weapon system effectiveness for the tactical armoured patrol vehicle

88 Pages·2010·1.01 MB·English

WEAPON SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
FOR THE TACTICAL ARMOURED
PATROL VEHICLE
CAEn WARGAME NICKEL SCORPION
K. Sprague
LFORT
P. Dobias
LFORT
S. Bassindale
LFORT
D. Sinclair
Ajilon
J. King
Ajilon
F. Auger-Voyer
Ajilon
DRDC CORA TM 2010-107
June 2010
Defence R&D Canada
Centre for Operational Research and Analysis
Land Forces Operational Research Team

WEAPON SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS FOR
THE TACTICAL ARMOURED PATROL
VEHICLE
CAEn WARGAME NICKEL SCORPION
K. Sprague
LFORT
P. Dobias
LFORT
S. Bassindale
LFORT
D. Sinclair
Ajilon
J. King
Ajilon
F. Auger-Voyer
Ajilon
Release of or access to this information is subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act, the Privacy
Act, and other statutes as appropriate.
DRDC CORA
Technical Memorandum
DRDC CORA TM 2010-107
June 2010
Author
Original signed by
Dr. Kevin Sprague
Approved by
Original signed by
Dr. Gregory Smolynec
Acting Section Head, Land and Operational Command OR
Approved for release by
Original signed by
Dr. Dean Haslip
Acting Chief Scientist DRDC CORA
The information contained herein has been derived and determined through best practice and
adherence to the highest levels of ethical, scientific and engineering investigative principles.
The reported results, their interpretation, and any opinions expressed therein, remain those of
the authors and do not represent, or otherwise reflect, any official opinion or position of DND
or the Government of Canada.
© Her Majesty the Queen as represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2010
© Sa Majesté la Reine, représentée par le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2010
Abstract
In support of the Coyote reconnaissance (Recce) vehicle program, the Director of Land
Requirements 3 (DLR 3) requested that a computer wargame study be conducted to evaluate
the differences in weapon system effectiveness between two vehicle contenders mounted with
two alternative weapon stations fitted with a C6 machine gun and one of five different main
weapons, using the Coyote reconnaissance vehicle with its two-man turret as a baseline. One
of the vehicle contenders, dubbed the ‘Alpha’ vehicle in this study, was modeled as a smaller,
less protected vehicle with slower acceleration but affording the crew a slightly better field of
view in comparison to a second ‘Beta’ vehicle. The two weapon stations were a light remote
weapon station (RWS) and a one-man turret having remote capability. The five main
weapons consisted of a notional 25 mm low velocity (LV) cannon, a 40 mm automatic
grenade launcher (AGL) modeled after the Mk-19, a .50 calibre heavy machine gun (HMG)
modeled after the M2, four (4) anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) modeled after Javelins,
and a 20 mm cannon modeled after the 20 M 621. Vehicle effectiveness was determined via
the performance of either a Recce Det or Recce Troop in combat operations that used the
vehicles. Three scenarios covering both irregular warfare (IW) and conventional warfare
(CW) operations were constructed and enacted. The scenarios were as follows:
1) Convoy ambush in urban terrain (IW, Det level, vs. dismounts only);
2) Recce picket objective in mixed terrain (IW, Troop level, vs. vehicles and dismounts); and
3) Fighting withdrawal in open terrain (CW, Troop level, vs. vehicles only).
The wargame results indicate, to the modeled level of fidelity, that performances varied
mainly by scenario and weapon system, and to a lesser extent by vehicle type (Alpha or Beta).
The weapon station, be it RWS or one-man turret, did not appear to have a significant impact
on the outcome of the games overall.
The LV 25 mm cannon mounted on a Beta vehicle performed best in the urban terrain convoy
ambush scenario, followed by the Coyote baseline (25 mm cannon), the .50 calibre HMG
(Alpha or Beta vehicles) and 40 mm AGL (Beta vehicle) which recorded similar performance
scores to one another. The Coyote baseline performed the best in the mixed terrain Recce
picket objective scenario, followed closely by Alpha or Beta vehicles having 4xATGMs. In
the open terrain fighting withdrawal scenario, the 4xATGM option (Alpha or Beta vehicle)
was the only viable option—all others were equally poor in comparison. The Beta vehicle
performed better than the Alpha vehicle in the urban terrain convoy ambush scenario. In the
remaining scenarios, however, overall performances were comparable between the two
contending vehicles.
