Canada and the Mobile Gun System: Overhauling the Canadian Armoured Corps

Canada has made a commitment to the mobile gun system (MGS), the same system that the U. S. Army is using as part of its Future Combat System (FCS) program. The MGS for the Canadian Army will fulfill an integral part of our own transformation into an agile, knowledge-based and tactically decisive medium-weight force, capable of being task-tailored for deployment across the spectrum of conflict.1 To understand our decision to move toward a medium-weight force, you must first understand that the Canadian Army predicates future deployments on the concept of being interoperable and only deploying within a coalition environment. Hence, the reality is that our legacy force, consisting of Leopard tanks, will be replaced by a system that is not a tank, but is considered more relevant to our current and future operating environment. In keep ing with that intent, Canada has decided to move toward what we are calling the ‘direct fire system’ (DFS) as a sys tem of systems. Essentially, the DFS system involves three distinct platforms: the MGS; the light armored vehicle (LAV) III tube-launched, optically-tracked wire guided missile (TOW)-under-armor (TUA);2 and the multi-mission effects vehicle (MMEV).3 As the Legacy Force exists now, its tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and tactical formations are based on a Cold War orientation. We now face a much different threat — asymmetrical, unpredictable, and increased operations within complex terrain (urban in particular), which requires the conduct of operations to emphasize precision engagements and maneuver, network enable-ment, to include joint, interagency, and mul tinational, and effects-based results. Accordingly, the Directorate of Army Doctrine in Kingston, Ontario, has begun work on the new contemporary operating environment (COE), which will allow for the introduction of a formalized threat package, to include a likely threat environment and culture. Despite the absence of a current formalized threat package, the Armoured Corps is nonetheless in the position of having to press on with developing TTPs for the DFS system in light of the delivery dates for MGS (sometime after Spring 2007, but not prior to the end of the year). Toward that end, my regiment, The Lord’s Strathcona’s Horse (Royal Canadians) (or LdSH(RC)), an armored unit, was tasked with conducting a series of progressive trials of possible DFS organizations in a variety of tactical scenarios and under various field conditions, with an aim of producing recommendations on future DFS TTPs and organizations. The trials are intended, very simply, to accomplish the following: “build the [DFS] package, evaluate the package, and refine it so that it produces the greatest capability with minimal limitations.”4These trials are ongoing and are scheduled as follows: November 2004 – Exercise Initial Strike, was conducted at Canadian Forces Base (CFB) Wainwright, Alberta, using eight direct fire weapons platforms (four Leopard tanks, two air defense antitank systems (ADATS), and two M113 TUA), which aimed to establish fundamentals required to operate an integrated direct fire subunit (a company-sized element). The exercise sought to provide a familiarization of the characteristics, capabilities, and limitations of the equipment; determine the necessary echelon composition to replenish the eight weapons platforms; and determine the best command relationship options for this subunit organization. Two direct fire teams (DFTs) were created, each of which included the eight direct fire systems above, two local protection vehicles (LPV) and a command element. DFT 1 saw the Leopard troop, the ADATS section (consisting of the two ADATS and two LPVs), and the TUA section, each operating as independent elements, responsive to the DFT commander operating from a LAV command post (CP). DFT 2 saw two groupings: the Leopard troop and a missile pack, consisting of the ADATS section and the TUA section, grouped together under the command of a missile commander. Spring 2005 – The next stage is the conduct of combined arms team (CAT), 46 — including the DFS component, computer-assisted exercise (CAX). This will be held from 11 through 15 April 2005, and will seek to validate or refine the draft TTPs that will be used in a follow-on discovery trial (Worthy Strike). This will be followed by alive fire effects demonstration, using the three systems, from 18 through 22 April 2005, which will be held at CFB Suffield, Alberta. The field discovery trial (Worthy Strike) will be held in Edmonton, Alberta, from 25 April to 12 May 2005, and will use the garrison and surrounding access routes as the training location. Summer 2005 – A CAT dry field training exercise will be conducted. Fall 2005 – The culminating battle group CAX and live confirmation will be conducted. Some of the pertinent observations that Exercise Initial Strike will achieve include: the DFT operating effectively over extended ranges either independently, with an attached infantry element, subordinate to an infantry element, or dispersed as required for specific tasks. The command structure that provides the greatest flexibility in fulfilling these roles includes a squadron headquarters (a commanding officer, a second in-charge, an operations captain, and a liaison officer), an MGS troop leader, a missile commander, and an administrative troop. The sensor capabilities of the three platforms were complementary. As an example, in many cases, the ADATS (MMEV) would acquire a target very quickly, but at extended ranges and in limited visibility, it often could not obtain the fidelity necessary to describe the target and would require another system to fulfill that function. The ADATS (MMEV) were also employed to identify targets and then identify for the MGS and TUA routes that allowed them to move into engagement range protected from the enemy. At the same time, the system can effectively engage in close battle when required. More work is required to identify additional protective measures to increase the system’s survivability (particularly MGS) in close battle. The DFT was determined to be self-sufficient for up to six hours of continuous operations, and 24 hours when supported by its echelon. The support echelon’s size, configuration, and replenishment drills are very similar to that currently practiced by a Canadian armored squadron’s “A Echelon.” In real life, the Strathconas have just finished integrating the first TUA platoon (previously grouped within an infantry battalion) into the regiment. A second platoon, plus the TUA company headquarters will be integrated into the regiment later this year. A third platoon will be added sometime in 2006. Additionally, Medium DFS 77 trkd TUA to 33 LAV TUA** Static, Precision Air Defense up to 8 km Stand-off range against aircraft and helicopters 34 trkd ADATS to 33 MMEV v1

MMEV v1 114 gun tanks to 66 MGS Static, Precision Direct Fire up to 8 km Stand-off range against antitank missile platforms Static, Precision Direct Fire up to 4 km Stand-off range against anti-tank guns Mobile, Precision Direct Fire up to 2 km Effective close combat fire support Tactically decisive Strategically relevant Complementary capabilities ** 33 LAV TUA only acceptable with acquisition of ALAAWS

DFT 1 saw the Leopard troop, the ADATS section (consisting of the two ADATS and two LPVs), and the TUA section, each operating as independent elements, responsive to the DFT Commander operating from a LAV CP. DFT 2 saw two groupings, the Leopard Troop; and a Missile Pack, consisting of the ADATS section and the TUA section, grouped together under the command of a missile commander. — 47