Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles

cluttonfred said:
Its probably worth pointing out once again this Rand Corp paper that has been posted to this forum before:

France's War in Mali: Lessons for an Expeditionary Army
by Michael Shurkin

The points about the expeditionary culture of the French army, especially their Marines and Legionnaires, the importance of flexibility and autonomy at all levels, the acceptance of greater risk in order to accomplish more with less, and the preference of many officers for older, less sophisticated vehicles without fragile electronics that can't be repaired or jury-rigged in the field are all very relevant to the U.S. Army's quest for light firepower.
Click to expand...

Did the French combat airdrop armor?
 
marauder2048 said:
Did the French combat airdrop armor?
Click to expand...

I don't know if they were air dropped or not, I was suggesting that weight vs. protection and other trade offs required to make something like what the U.S. Army wants are reflected in the French equipment and tactics.
 
DrRansom said:
Moose said:
I think they want to buy an MPF vehicle, certainly. Whether they can make the money work is a more open question.
Click to expand...

Are they really willing to buy a reasonable MPF, though? The MPF's that exist (Sprut / BMD-4) are very light armor. Will the Army be really willing to sacrifice protection to achieve mobility? That seems to be the problem each time, wanting MBT-like protection for an airmobile platform.
Click to expand...
I disagree a little; M8 and the big-gun FCS both had "low armor" base models that the Army was perfectly willing to take as long as they could be beefed up, whether by armor packages for the former or an APS for the latter, as needed. That's not exactly an "MBT protection or Get Away From Me" stance. I think it's still mostly down to a "can we afford to put this money into MPF rather than projects X, Y, and/or Z" sort of decision.
 
cluttonfred said:
marauder2048 said:
Did the French combat airdrop armor?
Click to expand...

I don't know if they were air dropped or not, I was suggesting that weight vs. protection and other trade offs required to make something like what the U.S. Army wants are reflected in the French equipment and tactics.
Click to expand...

No relevance whatsoever to MPF and the CONOPS in which it is embedded.
 
Moose said:
I disagree a little; M8 and the big-gun FCS both had "low armor" base models that the Army was perfectly willing to take as long as they could be beefed up, whether by armor packages for the former or an APS for the latter, as needed.
Click to expand...

M8 was eliminated from consideration a year ago. But the big-gun FCS concept is dead on; essentially the Army wants a lighter XM360 on a lighter hull.
 
Interesting, I didn't think they were at the point of embracing or discarding anything just yet. Nevertheless, it shall be interesting to see what reporting comes from this industry meeting.
 
marauder2048 said:
No relevance whatsoever to MPF and the CONOPS in which it is embedded.
Click to expand...

You are overstating and I disagree. The fundamental challenge is making a useful armored vehicle light enough to be air portable. Air dropping is an additional, more strenuous requirement, but the basic challenge of weight vs. protection is the same.
 
marauder2048 said:
M8 was eliminated from consideration a year ago. But the big-gun FCS concept is dead on; essentially the Army wants a lighter XM360 on a lighter hull.
Click to expand...

Is the XM360 a high pressure gun or a lower pressure gun? Would it be able to attack MBTs with sabot ammunition?
 
XM360 fires the same NATO standard 120mm ammunition as the existing M256 gun used in the M1.
 
cluttonfred said:
marauder2048 said:
No relevance whatsoever to MPF and the CONOPS in which it is embedded.
Click to expand...

You are overstating and I disagree. The fundamental challenge is making a useful armored vehicle light enough to be air portable. Air dropping is an additional, more strenuous requirement, but the basic challenge of weight vs. protection is the same.
Click to expand...

The French *drove* in armored vehicles from Chad and Cote D'ivorie. They then deployed armored reinforcements from C-17s that landed and disembarked their cargo at an international airport. There's no armored vehicle on Planet Earth that isn't air portable under those circumstances. So I repeat, no relevance.
 
Perhaps you need to follow the advice in your own tag line?

