Video of Lockheed Martin Squad Mission Support System (SMSS)
http://youtu.be/0cjtOXwF4rU
http://youtu.be/0cjtOXwF4rU
Lockheed Martin Squad Mission Support System (SMSS)
- Thread starter Triton
- Start date
Much as I am sure the average soldier would appreciate the reducing the weight of his/her personal load, does it really make much sense for an entire squad's food, water, ammo, etc. to be on ONE vehicle?
Wouldn't an enemy then target the vehicle first thing, and a single RPG or the like would then take out everone's supplies at once?
Also, since it appears that one soldier is taken out of the fight to become the operator for the robotic vehicle, couldn't he just drive the vehicle instead?
Wouldn't an enemy then target the vehicle first thing, and a single RPG or the like would then take out everone's supplies at once?
Also, since it appears that one soldier is taken out of the fight to become the operator for the robotic vehicle, couldn't he just drive the vehicle instead?
There is something else out there that could do this job just as well, lot cheaper, doesn't require technicians to service it (after a fashion). This device? Mules. Even have an added advantage that it's rechargeable using local flora, and in extremis you can eat it. Haven't the US special forces been using them recently? Members of the horse family also have an uncanny knack for knowing when something ain't right so situational awareness of the squad just as enhanced.
Absolutely, see the relevant thread here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12826.0.html.
cluttonfred said:
your right on all three points.. though with the first one, i'd imagine that in real use the soldiers would just load 'extra' gear onto the vehicle, and still carry their normal load.
as for the others..i suspect that they assume soldiers would park it in a relatively safe spot when expecting combat, or that enemies would ignore the unarmed vehicle in favor of the actual soldiers.
as for the last.. given the advances in self driving, self navigating vehicles lately, i suspect they assume that by the time it goes operational, the soldier won't have to drive it like an RC car, just plot out waypoints on a digital map.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 590
Kat Tsun said:
No more vulnerable than an IFV? Funny, it doesn't seem to have any armour on it. A single airburst mortar round and it's toast, along with all the Section's equipment. It would be better to give each Section member a quad bike. It'd achieve the same thing and if one is destroyed, only one soldier's equipment is lost.
Kat Tsun
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
- Joined
- 16 June 2013
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 1,526
Kadija_Man said:
If an IFV is hit by an RPG, not only all the section's equipment gone, but also their biggest weapon systems and several section members as well. At least with this thing you're only losing one of those, and it just so happens to be the most replaceable things, which are small arms ammunition and food.
It's a fairly good idea for LIC (which are going to continue to be the most prevalent focus of attention for First World armies, now that the threat of the USSR has evaporated) where long duration foot patrols and relative lack of firepower and mechanisation of your opponent are the exemplary factors.
SMSS isn't mandatory tele-operated, it can work autonomously and follow members of the squad independently. There's also nothing saying that certain versions (perhaps CASEVAC?) can be armoured up to resist small arms fire and splinters, which would mitigate the effects of insurgent weapons, it can carry two tonnes of kit safely.
The biggest problem is that this just replicates a function of the IFV at the squad level (in practice it's being used more as a platoon resupply vehicle that carries ammunition to squads as opposed to a dedicated mule), and it also requires its own logistics train for fuel and spare parts.
- Joined
- 26 January 2011
- Messages
- 2,223
- Reaction score
- 590
I think you are missing the point. No armour = very vulnerable. Some armour = less vulnerable. I was referring explicitly to the threat of air burst mortar/artillery rounds, not RPGs, as well. No armour means a vehicle is very vulnerable to splinters. This vehicle has no armour. You pile your section's gear into it and you come under mortar/artillery fire, then you'll lose the lot. In an IFV, you won't.
- Joined
- 18 March 2008
- Messages
- 3,529
- Reaction score
- 877
Kadija_Man said:
I don’t think anyone in the army is losing sleep over this risk. It’s clearly not even remotely comparable to any kind of APC or IFV nor should it be. It’s just a means for light infantry to have a mechanical mule to carry their backpacks during route marches. It’s not for use in patrolling, assaulting or advancing to contact. Comparable platforms are things like light jeeps, Supacats, ATVs and the like which can be used to haul cargo for light forces. The key difference is this thing doesn’t need a driver so saves on weight and personnel.