DRDC CORA TM 2010-107 i
Résumé
Pour appuyer le programme de véhicules de reconnaissance (reco) Coyote, le directeur –
Besoins en ressources terrestres 3 (DBR 3) a demandé qu’une étude portant sur un jeu de
guerre sur ordinateur soit effectuée pour évaluer les différences en matière d’efficacité de
système d’arme entre deux véhicules munis de deux postes de tir alternatifs munis d’un fusil
mitrailleur C6 et d’une de cinq armes principales différentes, utilisant le véhicule de
reconnaissance Coyote avec sa tourelle biplace comme véhicule de base. L’un des véhicules,
appelé véhicule Alpha dans cette étude, était un véhicule plus petit et moins protégé dont
l’accélération est plus lente, mais qui procure à l’équipage un champ de vision légèrement
meilleur qu’un deuxième véhicule (Beta). Les deux postes de tir étaient un système d’arme
télécommandé (SAT) léger et une tourelle monoplace pouvant être télécommandée. Les cinq
armes principales étaient un canon lent de 25 mm notionnel, un lance-grenades automatique
(LGA) de 40 mm basé sur le Mk-19, une mitrailleuse lourde (ML) de calibre .50 basée sur le
M2, quatre (4) missiles guidés anti-chars (MGAC) basés sur les Javelin et un canon de 20 mm
basé sur le 20 M 621. L’efficacité du véhicule a été déterminée à partir de la performance
d’un détachement de reconnaissance ou d’une troupe de reconnaissance en combat qui
utilisaient les véhicules. Trois scénarios portant sur la guerre irrégulière (GI) et la guerre
classique (GC) ont été élaborés et joués :
1) embuscade (convoi) en milieu urbain (GI, niveau détachement, versus soldats à pied
seulement);
2) objectif du piquet de reconnaissance en terrain mixte (GI, niveau troupe, versus véhicules
et soldats à pied); et
3) repli en terrain ouvert (GC, niveau troupe, versus véhicules seulement).
Les résultats du jeu de guerre indiquent, selon le niveau de fidélité du modèle, que les
performances variaient principalement selon le scénario et le système d’arme et, à un degré
moindre, selon le type de véhicule (Alpha ou Beta). Le poste de tir, à savoir le SAT et une
tourelle monoplace, ne semblait pas avoir d’impact significatif sur les résultats globaux des
jeux.
Le canon lent de 25 mm monté sur un véhicule Beta a eut le meilleur rendement dans le
scénario d’embuscade (convoi) en milieu urbain, suivi du véhicule de base Coyote (canon de
25 mm), la mitrailleuse lourde (ML) de calibre .50 (sur véhicules Alpha ou Beta) et les LGA
de 40 mm (sur véhicule Beta) qui ont généré des résultats de performance similaires les uns
aux autres. Le véhicule de base Coyote a eut les meilleurs performances en objectif du piquet
de reconnaissance en terrain mixte, suivi de près des véhicules Alpha ou Beta munis de 4x
MGAC. Pour le scénario de repli en terrain ouvert, l’option de 4x MGAC (véhicule Alpha ou
Beta) était la seule option viable — toutes les autres étaient également mauvaises en
comparaison. Le véhicule Beta a réussi de meilleures performances que le véhicule Alpha
pour le scénario d’embuscade (convoi) en milieu urbain. Dans les autres scénarios, toutefois,
les performances globales étaient comparables entre les deux véhicules rivaux.
ii DRDC CORA TM 2010-107
Executive Summary
Weapon System Effectiveness for the Tactical Armoured Patrol
Vehicle: CAEn Wargame Nickel Scorpion
Sprague, K., Dobias, P., Bassindale, S., Sinclair, D., King, J., Auger-Voyer, F., DRDC
CORA TM 2010-107; Defence R&D Canada — CORA; June 2010.
Introduction
The NICKEL SCORPION study was conducted by the Land Forces Operational Research
Team (LFORT) at the request of the Director of Land Requirements 3 (DLR 3) to evaluate,
via human-in-the-loop computer wargaming, the differences in effectiveness between two
vehicle contenders mounted with either a light remote weapon station (RWS) or a one-man
turret having remote capability and fitted with a variety of weapon systems (listed below).