Per the report I referenced, the heaviest vehicle deployed by the French in Mali was the 28-ton VBCI, an IFV with a 25mm cannon. More relevant to this discussion and also deployed to Mali is the AMX-10RC, a 17-ton wheeled light tank with a 105mm gun. As far as I know, every French armored vehicle deployed to Mali was light enough be transported by C-130, which is presumably a first step to air-dropping one? Also, the next-generation Jaguar EBRC, slated to replace the aging AMX-10RC, is about the same weight as the VBCI and has been reportedly tested with a 120mm gun. Seems pretty relevant to MPF to me....
 
cluttonfred said:
Perhaps you need to follow the advice in your own tag line?

Per the report I referenced, the heaviest vehicle deployed by the French in Mali was the 28-ton VBCI, an IFV with a 25mm cannon. More relevant to this discussion and also deployed to Mali is the AMX-10RC, a 17-ton wheeled light tank with a 105mm gun. As far as I know, every French armored vehicle deployed to Mali was light enough be transported by C-130, which is presumably a first step to air-dropping one? Also, the next-generation Jaguar EBRC, slated to replace the aging AMX-10RC, is about the same weight as the VBCI and has been reportedly tested with a 120mm gun. Seems pretty relevant to MPF to me....
Click to expand...

Perhaps you need to actually read the report you referenced.

Almost all of the French armor that wasn't driven into Mali got there by disembarking from landed C-17s and rented Antonovs; 28-tons exceeds the carrying capacity of any C-130 and the A400M (over the range required). Hence, the use of strategic airlifters landing (uncontested) at a fully intact international airport that was under no threat whatsoever.

As to the Jaguar EBRC, manned turrets are pretty much an anarchronism on new build/new design armor and one of the reasons that M8 AGS was eliminated from consideration.
 
cluttonfred said:
I did read it, you are simply arguing for argument's sake. Knock yourself out, I'm done.
Click to expand...

Or read but didn't understand; I was trying to be generous. Because if you had you wouldn't have said:

... the heaviest vehicle deployed by the French in Mali was the 28-ton VBCI, an IFV with a 25mm cannon [...] As far as I know, every French armored vehicle deployed to Mali was light enough be transported by C-130, which is presumably a first step to air-dropping one
Click to expand...

28-tons is too heavy for anything other that a C-17 or An-124 or a sealift.

It's not as if the US military doesn't have extensive experience operating 4x4, 6x6 and 8x8 LAVs with medium and large caliber cannon.
And it's precisely because of this experience that MPF is striving to be nothing like those vehicles (see the attached slides from AUSA 2016).
This is why I said your suggestions had no relevance to MPF or its CONOPS whatsoever.
 

Attachments

  • Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy-page-009.jpg
    Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy-page-009.jpg
    571.3 KB · Views: 244
  • Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy-page-011.jpg
    Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy-page-011.jpg
    635.4 KB · Views: 252
What is the MPF supposed to be, then?

Via SNAFU, a Breaking Defense article from this week says:
“What we don’t want is an Abrams; we already have an Abrams,” said Col. Will Nuckols, who works for Wesley as Fort Benning’s director of mounted (i.e. vehicle) requirements. “It’s going to be lighter, more strategically mobile, and more tactically mobile than the Abrams — with similar firepower and protection that is suitable to the formation it is supporting.”
Protection against how great a threat? That’s to be determined, based on what industry can deliver at a price the Army can afford. “It will be greater than heavy machinegun, I can tell you that,” Nuckols said. “Protection is a very high priority for the Chief of Staff of the Army.”
Click to expand...

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/08/big-guns-for-light-infantry-mobile-protected-firepower/

The issue is that to get autocannon protection, the vehicle weight will climb rapidly, > 30 tons. Is that strategic mobile?

I suspect this program will fail on the protection aspect, just like FCS and the airborne tank before it.
 
I'm going to be contrarian and say this is very much within the realm of the possible. It will take good leadership and better management, but the Army really needs to show they can do that anyway. So get the best and brightest together, give them the room to operate, and keep the wolves at bay long enough to do the job.
 
