use specialty loads like shotgun rounds, flame throwing rounds, or grappeling hooks.
Squad and Platoon Weapons
The popularity of the AR-15/M-16 has spawned a number of novel ideas that should be used in future small arms designs. Of particular interest is the kits that are available to replace the M-16 upper receiver with a machine gun unit to turn the weapon into an actual belt-fed machine gun using the standard M-16 lower receiver. Using this concept, we can have assault rifles, light machine guns, and general purpose machine guns that all share many of the same components and are of much lighter weight overall.
For a Squad Assault Weapon (SAW), we could take our standard issue rifle and replace the upper reciever with a kit like that produced by Ares to give us a weapon that can fire belt-fed M2030 rounds or to use magazines compatible with the standard issue rifle. For comparison, the current M-16 based Shrike from Ares Defense Systems weighs about 10lbs less than the current SAW which should be sufficient to compensate for additional weight in the form of thermal sights and laser rangefinders like those of the OICW.
For a general purpose machine gun, we should adopt a design similar in concept to the XMG 8mm machine gun which also uses the lower receiver of an M-16. Short and long barreled versions are available and the weapon can be loaded without opening the feed tray. There's no real reason we shouldn't be able to develop a 7.62mm version of this weapon and like the Shrike, incorporate our thermal imager and rangefinder while ending with a weight similar to the current GPMG being replaced.
We also need to seriously consider adopting an RPG-type system based around a multi-use thermal sight that I'll dub the Individual Artillery System (IAS). Each IAS unit should be issued with a modern RPG but the sighting system can be used with a variety of reuseable and disposable systems. Ideally, the sight could be used for targeting RPGs, Javelins, Stingers, and Starstreaks in addition to unguided rockets like the SRAW. All of the weapons compatible with the IAS should be able to be fired independently of the sighting system. The sight will incorporate the same thermal imaging and laser rangefinding features as used with the other crew served weapons in a package similar to the firing unit of the current Javelin.
Company Weapons
At the company level, all combat and command vehicles should be equipped with a 30mm cannon on the lines of the M230LF cannon. Ideally, this weapon would be something akin to a 30mm version of the currently planned OCSW with the same features and, hopefully, light weight. These give us a greater variety of options than the current .50 caliber M2 and Mk-19 40mm in that we can use either kinetic energy rounds, explosive rounds, anti-personnel rounds, or reduced lethality rounds to allow us to adapt to whatever the situation may be. As a secondary weapon, each combat and command vehicle should also carry a SAW as previously specified. All medium and heavy support vehicles should be outfitted with a GPMG to provide general purpose fire support on the move. Additionally, all vehicle driver's, regardless of vehicle type, should be issued a combat shotgun that can be mounted to the Picatinny rail of the standard issue rifle or be used independently. This gives every vehicle a good counter-ambush weapon and also gives the operator a means to disable his vehicle should the need to abandon it arise. And finally, all assigned vehicle crewmembers not otherwise issued a specific specialty weapon should be issued 3 C-Mags for use in their standard issue rifle to serve as a light machine gunner. At the company level, we will typically issue the IAS firing Javelins or Starstreaks under normal conditions but could also transition to RPGs or Stingers depending on the situation.
Weapons Summary
What these weapons would give our units is an unprecedented level of flexibility in operations. For all practical purposes, units with these weapons could be transitioned between different types of combat by merely changing the ammunition issued to the troops. We also get some logistical advantages by using the same lower receiver assemblies for the standard issue rifle, the SAW, and the GPMG allowing us to perform hasty repairs in the field to our primary combat systems (the SAW and GPMG) by simply swapping out parts from the standard rifle. Further logistics gains come from the streamlining of ammunition requirements to a limited number of ammunition sizes.
