Register here

Author Topic: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles  (Read 50609 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #165 on: March 20, 2017, 06:55:39 pm »
Army Will Start Experimenting With New Combat Vehicle Concepts

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=2442
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #166 on: March 22, 2017, 06:07:35 pm »
https://www.defensetech.org/2017/03/21/army-testing-ripsaw-super-tank/?ESRC=dod-bz.nl

Always thought one of these with a mini-gun on top would make a great urban assault vehicle.
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 636
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #168 on: June 21, 2017, 01:15:30 pm »
About the only way MPF happens is if key KASC members really adopt it and push it along through the inevitable issues that will come up, so good news for the program if they're showing this much interest.


Offline lastdingo

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 464
  • Blogger http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.de/
    • Defence and Freedom blog
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #170 on: June 25, 2017, 01:25:05 pm »
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?


The fire signature of a 120 mm gun is huge as well, and not considered impractical.
The smoke of a LOSAT/CKEM may in fact aid in obscuring the launcher from counterfires, kinda built-in smoke concealment.

More importantly, there are some low smoke and small flame solid fuel rockets.
Some of the newer ATGMs had these, and hopes on the CL-20 compound are still high.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 794
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #172 on: June 29, 2017, 11:23:20 am »
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-on-fast-paced-track-to-get-mobile-protected-firepower-into-force

Needs to be done, but IMHO born as an obsolete system.  needs a helova APS.. and not confident that is on the horizon until that program gets straighten up.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 125
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #174 on: August 26, 2017, 02:49:15 am »
The fire signature of a 120 mm gun is huge as well, and not considered impractical.
The smoke of a LOSAT/CKEM may in fact aid in obscuring the launcher from counterfires, kinda built-in smoke concealment.

More importantly, there are some low smoke and small flame solid fuel rockets.
Some of the newer ATGMs had these, and hopes on the CL-20 compound are still high.

More importantly, it obscures itself from the tracker, which is rather problematic.

Every US kinetic energy missile project featured a different guidance system;

LOSAT: Interrupted laser beamrider
ADKEM: MMW command line of sight, but active MMW was also considered.
XROD/MRM-KE: Active MMW/Semi-active laser
CKEM: Sidescatter beamrider

While the Norwegian/US HATM and the German HATM never seem to have gotten to the point of testing a guidance system and the Canadian HEMI, which was never built, was also to use an interrupted beamrider guidance system. All of which suggests a completely satisfactory solution was never found, the last DOT&E report to mention the LOSAT indicated it had not yet demonstrated a sufficient kill probability at long range. The cost of these missiles was also quite high, the LOSATs unit cost was projected at $238,000 in 2000, against $78,000 thousand for the Javelin and just $5,000 for the M829A3 in the same year.

The projected cost for a LOSAT launcher and twelve rounds would have been $6.5 million in then-year dollars. That doesn't compare favourably with the same year cost of a M1A2 at $7.84 million.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7365
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #175 on: August 26, 2017, 07:41:27 am »
The fire signature of a 120 mm gun is huge as well, and not considered impractical.
The smoke of a LOSAT/CKEM may in fact aid in obscuring the launcher from counterfires, kinda built-in smoke concealment.

More importantly, there are some low smoke and small flame solid fuel rockets.
Some of the newer ATGMs had these, and hopes on the CL-20 compound are still high.

More importantly, it obscures itself from the tracker, which is rather problematic.

Every US kinetic energy missile project featured a different guidance system;

LOSAT: Interrupted laser beamrider
ADKEM: MMW command line of sight, but active MMW was also considered.
XROD/MRM-KE: Active MMW/Semi-active laser
CKEM: Sidescatter beamrider

While the Norwegian/US HATM and the German HATM never seem to have gotten to the point of testing a guidance system and the Canadian HEMI, which was never built, was also to use an interrupted beamrider guidance system. All of which suggests a completely satisfactory solution was never found, the last DOT&E report to mention the LOSAT indicated it had not yet demonstrated a sufficient kill probability at long range. The cost of these missiles was also quite high, the LOSATs unit cost was projected at $238,000 in 2000, against $78,000 thousand for the Javelin and just $5,000 for the M829A3 in the same year.

The projected cost for a LOSAT launcher and twelve rounds would have been $6.5 million in then-year dollars. That doesn't compare favourably with the same year cost of a M1A2 at $7.84 million.
Thanks for the information. For me CKEM/LOSAT was the only way to give smaller and much lighter vehicles MBT killing ability closely comparable to a 120mm gun.
"I love those who can smile in trouble, who can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but they whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves their conduct, will pursue their principles unto death." - Leonardo da Vinci

Offline Kadija_Man

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #176 on: August 26, 2017, 07:17:48 pm »
What ever happened to the Fibre-Optic guidance system of FOG-M?

It seems on the surface to be an ideal solution to this problem.  Long range, heavy warhead and it strikes it's target from overhead, avoiding the heavy armour a horizontal weapon has to attack.  It could be mounted on a light truck as well, which makes it very air portable.

Offline GTX

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2352
  • All hail the God of Frustration!!!
    • Beyond The Sprues
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #177 on: August 27, 2017, 11:52:53 am »
What ever happened to the Fibre-Optic guidance system of FOG-M?


FOG-M was cancelled in 1990.  The follow-on EFOGM was cancelled in 2002.  See here.

Offline Void

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 125
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #178 on: August 27, 2017, 02:30:00 pm »
It is quite a popular option outside the US. The Israeli Spike series, except the Spike NLOS which uses a wireless link, are all FOG missiles. The new Spike II is especially impressive looking.

Part of the reason is that the during the AAWS-M competition the FOG missile was rejected in favour of what would become the Javelin and this was the last completely new tactical missile to enter US Army service. Subsequently only modifications of the TOW, Javelin and Hellfire have made it to the battlefield.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2288
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #179 on: August 27, 2017, 02:52:23 pm »
It's not clear how many delivered versions of Spike actually use the fiber. The SR and MR versions are fire-and-forget only, like Javelin.