DrRansom said:
The issue is that to get autocannon protection, the vehicle weight will climb rapidly, > 30 tons. Is that strategic mobile?

I suspect this program will fail on the protection aspect, just like FCS and the airborne tank before it.
Click to expand...

Yup.

And when they remember, again, that armoured vehicles need bomblet protection and EFP protection on the top any semblance of "strategic mobility" will go straight out the window. It will be straight back to the old FCS solution of shipping the armour in a different aircraft.
 
Don't think this is what they have in mind but pretty cool

https://www.facebook.com/combat.dm/videos/972157986263303/
 
Moose said:
I'm going to be contrarian and say this is very much within the realm of the possible. It will take good leadership and better management, but the Army really needs to show they can do that anyway. So get the best and brightest together, give them the room to operate, and keep the wolves at bay long enough to do the job.
Click to expand...

They don't have "better management", they're incompetent as an organisation and as a culture.
The U.S.Army hasn't brought a single combat AFV or helicopter from requirements to design by scratch to operational readiness in three decades. The AFVs that arrived in the 80's (Abrams, Bradley) had troublesome development phases and programs failed in parallel to them.

Ever since, the best the U.S.Army could achieve in development of vehicles was to make a gold plated mess of modifications of already existing designs.

Anyone who wants to see the future of AFVs should turn his back on the U.S. and ignore everything that comes from there, for it's NOT the future of AFVs. Look at Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Israel instead. Yes, I wrote Japan, the former champion s of unaffordable and crazy procurement.


Only the United States Marketing Corps is even worse at vehicle development. The army of the UK comes close.
 
bobbymike said:
Don't think this is what they have in mind but pretty cool

https://www.facebook.com/combat.dm/videos/972157986263303/
Click to expand...

Totally unique - well, let's compare with the Rokon motorcycles, or the Jordanian Rokons http://manyringding.tripod.com/news/jordan/.
This kind of 2x2 motorcycle is more than half a century old.
 
lastdingo said:
Look at Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Israel instead. Yes, I wrote Japan, the former champion s of unaffordable and crazy procurement.
Click to expand...

A very hard claim to take seriously given that they were all very late to the 8x8 AFV craze; Israel's offering *just* debuted.
 
marauder2048 said:
lastdingo said:
Look at Germany, France, South Korea, Japan, Russia, Israel instead. Yes, I wrote Japan, the former champion s of unaffordable and crazy procurement.
Click to expand...

A very hard claim to take seriously given that they were all very late to the 8x8 AFV craze; Israel's offering *just* debuted.
Click to expand...

The 8x8 craze was stupid anyway. To have resisted it for 15 years is positive.
They sure were well ahead in APC protection and many things regarding heavy AFVs.
 
lastdingo said:
The 8x8 craze was stupid anyway. To have resisted it for 15 years is positive.
They sure were well ahead in APC protection and many things regarding heavy AFVs.
Click to expand...

Good to see that all of the proclaimed leaders in AFV development have now gone stupid.

Virtually none of the Israeli APC protection concepts made it into serial production.

The Heavy AFV concept has mostly been a failure on manufacturability and mobility grounds (too slow and wide)
which is why the Israelis are introducing an 8x8.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/general-dynamics-griffin-dont-call-it-a-tank-its-totally-a-tank/
 
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/general-dynamics-griffin-dont-call-it-a-tank-its-totally-a-tank/
Click to expand...

Is it just me, or does the Griffin have a whiff of the XM1202 design around it?

Video from link:
https://youtu.be/8m6Tdnvx64c
 
Well its got the same gun.

This is a somewhat odd half-step by GD. I understand wanting something flashy for the show, and the desire to show off their ability to put together in-service gear/technology in new ways. But, as they readily point out, this vehicle won't meet the MPF program's requirements and doesn't seem to be aimed at FMS. So it's basically just a concept car, something to get people's attention but otherwise there's no real future for it. I guess the "stealth tank" concept the Poles mocked up got a lot of positive press so maybe that's all GD felt they needed, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed.
 