Within the simulation environment, the performances of the vehicles equipped with different
systems were compared to that of the current Coyote vehicle (baseline) armed with a 25 mm
cannon and a coaxial C6 machine gun mounted on a two-man turret. Both contending
vehicles were modeled as lightly armoured vehicles having varying dimensions, degrees of
protection, visibility and acceleration. One of the vehicle contenders, dubbed the ‘Alpha’
vehicle in this study, was modeled as a smaller, less protected vehicle with slower
acceleration but affording the crew slightly better field of view in comparison to a second
‘Beta’ vehicle. Detailed features of the two vehicles such as mobility, interior configuration,
and the spectrum of available upgrades or options could not be represented in the wargame
environment. The modeled contending vehicles represent possible realizations of a notional
Tactical Armoured Patrol Vehicle (TAPV) aimed at replacing the Coyote and Nyala vehicles,
while augmenting the G-wagon fleet with a more adaptable vehicle and weapon system. The
only major difference between the weapon stations modeled was the sensing aspect, in that
the one-man and two-man turret weapon stations provided progressively better situational
awareness (SA) than the RWS, that is, SA for the two-man turret was higher than the one-man
turret which was in turn higher than the RWS.
Scenarios
The assessment was based on three scenarios covering both irregular warfare (IW) and
conventional warfare (CW) consisting of the following:
(cid:2) Scenario 1: Convoy ambush in urban terrain (IW);
(cid:2) Scenario 2: Recce picket objective in mixed urban/open terrain (IW); and
(cid:2) Scenario 3: Fighting withdrawal in open terrain (CW).
The BLUE force consisted of a Recce Det (four vehicles) in Scenario 1 and a Recce Troop
(nine vehicles) in Scenarios 2 and 3. In Scenario 1, the RED force consisted of dismounts
having machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) at their disposal. Weapons fire
exchanges typically occurred at close ranges (25 m – 200 m). In Scenario 2, RED dismounts
were supported by an 82 mm recoilless rifle and light armoured vehicles having either a
medium machine gun (MMG) or a 30 mm cannon as the main weapon. Ranges of engagement
were in the 400 m to 800 m range. Furthermore, civilians occupied the two urban scenarios (1
DRDC CORA TM 2010-107 iii
and 2) so as to make targeting more realistic in that the gunner could not assume that every
detection was an enemy and therefore could be fired upon. The civilians sought cover or
attempted to move away to a safe distance at the onset of the weapons fire exchanges.
Scenario 3 featured BLUE armoured vehicles executing a fighting withdrawal objective
against a Recce unit of RED armoured vehicles at ranges up to 2000 m, but averaging near
1000 m, and in the absence of dismounts and civilians.
Options
In the study, the following primary weapon options were considered for the one-man turret
and RWS. Each of the weapon options was supplemented with a co-axial C6 machine gun.
(cid:2) 40 mm automatic grenade launcher (AGL) modeled after the Mk-19;
(cid:2) .50 calibre heavy machine gun (HMG) modeled after the M2;
(cid:2) 20 mm cannon modeled after the 20 M 621;
(cid:2) Anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) modeled after Javelins; and
(cid:2) A notional 25 mm low velocity (LV) cannon.
Differences in situational awareness capability were quantified by equipping the various
weapon stations with different numbers of sensors. The vehicles were fitted either with an
‘eyeballs’ sensor and binoculars (two-man turret), just ‘eyeballs’ (one-man turret) or without
either (RWS). If the vehicle configuration forced the commander and/or the gunner to be
located under armour, then a wide field of view (WFOV) sensor was available for use. There
was also an additional narrow field of view (NFOV) sensor attached to each weapon mounted
on the vehicle; this sensor was the same for all of the weapons.
Results
Overall in the three scenarios, no single option dominated the wargames. Performances varied
mainly by scenario and weapon system, and to a lesser extent by vehicle type (Alpha or Beta),
as summarized below. The weapon station, be it RWS or one-man turret, did not appear to
have a significant impact on the outcome of the games, although it is worth noting that
significantly longer ranges of engagement were recorded in the mixed urban/open terrain
scenario (Scenario 2) for the one-man turret in comparison to the RWS.
Below, the leading and next-to-leading options are listed by scenario, identified by the
weapon type and vehicle type, the latter in parentheses. The weapon station type is omitted, as
per the discussion above:
(cid:2) Scenario 1
o Top rank: LV 25 mm cannon (Beta vehicle); and
o Second rank: 25 mm cannon (Coyote), AGL (Beta vehicle) and HMG (Alpha
or Beta vehicle).
(cid:2) Scenario 2
o Top rank: 25 mm cannon (Coyote); and
o Second rank: ATGM (Alpha or Beta vehicle).
iv DRDC CORA TM 2010-107
(cid:2) Scenario 3
o Top rank: ATGM (Alpha or Beta vehicle); and
o Second rank: LV 25 mm cannon, AGL and HMG (Alpha or Beta vehicle).
The highest rank achieved by a vehicle equipped with the 20 mm cannon was three. In all
scenarios it was either the lowest or the next-to-lowest scoring option. Note that in Scenarios
1 and 2, the differences in scores between top and second ranked options were not profound,
whereas in Scenario 3 there was a large gap in performance between the top and second
ranked options.
Recommendations
Regarding the vehicle selection, although option performance was less sensitive to the type of
vehicle than the weapon system employed, the Beta vehicle faired better in the close urban
combat scenario (Scenario 1), owing to its superior protection in a situation where mobility
was severely limited and threats were incoming from multiple directions. However,
consideration of all relevant aspects that factor into vehicle selection is far beyond the scope
of this study. It is recommended that the impact of vehicle selection on operations be studied
more thoroughly, keeping in mind the vulnerabilities revealed in the urban combat scenario of
this wargame (Scenario 2) and also the interactor comments regarding the importance of high
vehicle mobility in the fighting withdrawal scenario (Scenario 3).
Based on the wargame results, from a weapon mix effectiveness perspective, it is
recommended that the LV 25 mm cannon with a co-axial C6 in addition to ATGMs
collectively be given serious consideration as the armaments for the new TAPV vehicle. Note
that this combination (albeit with only 2xATGMs) was proposed by DLR 3 along with several
others at the onset of the study, but could not be pursued due to time limitations and personnel
availability constraints. Together these weapon systems provide capabilities comparable to or
better than the current baseline in all of the scenarios tested, above and beyond the capabilities
of the individual weapon systems (including that of the baseline). The ATGMs are required to
mitigate losses in a Scenario 3-type operation where all other weapon systems failed to
produce acceptable results. Additional factors to consider that were not specifically included
in this study are the dual feed mechanism of the existing light weight 25 mm cannon and new
developments in 25 mm low velocity ammunition that will likely increase the flexibility of
this weapon in comparison to the other weapon systems considered.
The impact of sensing differences between the RWS and the one-man turret on the
performance of the options was minimal, for the most part, throughout the wargame. These
results, however, did not take into account all of the differences between synthetic vision
sensors and natural vision (eyes). According to a study conducted concurrently with the
wargame, the most critical difference between synthetic and natural vision target acquisition
when scanning the environment is the time from inter-visibility of the target to detection of
the target (from when the target can be seen to when it actually is seen). Therefore, it is
recommended that before any of the RWS options are adopted, that sensing aspects at all
relevant ranges, in simple and complex terrains, be considered carefully and, if necessary,
studied more thoroughly in terms of the differences between synthetic vision and natural
vision (eyeballs) when scanning the environment to acquire targets under realistic restrictions
for viewing arcs. The use of well-placed hatches can mitigate adverse effects stemming from
an increased reliance on synthetic sensors. Note, however, that additional factors must be
taken into account such as fire-restriction zones and increased exposure of a crew member.
DRDC CORA TM 2010-107 v
On the other hand, if a one-man turret is to be adopted, the impact of having the commander
and gunner physically separated must be addressed (they are together in both the RWS and
two-man turret configurations which eases communication between them). However, it must
be noted that, according to the sensing study, the time that elapses from the inter-visibility of a
target to its detection is a greater factor to consider than any time lost due to inefficient
communication, although the latter may have adverse consequences that have not been
considered.
In addition, the nature of the vulnerability of the RWS to small arms fire and its impact on
operations requires more in-depth study. It is recommended that this vulnerability be assessed
thoroughly for any RWS candidate under consideration before a final acquisition decision is
made.
vi DRDC CORA TM 2010-107