Surveillance: Protecting the cavalry's mounts | ADM June 2009
Now clever defensive systems may replace the need for heavy and cumbersome armour.
Tom Muir | Canberra
In a paper* on the increasing prominence of ISTAR in the HNA, Colonel John Blaxland states that ground reconnaissance has always featured cavalry playing a prominent role.
In the Australian Army, the infantry has been the predominant reconnaissance and surveillance tool, with foot- and vehicle-mounted patrols and observation posts.
However he notes that the information gathering roles of infantry and cavalry now receive less emphasis than their more dramatic manoeuvre role.
For the cavalry in particular the need in recent years to generate battle groups to support operations has meant that the manoeuvre unit role has been emphasised above the reconnaissance role.
This spells trouble if their mounts, the ASLAV, is incapable of operating successfully in an anti-armour threat environment.
Under Land 112 Phase 4, investigations have been underway for sometime to improve and enhance the survivability and situational awareness of the vehicle.
According to the 2006-2016 DCP, this phase may include enhancements such as mine protection, ballistic protection, BMS (Battle Management System) integration, signature management and a defensive aid suite.
The additional weight from these enhancements would need to be offset and the motive power increased to handle a heavier vehicle.
One solution that may avoid the weight and other penalties of additional armour would be to equip the vehicle with a Defensive Aids Suite (DAS), an integrated collection of self-protection systems, capable of countering hostile target acquisition systems and incoming anti-armour munitions.
Such systems may be active and/or passive.
At the high end of DAS capability, the suite would be:
• managed by its own control system,
• capable of self-execution of a full cycle of actions from detection through to response, and
• integrated into its host weapon system in such a way as to complement other onboard systems.
Defence sees a DAS solution as having the potential to assist the achievement of a survivability-mobility balance appropriate for a Light Armoured Vehicle such as the ASLAV.
A DAS would enhance the vehicle's survivability while retaining current levels of land and amphibious mobility and incurring only a relatively small space and weight demand compared to comprehensive up-armour solutions.
ASLAV survivability can be viewed as a series of layers including Avoid Detection, Avoid Being Targeted, Avoid Being Hit, Avoid Penetration, and Mitigate Effects.
A DAS solution would operate in the spectrums of Avoid Being Targeted and Avoid Being Hit.
The capability aspiration is for the ASLAV to be able to counter or defeat an incoming projectile threat prior to penetration or perforation of the vehicle's structure.
As the level of DAS required will not be known until all other ASLAV survivability options are considered, Defence is interested in obtaining information on a range of DAS capability options, from high end systems to low end solutions.
An RFP was issued in October last year in which responses were sought from industry that would cover multiple DAS solutions ranging in their level of capability.
The plan was to evaluate those responses and release an RFT in April this year to selected respondents, with a contract award for the demonstration and evaluation phase timed for July 2009.
As might have been anticipated, with an impending White Paper and a Federal Budget deficit officially estimated at $50 billion and climbing, approval to fund the demonstration phases, due for completion in March/April 2010, was never going to be automatic.
According to the Land 112/4 requirement, the systems proposed should be capable of intercepting, detecting, measuring, identifying, classifying, declaring and tracking current and future threats for the life of the ASLAV.
Any chosen solution must be capable of further upgrade, without subsequent physical and functional architecture redesign to be ultimately capable of providing the full-spectrum (ie high-end) level of protection for the ASLAV.
To enable this to occur, the DAS should be built from open architecture standards and be modular and scalable in design.
Some DAS solutions
So what DAS solutions are likely to have been proposed for this requirement?
Certainly at the low end we know that Adelaide-based Acacia Research has offered its Acoustic Shot Location System as well as its Vehicle Tactical Management System.
The latter has been developed to manage the proliferation of data produced by the increasing number of sensors being installed in land vehicles, presumably including those associated with a defensive suite.
The system is based on the tactical data systems developed by Acacia Research for submarine and maritime surveillance applications which have evolved into a highly capable, modular, and space-efficient system suitable for a range of vehicle tactical data management applications.
The system brings together data acquired from a range of vehicle mounted sensors and presents it in a simple
and coherent display.
Sensor data may be displayed with contextual information, including satellite imagery or a map underlay, vehicle history, and intelligence data.
US firm BBN Technologies has also offered its vehicle-mounted Boomerang III Shooter Detection System which is also available as a soldier wearable system for dismounted operations.
At the higher end of the DAS scale, ADM understands that South African-based Saab Avitronics is offering their Land Electronic Defence System (LEDS).
