Register here

Author Topic: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles  (Read 71095 times)

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #271 on: November 03, 2018, 02:04:42 pm »
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #272 on: November 04, 2018, 01:22:25 pm »
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.

Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :o

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 864
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #273 on: November 04, 2018, 07:51:17 pm »
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.

Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :o
Hey I'm not saying I agree with everything, just that the plan now is definitely favoring something other than Bradley. In their defense, they're seeking something of a hybrid solution if what I've read holds up. A proven hull/architecture with more growth capability than Bradley sporting a new (or recent) Turret with a lot of modern "goodies" baked in.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #274 on: November 08, 2018, 07:14:04 pm »
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.

Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :o
Hey I'm not saying I agree with everything, just that the plan now is definitely favoring something other than Bradley. In their defense, they're seeking something of a hybrid solution if what I've read holds up. A proven hull/architecture with more growth capability than Bradley sporting a new (or recent) Turret with a lot of modern "goodies" baked in.

Stryker upgrades are causing multiple problems a NGCV/OMFV needs to be designed from scratch . Maybe the Griffin IV will be close,, but COTS??

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2011.10.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7792
  • The path not taken.
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #275 on: November 08, 2018, 11:57:45 pm »
That cult has still to be purged, alas.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Pioneer

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1536
  • Seek out and close with the enemy
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #276 on: November 11, 2018, 02:24:47 pm »
Regarding the difference in height between Bradley IFV and CV90 IFV, can I add/ask if the the fact that the original XM723 / M2 design was somewhat 'bastardised' so as to facilitate the M3's reconnaissance and scout role/mission?
Also wondering if its prudent to consider that the M2 Bradly was designed not just as standard to deploy two BGM-71 TOW ATGM's, but to carry an addition five missiles, unlike the CV-90.

Oh, and one should maybe keep in mind that there was much time difference - and hence philosophy between the XM723 prototype and the CV90!

Might I also add that Hägglunds/Bofors obviously must have gotten the CV90 design right, as emphasized by the successful export record, as opposed to that of the Bradley!


Regards
Pioneer
« Last Edit: November 11, 2018, 03:47:00 pm by Pioneer »
And remember…remember the glory is not the exhortation of war, but the exhortation of man.
Mans nobility, made transcendent in the fiery crucible of war.
Faithfulness and fortitude.
Gentleness and compassion.
I am honored to be your brother.”

— Lt Col Ralph Honner DSO M

Offline riggerrob

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 251
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #277 on: November 11, 2018, 07:41:46 pm »
On the subject of chest size, consider how a soldier's chest expands when he adds: armour, magazine pouches, Camelback, radios, winter clothing and a large backpack. A 150 pound soldier might carry almost 150 pounds of equipment ..... effectively doubling his weight and girth.

Consider the old British Saracen 8-wheeled APC. The interior was so cramped that British soldiers adopted chest ammo pouches because there was not enough bench-width to hold conventional ammo, canteens, pistol holsters, flak vests, etc. - hung on web belts - and this was in Northern Ireland where most foot patrols lasted less than a day.

Air Forces design cockpits to fit 95th percentile males and 5th percentile females. 95th percentile means that 95% of the population are smaller than him.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #278 on: November 14, 2018, 04:00:21 pm »
That was January, this is now. The NGCV plan has evolved and OMFV has accelerated.

Soldiers demands on Bradley capability are are 'accessory dependent' and "previous engineering, testing and experience dependent" to jump to some half solution rather than waiting for revolutionary vehicle capability.
Buying into a vehicle that has to have all these capabilities retrofitted rather than a developed revolutionary vehicle that has all of the capabilities (and more) already built in, seems ill advised to the extreme.

Some $600m already for Bradley upgrades and yet a COTS half solution :o
Hey I'm not saying I agree with everything, just that the plan now is definitely favoring something other than Bradley. In their defense, they're seeking something of a hybrid solution if what I've read holds up. A proven hull/architecture with more growth capability than Bradley sporting a new (or recent) Turret with a lot of modern "goodies" baked in.

Stryker upgrades are causing multiple problems a NGCV/OMFV needs to be designed from scratch . Maybe the Griffin IV will be close,, but COTS??