In situations where it is needed, any rifleman can fire a substantial quantity of grenades to serve as a grenadier. These same riflemen could instead be provided with high capacity magazines to serve as additional machine gunners. In the case of the machine guns, the inclusion of thermal sights and laser rangefinders not only makes these weapons more accurate, when combined with built-in support bipods, a semi-auto trigger option, and the standard rifle's technique of firing from a closed bolt, these weapons can also be used in hasty sniping roles. The use of the 30mm weapons gives units a good sized, long-ranged grenade launcher in addition to an effective anti-material system. Plus you get the RPG/Missile options and all of this comes with the command and control capabilities of Land Warrior as each fire team within the unit will have the systems with their respective crew-served weapons. Because of this, our ending weight for combat systems will remain about the same but we will have a far greater level of capability and flexibility.
Moreover, the commander in the field gets some options that are otherwise unavailable. By issuing certain specialty equipment to vehicle crews, additional weapons will be available to adjust the force mix to the situation. For example, in an urban setting, shotguns become indispensible but we also want to limit the quantity of vehicles we deploy in the combat area so the shotguns for the remaining vehicles can be transitioned to the fighters. Similarly, in open or mountain terrain, a commander may desire more GPMGs at the front and can have personnel swap out SAWs for the GPMGs from the vehicles or vice versa. And with the IAS replacing the M203 as well as the Javelin gunners, the typical infantry company could bring out as many as 15 RPGs if the need is there while ammo bearers may either be carrying RPG rounds or rockets that could be fired independently altogether. And this same flexibility allows this combat unit to transition to reduced lethality capabilities for all of the systems in peacekeeping and OOTW roles.
Issued Soldier Gear
The average person has no concept of just how pathetic the general purpose gear issued to the U.S. military really is. One looks at those huge defense budgets and automatically assumes that the average servicemember is outfitted at least as well as the typical Boy Scout troop - but they would be immensely mistaken. Much of the gear issued to todays forces is not just older than the soldiers on the receiving end - it's older than their parents. This is a huge part of why todays forces are so difficult to deploy; the older gear is too bulky, too heavy, and to single purpose for the missions of todays military forces.
The basic issue web gear is probably sufficient for its purpose and is beneficial in its simplicity but the pouches attached to it need to go. In particular, the ammunition pouches and canteen covers should be replaced with a multipurpose pouch that can carry ammunition, water, first aid materials, or other gear as the soldier needs. Another useful idea is to modify the harness into a STABO design to enable rappeling and lifting with the basic issue harness.
Nearly all of the survival needs of a soldier can be meet with a single, lightweight system from Ecotat. To make a long story short, this system replaces over 26 lbs of older marginal gear with a modern multi-use system that weighs just over 6 lbs. With the soldier's food, ammunition, water, and hygiene needs being met by the use of log packs, all that is left to add is spare clothing items. An interesting suggestion from Phil West is to issue a combat smock that would fit loosely over whatever the soldier is wearing but under the webbing. Another idea from Phil is the use of body armor styled on an old Roman armor design that would offer greater flexibility as well as protection. Other ideas include only issuing hot weather BDUs and jungle boots instead of traditional leather boots to lighten the load.
An equally important step to take here is to eliminate the tendency of units to load up on tentage and other gear that is not actually needed. We have a tendency to try to make ourselves comfortable in the field at the expense of our ability to engage in war while still remaining uncomfortable anyways. If a force is going to be in the field for an extended duration, they should be billeted in hard shell billet pallets that can be deployed on an as needed basis. Tents used for housing unit functions should be replaced with vehicle-carried shelters if the need is legitimate.
Overall Gains
So what do we end up with? Well, we gain the command and control capabilities of advanced technologies without increasing our overall weight. The typical soldier's load, if all of these suggestions are followed, will decrease by about 30 lbs or so. Additionally, we would be reducing unit loads by a few tons with the removal of tentage and the associated camoflauge from the equation. So for our 40,000 man force we started out with, we are reducing the amount of weight needed to deploy by around 1500 tons or so but we are getting a force that is far more capable in the field. They are more mobile on both the strategic and tactical levels and they are more flexible in their mission possibilities in addition to being easier to to support logistically.
References:
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/2030.html
http://www.g2mil.com/RPG.htm
http://www.oocities.org/equipmentshop/combatlight.htm
http://www.buffalosystems.co.uk/dpmain.htm
http://www.oocities.org/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/lwsb.htm