According to Defense Update** based on their extensive experience in the design, development and production of airborne electronic warfare systems, the LEDS system has been developed as a private venture.
It combines active signature management, soft kill and hard kill mechanisms to provide full spectrum active protection for land vehicles.
Full hemispherical coverage is provided to detect incoming threats and alert the crew.
When installed in full configuration, the complete system will offer protection comparable to that of a main battle tank (MBT) to light and medium combat vehicles against engagement from a wide range of threats including the RPG-7 (Rocket Propelled Grenade) launcher, anti-tank guns, missiles and artillery projectiles.
In December 2007, a Swiss MOWAG Piranha armoured personnel carrier (APC) started a series of live trials in Switzerland fitted with the Saab Avitronics LEDS Active Defence System (ADS).
MOWAG selected the LEDS as the preferred ADS for their Piranha (8 × 8) APC family after a worldwide study of more than 20 ADS currently under development or approaching the end of their development.
LEDS consists of a sensor suite, a central active defence controller, a High Speed Directed Launcher (HSDL) and countermeasure options which range from fast multispectral smoke through to active signature management devices and decoys.
In addition it has hard kill options that destroy the approaching ammunition before it hits the vehicle.
LEDS uses the Mongoose 1 hard kill counter munition against RPG-7 type weapons and ATGW when launched at the vehicle from 20 metres.
The Mongoose is claimed to have an extremely low collateral damage effect.
Rafael's ASPRO A (formerly known as Trophy) Active Defense System (ADS) is under production for the newest Israeli Merkava Mk4 tanks.
The system can engage several attacks from each side simultaneously, while maintaining relatively low collateral risk.
The system neutralises all types of RPGs and anti-tank missiles, eliminating penetration by the weapon, as well as residual effect, by kinetic hit.
ASPRO A can operate on stationary vehicles or those in motion. ASPRO A is also provided in a lightweight version, for the protection of armored personnel vehicles, with an ultra-lightweight model, designed for light armored vehicles such as the JLTV.
Another ADS planned to enter production in 2009 is the AMAP-ADS developed by the German company IBD Diesenroth, partly owned by Rheinmetall Defense.
IBD entered multiple cooperation agreements with a number of companies to promote and integrate its ADS with future armoured vehicles.
Among the AMAP-ADS based systems shown at Eurosatory, were the SHARK, developed with Thales, a similar system offered on the multi-purpose vehicle (MPV) from Iveco and the ADS used on the Swedish Spitterskyddad Enhets Platform (SEP) modular armoured tactical system.
All these applications use the same principle established by IBD, which, similar to reactive armour, uses sheet explosive to generate a blast wave to intercept and disintegrate the threat at very close range.
Sources
* Colonel John Blaxland: "Harnessing the Spectrum", pp 77-92 Australian Army Journal, Vol IV, No.3, Land Warfare Studies Centre, Canberra ACT.
** Defense Update (defense-update.com)
Australian Cavalry modus operandi
(Courtesy of the Website of the Royal New South Wales Lancers)
Australian Cavalry commanders, who fought in South Africa, noted that as in the American Civil War, the most successful mounted troops fought dismounted, using their horses to speed them to the point of battle.
Thus when the Australian Military Forces were formed in 1903, all mounted units became "Light Horse". Light horse units were armed with .303 rifle and bayonet only (no sword or lance).
Lances were used for ceremonial duties only.
Light Horse were trained to reconnoitre in the way cavalry had traditionally operated, using ground not only to impede vision, but as protection against long range weapons.
In the attack, the Light Horse would use a covered approach, moving behind ridges, and along ravines and tree lines.
In sections of six, they would dismount in a covered location, or outside the range of the major weapons.
One of the soldiers (the horseholder) would remain mounted and take in hand the other five horses, and gallop to a place of safety or a forward rally.
Dismounted, fire and movement tactics, where one section would use available ground cover to bring aimed fire on entrenched defending enemy, keeping their heads down and permitting the movement of other sections were gradually developed.
Artillery was also used to disrupt the capacity of an entrenched enemy to bring fire to bear on attackers.
In the defence, the Light Horse dug in like any infantry, with the horses being held in the rear, and brought forward by the horseholder to mount the defenders permitting swift redeployment or withdrawal.
In the advance, the Light Horse would form the core of the Advance Flank and Rear Guards.
In the withdrawal, the Light Horse added flexibility, enabling a fighting withdrawal and masking the new defensive position.