623 Guests, 13 Users (3 Hidden)|
tomahawk6, kkwd, Target Up, AbdullahD, CRMA, torg003, KJK, ballz, colinreid16, garb811
Total Members: 76,521|
Total Posts: 1,489,636
Total Topics: 72,444
Total Categories: 13
Total Boards: 124
Top of the evening Mike or staff
I just tried subscribing via e-transfer and it failed on me via the alternate to PayPal option.
If you want to confirm who or where I can send it to, I will do so shortly. Been here to long not to pitch in.
P.s reason for the post is I see two different e transfer addresses and the alternate subscribe page failed so wanted to be sure that the addresses were up to date before I sent.
| Write Comment
Future soldier technologies: Laser sight trialhttp://www.army-armee.forces.gc.ca/en/news-publications/national-news-details-no-menu.page?doc=future-soldier-technologies-laser-sight-trial/k3t033hwhttps://www.facebook.com/notes/canadian-army/future-soldier-technologies-laser-sight-trial/2575192432572719/
Article / December 12, 2019 / Project number: 19-0237
By Internal and Corporate Communications Services in collaboration with the Toronto and Valcartier Research Centres
Over three weeks in August and September of 2019, Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) scientists and Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) volunteers, came together at 2nd Canadian Division Support Base Valcartier for the Future Soldiers Technologies Trial 2019.
In three field experiments, they evaluated laser aiming device (LAD) and laser rangefinder (LRF) capabilities, as well as measures of soldiers’ mental workload. The 3rd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment – colloquially known in English as “The Van Doos” – took the lead in supporting this year’s trials and providing participants.
“We spent many months coordinating this event because we believe it is imperative that we evaluate first-hand the capabilities offered by the systems currently available,” said DRDC defence scientist Mike Tombu, who was overall coordinator for the trial.
“This was not about testing products, or evaluating shooters. We wanted to gather input from those individuals who will be using our research to gauge the value of LAD capabilities, including LRFs and visible lasers, the impact of weapon weight on shooting performance, and the cognitive workload of advanced navigational systems.”
This article is the first of a series of three.
Soldiers demonstrate two of the four weapon-weight conditions examined. The soldier on the left holds a heavy configuration that includes an underslung grenade launcher and an LAD; the soldier on the right sports a lighter configuration with only an LAD. Photo: Jocelyn Tessier. ©2019 DND/MDN Canada.
Valcartier, Quebec — Scientific advances need real-world testing to demonstrate their worth, particularly when defence and security issues are at stake.
Laser-aiming devices (LADs) use visible lasers and near-infrared lasers – light emissions that are invisible to the naked eye – to provide soldiers with alternative ways of aiming their weapons when certain conditions render their primary optic sights ineffective. These conditions can include a low-light environment, or when protective equipment such as gas masks make using the primary sight difficult. The visible lasers on LADs generally come in either red or green, the latter being a relatively new innovation.
A soldier engages a target in a light weapon-weight condition. Photo: Jocelyn Tessier. ©2019 DND/MDN Canada.
“We asked the questions: Are red or green lasers better for target engagement? How does the accuracy of visible lasers compare to optics? Our goal was to assess shooting performance as a function of distance to the target using both red and green lasers in order to assess the impact of laser colour,” said Mr. Tombu.
Anecdotally, he added, green lasers are thought to be more visible than the more traditional red lasers, but tend to draw more power, thereby reducing battery life.
“If the green laser were in fact more visible, one would expect soldiers to be able to engage targets faster and at greater distances than with the red laser,” said Mr. Tombu. “Such an advantage could provide our soldiers with an edge on the battlefield when they need it.”
Mr. Tombu and his colleagues are currently analyzing the data they gathered during the trial.
“If using a green laser instead of a red laser can significantly improve soldier effectiveness, either in terms of effective range or time to engage, we would certainly like to be able to pass this information on to our CAF partners,” he said.
A second task within this trial examined what impact the weight of other devices mounted on a rifle might have on marksmanship. Four weight scenarios were tested: a light LAD; a heavier LAD; an underslung grenade launcher with a light but simple sight and a LAD; and an underslung grenade launcher with a heavier sight with added capabilities and a LAD.
“Modern LADs can also be equipped with LRFs, more capable aiming lasers, and more powerful illuminators,” explained Mr. Tombu. “We intend to use our findings to provide an assessment of what costs – in terms of decreased marksmanship – may be associated with adding weight to the rifle.”
| Write Comment
Im curious about how much you get paid at training as a reservist. Iv heard multiple different numbers so im trying to get it cleared up.
I more spesifically would like to know for bmq, bmq-l, and armoured dp1/dp2.
Sent from my LG-H933 using Tapatalk
| Write Comment
Now that Rangers have been issued the C19 I’m trying to find the PWT guidelines for the C19 and also requirements for achieving marksmanship badges for rangers using the C19.