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/10/army-in-final-stages-of-hashing-out-stryker-lethality-requirements/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2011.10.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew. Are Marines supposed the hold their breath and hold on to drag lines for the 13 mile swim. Can't understand why the AAAV wasn't unscrewed by another contractor and continued. There will be no revolutionary vehicle until the USG takes command of their programs. Contractors make money by slapping Next Generation on a current generation vehicle. Stock holders don't risk prototypes, governments do. 

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/09/24/us-marine-corps-kills-amphibious-assault-vehicle-upgrade-program/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ebb%2024.09.18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief

Offline Colonial-Marine

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 565
  • Fighting the UAV mafia.
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #279 on: November 14, 2018, 05:57:47 pm »
ACV seems more like an effort to get a Stryker-type infantry carrier vehicle with some amphibious capability. Understandable considering how often the amtracks are used hauling marines around and supporting them well inland. I would prefer to see a heavier armament like a 30mm cannon on it however.

EFV (AAAV) may have been asking too much with the technology of the time, I don't know the answer to that question but something like it to replace the AAVP-7A1 would have definitely been nice. I wonder "ACV 2.0" will have a similar high speed requirement.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #280 on: November 14, 2018, 07:07:31 pm »

Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.

Wrong.  ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #281 on: November 15, 2018, 08:09:26 am »

Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.

Wrong.  ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
Ok read somewhere differently, regardless bring back the EFV w/ speed to the beach and it's larger troop carry or watch support for a Marine disappear.  Single squad vehicle reduces the USMC down to Royal Marine status and difficulty explaining the need for expensive vehicles as the capability will not be there to support the cost..

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #282 on: November 15, 2018, 09:57:29 am »

Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.

Wrong.  ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
Ok read somewhere differently, regardless bring back the EFV w/ speed to the beach and it's larger troop carry or watch support for a Marine disappear.  Single squad vehicle reduces the USMC down to Royal Marine status and difficulty explaining the need for expensive vehicles as the capability will not be there to support the cost..

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.  The Royal Marines have no vehicles that can swim ashore at all -- Bv10S is amphibious only to the extend to wading ashore form landing craft or crossing rivers inland, and its protection is grossly inferior to ACV. 

I wouldn't say that ACV is optimal, but AAAV was simply a bad solution to a questionable need.  Way too expensive for the capacity it offered, and the speed/range just didn't make sense.  A more logical approach would have been a more lineal LVTP-7 successor with incremental improvements in protection and seakeeping, plus a significant firepower upgrade. 

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1080
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles
« Reply #283 on: November 15, 2018, 04:05:05 pm »

Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.

Wrong.  ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
Ok read somewhere differently, regardless bring back the EFV w/ speed to the beach and it's larger troop carry or watch support for a Marine disappear.  Single squad vehicle reduces the USMC down to Royal Marine status and difficulty explaining the need for expensive vehicles as the capability will not be there to support the cost..

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.  The Royal Marines have no vehicles that can swim ashore at all -- Bv10S is amphibious only to the extend to wading ashore form landing craft or crossing rivers inland, and its protection is grossly inferior to ACV. 

I wouldn't say that ACV is optimal, but AAAV was simply a bad solution to a questionable need.  Way too expensive for the capacity it offered, and the speed/range just didn't make sense.  A more logical approach would have been a more lineal LVTP-7 successor with incremental improvements in protection and seakeeping, plus a significant firepower upgrade.

It silly simple and been covered before.
If a national amphibious force has only limited amphibious capable forces then the justification for a large force is simply gone (no justification for expensive aircraft helicopters or any large infrastructure). A few ACVs which carry only 13 is a joke in genuine Anti-access amphibious op which needs to be of size.  Essentially a Recon force, like a Recon Bn in current USMC is all a ACV can offer. The Royal Marines are essentially a very limited amphibious Specops.  The ACV would render the USMC w/o the LVTP-7 upgrades a Specops/Recon unit only .

The USMC has many detractors already and they would argue for the downsizing of the Marines to the size of Royal Marines w/ no large supporting infrastructure organic much of anything. .

Detractors w/ some justification claim the USMC is redundant and expensive. Most importantly if it can't mount a large amphibous operation. ie provide any real amphibious option for Anti-Access ...then why a USMC?? 

A vehicle carrying a decent number of Gyrenes and fast in the water is the only long term means of arguing there is amphibious option in Anti-Acess to present against those detractors. .