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

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
526
MGS uses the "low profile turret" developed for the Teledyne Expeditionary Tank, which lost the AGS competition to the CCV-L. Knocks against that vehicle included that the turret, while innovative, was cramped and the autoloader stunk. While improvements have been made, fundamentally the limits of that turret still exist.

Recall also that Stryker was intended to be an interim system with a fair number of shortcuts favoring rapid adoption over optimal performance, and MGS specifically was a "well since we can't have AGS, what CAN we do in the near term?" solution.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,465
Reaction score
911

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
414
Reaction score
823
OSHKOSH, Wis. (June 4, 2021) — The U.S. Army Contracting Command – Detroit Arsenal (ACC-DTA) announced that it has awarded Oshkosh Defense, a wholly owned subsidiary of Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE: OSK), a $942.9M contract to integrate a 30MM Medium Caliber Weapon System (MCWS) onto the Stryker Double V Hull Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICVVA1). This upgrade will provide precision lethality capability to the Army’s Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT).

Oshkosh Defense teamed with Pratt Miller and Rafael Advanced Defense Systems to deliver an MCWS that provides increased lethality, accuracy, and range while maintaining the mobility and survivability of the Stryker ICVVA1. Oshkosh will integrate onto the ICVVA1 chassis a 30mm weapon system based on Rafael Advanced Defense Systems’ proven SAMSON family of turrets. The contract calls for the integration of the Oshkosh MCWS onto three Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) as well as a full spectrum of system technical support, interim contractor logistics support, and integrated product support.


www.defensenews.com/land/2021/06/03/army-chooses-winner-to-build-its-new-stryker-gun-system/
 
Last edited:

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
395
Reaction score
383
How capable would a turret setup on the above that at counter micro-UAS? It has airburst ammo but what about the sensors, turret response time and FCS?
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
414
Reaction score
823

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
395
Reaction score
383
Pretty old concept (2010?), does anyone know if anything have come from this?

C13DjJJVEAAngah.jpg

Gun Type / Explosion protected Type
15 ton
1 in C-130, 2 in C-2
dual recoil gun, direct,indirect fire (105mm) /
/ Large mine protected
in hub motors
4/8 man (crew? Passenger?)

Purpose: Asymmetric/Island

 
Last edited:

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
414
Reaction score
823
BAE?

One of the two competing designs for the Mobile Protected Firepower, the Army's new light tank, might be light enough to be airdropped, the leader of Army Futures Command told a Senate subcommittee June 15.

"Airdrop is not one of the requirements that we're currently pursuing," Gen. John Murray told the Senate Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee. "One of the vendors is significantly lighter than the other, and there could be potential there, but that's not an Army requirement."
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
526
BAE?

One of the two competing designs for the Mobile Protected Firepower, the Army's new light tank, might be light enough to be airdropped, the leader of Army Futures Command told a Senate subcommittee June 15.

"Airdrop is not one of the requirements that we're currently pursuing," Gen. John Murray told the Senate Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee. "One of the vendors is significantly lighter than the other, and there could be potential there, but that's not an Army requirement."
Yes, BAE. They've kept their footprint small and the basic vehicle without bolt-ons should still be light enough. You can bet that their reps and everyone from the 82nd involved with this mentions it any any opportunity.
 

Lc89

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
268
Reaction score
160
The GD prototype would weigh less if it did not use the same turret as the Abrams, which in my opinion it is a mistake to have proposed it. If this model wins, they should either create a new turret or recycle the one from the BAE prototype.
 

Similar threads

Top