Moose said:
Well its got the same gun.

This is a somewhat odd half-step by GD. I understand wanting something flashy for the show, and the desire to show off their ability to put together in-service gear/technology in new ways. But, as they readily point out, this vehicle won't meet the MPF program's requirements and doesn't seem to be aimed at FMS. So it's basically just a concept car, something to get people's attention but otherwise there's no real future for it. I guess the "stealth tank" concept the Poles mocked up got a lot of positive press so maybe that's all GD felt they needed, but I'm somewhat underwhelmed.
Click to expand...
If you watched the video he outlines what the purpose of the vehicle is, basically, "a starting point on discussions with the Army about what a future vehicle will look like" So it is like a concept car reminded that concept cars, looking different than at the auto show, do get built.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/big-gun-small-truck-am-general-mounts-howitzer-on-humvee/
 
bobbymike said:
If you watched the video he outlines what the purpose of the vehicle is, basically, "a starting point on discussions with the Army about what a future vehicle will look like" So it is like a concept car reminded that concept cars, looking different than at the auto show, do get built.
Click to expand...

So, essentially a marker saying "Your current requirement is wrong; this is what can be done within the current state of the art to accomplish the task. Now go change your requirement accordingly."
 
TomS said:
bobbymike said:
If you watched the video he outlines what the purpose of the vehicle is, basically, "a starting point on discussions with the Army about what a future vehicle will look like" So it is like a concept car reminded that concept cars, looking different than at the auto show, do get built.
Click to expand...

So, essentially a marker saying "Your current requirement is wrong; this is what can be done within the current state of the art to accomplish the task. Now go change your requirement accordingly."
Click to expand...
Except they admit, even boast, that they have something "better, closer to requirements" coming next year. I think someone at GD was sick of seeing BAE get attention every time they rolled out the old M8 for a show and decided they needed something to park in their booth now rather than wait. It's gotten more coverage than the M8 this week, though BAE parked their tank right in front of the building so it's far from unnoticed.
 
Moose said:
TomS said:
bobbymike said:
If you watched the video he outlines what the purpose of the vehicle is, basically, "a starting point on discussions with the Army about what a future vehicle will look like" So it is like a concept car reminded that concept cars, looking different than at the auto show, do get built.
Click to expand...

So, essentially a marker saying "Your current requirement is wrong; this is what can be done within the current state of the art to accomplish the task. Now go change your requirement accordingly."
Click to expand...
Except they admit, even boast, that they have something "better, closer to requirements" coming next year. I think someone at GD was sick of seeing BAE get attention every time they rolled out the old M8 for a show and decided they needed something to park in their booth now rather than wait. It's gotten more coverage than the M8 this week, though BAE parked their tank right in front of the building so it's far from unnoticed.
Click to expand...
Maybe some influence from the Rapid Capabilities Office, "Hey what can you do now" ?
 
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/big-gun-small-truck-am-general-mounts-howitzer-on-humvee/
Click to expand...

Thought this was an outgrowth of ADIM but in fact ADIM is a descendant.
 

Attachments

  • adim-ancestry.png
    adim-ancestry.png
    1 MB · Views: 665
Is ADIM related to the Vasilek some US Army ordnance contractors put on a HMMWV a few years ago ("Scorpion"), or is that just coincidence?
 
Kat Tsun said:
Is ADIM related to the Vasilek some US Army ordnance contractors put on a HMMWV a few years ago ("Scorpion"), or is that just coincidence?
Click to expand...

Does the Vasilek have an EM recoil brake?
 
Active recoil isn't "EM", unless you mean the stators. It's just a disc brake like on a plane or something.

ADIM has a totally-not-suspicious-at-all resemblance to a 2B9 on a motorized pedestal.

OTOH, if using 2B9 as justification to pursue a magazine-fed gun-mortar was the only way the US Army could get a modern mortar, then I don't really blame them. I guess Vasilek would require a new suspension for HMMWV or something, and Americans are too scrupulous to forgo patent licencing anyway.