I appreciate any help I can get. Thanks in advance.
| Write Comment
Nice to hear that the Canadian Army is looking at reviving its Ground-based AD Capability.
Air Defence: Reacquiring a vital capabilityLink
Jun 27, 2019 | News, Procurement
By Ian Coutts
There is a classic cartoon by Bing Coughlin from the Canadian Army’s old Maple Leaf newspaper featuring Herbie, his archetypal Canadian soldier of the Second World War. In it, Herbie, cowering with his pals in a crude shelter in the midst of a fiendish bombardment, looks up and notices an astounding selection of objects hurtling overhead – a steel rail, a big pipe, a stove and, as he remarks incredulously, “Even the kitchen sink!”
There must have been times when it felt like that. And indeed, times today when it still does. A modern soldier looking up in the battlespace might see a bewildering array of objects passing overhead: Not merely fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, but mortar shells, cruise missiles, surface-to-surface rockets and even, potentially, swarms of drones. All intent on doing him or her harm.
Hopes are the Army’s new Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) system will help to counteract all of these threats, by sometime in the middle of the next decade. In the not-so distant past, the Army could field a selection of weapons capable of engaging low-flying aircraft, ranging from shoulder-launched Javelin missiles to a radar controlled Oerlikon-Contraves GDF 35mm twin cannon, to Aerospace Oerlikon’s combined air defence anti-tank system. The last of those air defence capabilities was retired in 2012.
Canada wasn’t alone in neglecting these systems. As Major Bruno Di Ilio, the lead on the GBAD project, pointed out, “There was a big downturn on the West’s part in terms of air defence capability because we always thought we had air superiority, so we didn’t need it.”
However, said Di Ilio, experiences with mortars and surface-to-surface fire in Afghanistan, along with recent conflicts in Ukraine and elsewhere, have led to a reappraisal of air defence. As well, there is a growing awareness of the dangers posed by drones and other unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
For all these reasons, after a gap of several years, the search for a new ground air defense system was listed in Strong, Secure Engaged, the government’s June 2017 defence policy, as one of the Army’s key priorities.
When Di Ilio, himself a gunner, discusses GBAD, he talks about it as “a system of systems.” At heart, it involves four key components: A sensor system using both radar and electro-optical or infrared components – the new medium range radar will contribute part of that; an air defence management component to identify aerial threats; and a communications system.
Fourth and finally, he said, “If there is a threat, we need an effector capability to neutralize and/or defeat the threat.” This is where GBAD gets interesting. The system may depend on “hard kill” options, the so-called “kinetic” weapons like guns or missiles, or “soft kill” weapons, of which high-energy lasers or electronic jamming might be prime examples.
In fact, the system might rely on both. That’s reflective of a major shift in targets, which previously emphasized an anti-aircraft response.
“Our primary target set is the RAM [rocket, artillery, mortar] projectiles,” said Di Ilio. “The other category that fits into the primary target set is air-to-surface munitions, essentially those delivered from helicopters or fixed-wing platforms.”
Beyond that, GBAD will also prioritize UAVs, “mainly the small unmanned systems and the Class II systems, which are up to about 500 kilograms in weight.”
Dealing with such a selection of threats is a daunting task. As Di Ilio put it, “a mortar shell is very small and very difficult to take out.” But not impossible. In August 2018, as part of the options analysis phase of the GBAD project, Di Ilio and his colleagues sent out a request for information to potential suppliers outlining the project’s goals.
“We ended up receiving over 15 packages,” he said. “Some of them were just specifically focused on missile systems, some were on gun systems. All of them, though, provided a complete package of sensors, communications, command and control and the effector platforms.”
He and his colleagues are also looking at what allies have adopted or are considering. “We’re not looking at going into development to build a system that is one-of,” he said. “Whatever the UK or the US are planning on procuring, we’re very much interested. There are savings to be had if we have commonality of fleets.”
He cautioned, though, that it is still early days. “You have to consider that we are not procuring this for at least another five years. What we’re doing right now is evaluating the different systems. Some of them are operational and some are systems that are in development.”
Di Ilio said that whatever the Army acquires, it must be capable of providing air defence for a brigade, whether it is involved in peacekeeping or in a conflict zone, which means the area to be protected could vary greatly in size. The Army will also need enough systems to provide cover for two separate deployments at the same time.
The precise structure of the units operating the system hasn’t been determined but, he said added, “We’re going to have a structure based on troops and batteries similar to the organization that we have in the artillery now.”
The Army pegs the cost at between $250 million and $499 million, but that is very much an estimate. The goal is for an initial operating capability by 2025. After which, who knows, maybe they’ll even be able to shoot down that kitchen sink.
| Write Comment
Resignation of Sir John French, succeeded by Sir Douglas Haid as Commander in Chief
26 Field Regiment RCA created
The Governor General's Horse Guards: Nulli Secundus (Second To None)
The Windsor Regiment: Semper Paratus (Always ready)
» Download the iPhone/iPad Military History app! «