Land Warfare 2011: Soldier Combat System - the evolution | ADM October 2011

Gregor Ferguson | Sydney

The Australian soldier of the early-1990s didn’t look so very different from his World War 2 and Vietnam-era predecessors. However, in the past few years the ADF has rapidly refreshed its soldier combat systems in order to keep up with changing threats and environments.

The challenge of equipping today’s soldiers for dismounted close combat is largely now the responsibility of Defence’s recently formed Diggerworks (see ADM September 2011), which tackles the problem across five capability areas described in standard NATO terms:

• Lethality - to enable kinetic and non-kinetic engagements
• Survivability - to reduce signature and survive physical attack
• Sustainability – to enhance soldier endurance and survive physical trauma
• Mobility - lighten soldier loads and negotiate obstacles
• Command and Control and Situational Awareness (C2SA) - to enhance cognitive performance and enhance decision-making and information transfer

Australian troops who deployed to Afghanistan in May this year as part of Mentoring Task Force 3 were the first to be equipped with the latest generation of Soldier Combat Ensemble (SCE) – a suite of body armour that is integrated with load carriage components and combat uniform, developed by Diggerworks.

This combat ensemble includes the new Tiered Body Armour System (TBAS) which incorporates hard and soft armour ballistic inserts as well as the platform that carries these and the equipment pouches used by the individual soldier to carry his mission systems such as ammunition.

The TBAS has been developed over the past two years and reflects a number of lessons learned from both conventional and special forces soldiers operating in Afghanistan. It is structured in 4 tiers:

• Tier 0 - belt rig webbing with no protection
• Tier 1 - specialist systems for unique requirements
• Tier 2 – designed for close combatants so that it offers an appropriate level of protection but does not significantly restrict the soldier’s ability to move and fight
• Tier 3 - offers the highest level of protection to those conducting combat operations.

The ensemble also includes the recently acquired G3 version of the Crye Precision ‘Multi-Cam’ Combat Uniform to ensure high levels of integration between the uniform, body armour and load carriage equipment.

The Army’s Head of Modernisation and Strategic Planning, Maj-Gen John Caligari, said Diggerworks had focused its efforts on achieving an integrated and lighter solution to the SCE.

“Most specifically the SCE addresses the needs of the close combatant,” he said. “Equipping every soldier with the same equipment does not recognise the different roles and dependency on that personal equipment, from those who have as their primary mission that requires them to seek out and close with the enemy.”

There are over fifty different types of pouch available for TBAS and four different tiers of load carriage harnesses or TBAS platforms. While there are some generic pouches that all soldiers will utilise there are others that will only be issued to specialists, such as the Engineer EOD search pouch.

According to LTCOL Alan Mellier, the Diggerwork’s chief designer of the TBAS, “the light weight belt is designed to be worn comfortably under or in-conjunction with Tier 2 while the heavy belt is designed for the additional loads carried by a machine gunner.

“Particular attention has gone into the Tier 2 vest, which is designed for the close combatant and those in direct support of close combatants to enable them to fight with a protection system that does not significantly impede their mobility.”

Caligari said that Diggerworks is an outstanding success as an integration centre and has begun delivery of a SCE that will begin to be rolled out wider across the Army.

“Development of the SCE will not stop here,” he said. “We will continually request soldier feedback and aim to iteratively develop this capability with Diggerworks as technology advances or if the operating conditions change. I will seek formal feedback on each iteration of the SCE from Commanding Officers and Regimental Sergeant Majors, as we did after fixing the ammunition pouches for the 5 RAR Battle Group.

“To complete the SCE our next step is to improve the combat helmet integration with Night Vision Goggles and improve the helmet padding system,” he added.

While the SCE will be issued initially to troops deploying to Afghanistan, it will be rolled out progressively across the Army as each manoeuvre Brigade enters the ‘readying phase’ of the Force Generation Cycle.

The two pictures on this spread highlight the differences between the equipment worn by a Digger who deployed to Somalia in the early 1990s and the SCE issued to MTF3 members currently in Afghanistan. The differences are more profound than the pictures make them appear, however:

1. Lethality – Somalia, 1993: Troops were armed with the F88 Austeyr (limited day optic and no night aiming laser) and no change to the pistol or 5.56mm Minimi machine gun (noting Army now has a 7.62mm version as well) 

Afghanistan 2011:

• Assault rifles: F88 Austeyr and the new 7.62mm Marksman Rifle (with high powered day optics and night aiming lasers)
• Light Support Weapons: F89 Minimi and the new 7.62mm Light Weight Machine Gun
• Munitions: F1 Fragmentation Grenade, 40mm High Explosive Grenades and 66mm Light Direct Fire Support Weapon (M72A6)
• Pistols - 9mm Browning

2. Survivability - Somalia, 1993: no real change in combat helmet (new version is lighter offers better protection and better interface with ancillaries); body armour worn was an Israeli flak jacket which offered minimal protection from fragmentation or knives; new version now offers ballistic protection, uniform was essentially camouflage clothing with no real protection.

Afghanistan 2011:

• TBAS - soft armour and hard armour inserts to protect from blunt force, fragmentation and high velocity impacts
• Ocular protection - ballistic eyewear (sunglasses and goggles)
• Combat helmet - protection from fragmentation and blunt force trauma and integrated with night vision equipment.
• Protective Underwear – silk shorts to provide protection from secondary low velocity fragmentation
• Combat Uniforms today have enhanced materials to provide protection from fire, help lower detection form visual and infra-red sensors, help regulate temperature (wick away sweat) and provide protection of mobility joints (built in knee and elbow pads)
• Electronic Counter Measure equipment to disrupt Radio Controlled IEDs

3. Sustainability – Somalia, 1993: soldiers used water bottles and had limited reliance on electrical power.

Afghanistan 2011:

• Individual first aid kit
• Individual Water purifiers
• Hydration equipment
• High energy combat rations
• Power management is an area that requires significant challenges (most soldiers carrying over 4 different types of batteries and up to 10 AAs to power equipment per day)

4. Mobility – Somalia, 1993: equipment pouches were heavier and only came in about 10 different varieties.

Afghanistan 2011:

• maintaining a light weight load is a constant challenge
• enhanced load carriage system such as lighter load carriage ensembles (field packs and pouches; over 50 types of equipment pouches available)
• breaching equipment such as explosives and manual entry tools
• light weight and fold up casualty evacuation stretchers

5. C2SA – Somalia 1993: Radios were only carried down to Platoon or Section level; Sensors - binoculars and very early generation night vision.

Afghanistan 2011:

• communications - personal role radio for intra team voice communications
• inner ear hearing protection systems integrated with the personal role radio
• GPS – for navigation
• Sensors: Night Vision Equipment (individual night vision goggles, night vision weapon sights, thermal weapon sights), binoculars with laser range finders and weapon optics with magnification and red dot radicals

The imperatives of Force Protection are such that troops carry as much weight as they ever did, but a greater proportion of this is devoted to either direct protection (body armour) or situational awareness (personal role radios, GPS and night vision equipment). The requirement for precision and discrimination in engaging enemy combatants in a counter insurgency environment also means that command and control and night vision equipment are indispensable.

These all require power, cabling and regular training to ensure that kinetic effects are applied in the right place, at the right time and on the right targets – and that Australian and coalition troops aren’t themselves victims.

Modern technology and the political imperatives of operations other than war have added a significant burden of complexity to the business of soldiering.

Subject: Land