If they can put it inside a mechanized carrier like Bradley, it might even be a decent competitor to AMOS.
 
Kat Tsun said:
Active recoil isn't "EM", unless you mean the stators. It's just a disc brake like on a plane or something.

ADIM has a totally-not-suspicious-at-all resemblance to a 2B9 on a motorized pedestal.

OTOH, if using 2B9 as justification to pursue a magazine-fed gun-mortar was the only way the US Army could get a modern mortar, then I don't really blame them. I guess Vasilek would require a new suspension for HMMWV or something, and Americans are too scrupulous to forgo patent licencing anyway.

If they can put it inside a mechanized carrier like Bradley, it might even be a decent competitor to AMOS.
Click to expand...

I failed to detect an answer to the question in your reply. Perhaps you should highlight it and then get on with the discursion.
 
No, it's a conventional hydraulic buffer. I'm not suggesting what you seem to think, but I also don't think that ADIM would exist (at least on HMMWV, maybe towed) if no one had thought of putting 2B9 on an HMMWV in the first place.

I am curious to what extent ADIM was influenced by the experiments using 2B9 the US Army did, whether or not that led to a requirement for a HMMWV-mounted gun-mortar or if ADIM and Scorpion were the result of the same already extant requirement, whether ADIM and Scorpion were both being presented to a disinterested US Army, or if it is actually interested in fielding ADIM, and whether Scorpion led to ADIM by way of inspiration.

My implication was more to unoriginality in concept, not design, since ADIM post-dates Scorpion by about a decade, and both were presented to the US Army as possible new weapons. Scorpion just turned out to be a lemon and no one bought it, though the pessimist in me says the same will be true of ADIM despite its relatively novel approach to recoil reduction.

Something like ADIM would be very useful for IBCTs. They would no longer rely on their towed mortars at least.
 

Attachments

  • hmmwv-scorpion.jpg
    hmmwv-scorpion.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 575
Kat Tsun said:
No, it's a conventional hydraulic buffer. I'm not suggesting what you seem to think, but I also don't think that ADIM would exist (at least on HMMWV, maybe towed) if no one had thought of putting 2B9 on an HMMWV in the first place.

I am curious to what extent ADIM was influenced by the experiments using 2B9 the US Army did, whether or not that led to a requirement for a HMMWV-mounted gun-mortar or if ADIM and Scorpion were the result of the same already extant requirement, whether ADIM and Scorpion were both being presented to a disinterested US Army, or if it is actually interested in fielding ADIM, and whether Scorpion led to ADIM by way of inspiration.

My implication was more to unoriginality in concept, not design, since ADIM post-dates Scorpion by about a decade, and both were presented to the US Army as possible new weapons. Scorpion just turned out to be a lemon and no one bought it, though the pessimist in me says the same will be true of ADIM despite its relatively novel approach to recoil reduction.

Something like ADIM would be very useful for IBCTs. They would no longer rely on their towed mortars at least.
Click to expand...

I think the motivation for a breech-loading, autoloader fed, low-recoil mortar has been motivated as much by long-standing AC-130 integration desires as it has been for light vehicle mounting. A roll-on/roll-off system has obvious appeal for a gunship.

One of the recently published ADIM patents is attached; it's very hard to discern a Scorpion or 2B9 ancestry. XM325 perhaps.
 

Attachments

  • adim-patent.pdf
    883.3 KB · Views: 21
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-mobile-protected-firepower-program-big-guns-the-17947

I know I've been told launch signature detection makes LOSAT/CKEM not practicable but I don't know how you go light with the hitting power/speed of a 120mm cannon and not end up at 40 plus tons?
 
bobbymike said:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-armys-mobile-protected-firepower-program-big-guns-the-17947

I know I've been told launch signature detection makes LOSAT/CKEM not practicable but I don't know how you go light with the hitting power/speed of a 120mm cannon and not end up at 440 plus tons?
Click to expand...

Now that Abrams is getting the FCS Ammunition Data Link, I'm anticipating (hoping for?) a revival of MRM.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom