Register here

Author Topic: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles  (Read 65545 times)

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2013, 05:32:15 pm »
The Army knows exactly what it wants. It just doesn't know what the Secretary of Defense is going to let them spend 2-5 years from now. The US Army didn't cancel AGS, Crusader, FCS, etc. The US OSD cancelled them.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2013, 09:25:29 pm by Abraham Gubler »
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1279
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #16 on: September 17, 2013, 09:35:10 pm »
There are a number of IFVs that come close, how about a shortened CV90 hull and running gear with a crew of three and an unmanned turret?  And will there be an air-droppable APC or IFV to go with it?
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1782
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2013, 05:22:44 am »
Yes, the XM8 was air-droppable. I don't know the reasons why the XM8 Ridgeway/Buford was cancelled.

It was dropped because the "tank mafia" pointed out that because it was both lightly armoured and had only a 105mm gun, it wasn't an MBT and therefore could not take on MBTs.  The resulting contraversy proved too hot for the military, after having spent so much money on it that with the "tank mafia" in control, it was dropped.   Does this sound familiar?


no, not at all.

Do you have any sources for this? I never heard any of this before.

Only distant memory from reading Janes and elsewhere at the time.  The excuses used to drop the vehicle program were IIRC that it didn't mount a 120mm gun and so therefore could not fight MBTs.  Which you think would have been obvious from the start when they decided to put a 105mm gun on it.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2013, 05:24:30 am by Kadija_Man »

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2013, 07:54:52 am »
Yes, the XM8 was air-droppable. I don't know the reasons why the XM8 Ridgeway/Buford was cancelled.

It was dropped because the "tank mafia" pointed out that because it was both lightly armoured and had only a 105mm gun, it wasn't an MBT and therefore could not take on MBTs.  The resulting contraversy proved too hot for the military, after having spent so much money on it that with the "tank mafia" in control, it was dropped.   Does this sound familiar?


no, not at all.

Do you have any sources for this? I never heard any of this before.

Only distant memory from reading Janes and elsewhere at the time.  The excuses used to drop the vehicle program were IIRC that it didn't mount a 120mm gun and so therefore could not fight MBTs.  Which you think would have been obvious from the start when they decided to put a 105mm gun on it.

I don't think thats true.
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8346
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #19 on: September 18, 2013, 09:26:21 am »
Yes, the XM8 was air-droppable. I don't know the reasons why the XM8 Ridgeway/Buford was cancelled.

It was dropped because the "tank mafia" pointed out that because it was both lightly armoured and had only a 105mm gun, it wasn't an MBT and therefore could not take on MBTs.  The resulting contraversy proved too hot for the military, after having spent so much money on it that with the "tank mafia" in control, it was dropped.   Does this sound familiar?


no, not at all.

Do you have any sources for this? I never heard any of this before.

Only distant memory from reading Janes and elsewhere at the time.  The excuses used to drop the vehicle program were IIRC that it didn't mount a 120mm gun and so therefore could not fight MBTs.  Which you think would have been obvious from the start when they decided to put a 105mm gun on it.

I don't think thats true.

Which also doesn't make sense as the Stryker AGS is 105MM.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Firefly 2

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 461
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2013, 10:50:04 am »

Offline Arjen

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2084
  • It's turtles all the way down
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #21 on: October 03, 2013, 01:04:34 am »
Courtesy PPRUNE:

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7575
  • _ \\ //
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2014, 08:47:38 am »
US Army Floats Requirements For Three Light Vehicles (DefenseNews)

Quote
WASHINGTON The US Army is looking to develop a family of three lightweight, highly mobile ground vehicles for a light infantry brigade as it conducts a joint forcible entry mission.

If the service proceeds, it would field an air-droppable light tank called the mobile protected firepower (MPF), and ultra-lightweight combat vehicle (ULCV) and a light reconnaissance vehicle (LRV). The two latter vehicles would be sling-loadable by rotary wing to replace the Humvee.

A competition for a Humvee replacement could reassemble the competitors for the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) light vehicle awarded to General Dynamics, and which also featured bids by industry heavyweights Oshkosh and Navistar, analysts said.

The vehicles align with Army efforts in recent years to become more expeditionary.
[snip]

[Groans]
To the Stars

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2644
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2014, 09:57:59 am »

Again?


OK, the ULCV makes a certain degree of sense, and shouldn't be too hard to do.  Basically, it sounds like a long-wheelbase Land Rover with troop seats and extra gas tanks.


The MPF doesn't include enough details to judge.  Could be feasible if they only want air-drop or air-landing from a C-17.

The LRV is the one that gives me the biggest headache.  Medium-caliber gun, splinter protection, and a crew of 6 (probably 3 vehicle crew, 3 dismounted scouts) isn't too terrible --  so far it sounds a lot like a LAV-25.  Sling-loading under a CH-47 is doable -- the LAV-25 slings under the comparable CH-53 OK.  But internal carriage?  No way.  I just don't see how that's possible without at minimum taking off any turret you're planning for that medium-caliber armament.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2644
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2014, 10:45:06 am »
OK, here's the briefing that everyone seems to be writing from.


From the pictures, LRV seems like an armored HMMWV successor, maybe related that Ultra Light Vehicle they've been looking at.  Not seeing the medium-caliber gun they say is part of the spec.  Have they broadened the definition of "medium-caliber" to include 40mm AGLs?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1794
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2014, 01:16:12 pm »
What the Army really has wanted all these years is not to have to go to airports to get more combat power than paratroopers on the ground.  They are back at it again because of the profusion of guided weapons flooding the planet.  If you can hit an aircraft carrier with a missile from far away, you can hit an airport too.  Most of the airports are now surrounded by urban terrain.  Try to find the dude with a anti-material rifle tucked off the approach/departure end of a runway.  Airports are the best documented pieces of terrain, next to a Sea Port, in any country. You don't need fancy data systems to line up a MRL as a welcoming commitee.  Year after year the Army gets told by the folks who are charged to be an OPFOR that going to the most predictable places in any country makes it to easy for the defender.
Remeber what the Soviets had to deal with in Afghanistan when high end MANPAD arrived?  How many videos have you seen of Syrian aircraft getting hit by ATGM on a runway?  Recall that the main airports in Israel got shut down to US traffic after one rocket managed to get within 10Km.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 01:19:02 pm by yasotay »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7575
  • _ \\ //
To the Stars

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1279
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #27 on: October 15, 2014, 12:24:20 am »
http://defensetech.org/2014/10/13/polaris-dagor-could-meet-armys-ultra-light-vehicle-need/

That Dagor looks more like a Hummer replacement than anything else.

I wonder if the U.S. needs to take a page from French (gasp!) and South African (gasp, gasp!) experience and go with a modern equivalent of the Panhard AML 90/Eland MkVII?  Six metric tons, great speed on and off road, powerful 90mm gun, 5.12 m long (including gun) x 2.01 m wide by 2.50 m high = sized to fit a 20' ISO shipping container!



Something like that with unmanned turrets on a common chassis for direct fire/indirect fire/command/personnel carrier variants with modern sensors and communications, slat armor that folds for air transport and maybe active anti-RPG/missile defense sounds like a winner to me!
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7575
  • _ \\ //
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #28 on: October 15, 2014, 02:52:33 am »
I wonder if the U.S. needs to take a page from French (gasp!) and South African (gasp, gasp!) experience and go with a modern equivalent of the Panhard AML 90/Eland MkVII?  Six metric tons, great speed on and off road, powerful 90mm gun, 5.12 m long (including gun) x 2.01 m wide by 2.50 m high = sized to fit a 20' ISO shipping container!

Something like that with unmanned turrets on a common chassis for direct fire/indirect fire/command/personnel carrier variants with modern sensors and communications, slat armor that folds for air transport and maybe active anti-RPG/missile defense sounds like a winner to me!

Like the CRAB perhaps?
To the Stars

Offline cluttonfred

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1279
    • Eric Clutton's classic homebuilt FRED and more!
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank
« Reply #29 on: October 15, 2014, 03:12:53 am »
Neat, I had not seen the before and it is not far off from what I had in mind.  The Panhard site describes the level of armor protection of the CRAB as STANAG Level 3 (7.62 NATO AP ammo) and blast 2b/3a (6 kg mine under center, 8 kg under wheel).  I would imagine the Pentagon would want at least Level 4 all around (14.5mm heavy MG AP and 10 kg mine anywhere), but that should still be possible within the weight of an Eland.  I don't know, however, how big a load you can actually air drop on a pallet out of a C-130.  Anyone?
*******
Matthew Long, Editor
cluttonfred.info
A site for builders, owners and fans of Eric Clutton's FRED
and other safe, simple, affordable homebuilt aircraft