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

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
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
11,346
Reaction score
2,946

riggerrob

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,697
Reaction score
1,156

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
667
Reaction score
1,358
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: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678
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
667
Reaction score
1,358

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678
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
667
Reaction score
1,358
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
1,564
Reaction score
693
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
314
Reaction score
208
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.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
778
Reaction score
134
Are the ongoing issues with the British Army's Ajax likely to influence OFMV selection in anyway? How is it that a rather mature and proven platform (a variant of the ASCOD 2) is having so many issues?
 

muttly

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
168
Reaction score
86
The U.S has never been happy with their air drop tanks.
Any one remember the Sheridan 155mm.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
693
Are the ongoing issues with the British Army's Ajax likely to influence OFMV selection in anyway? How is it that a rather mature and proven platform (a variant of the ASCOD 2) is having so many issues?
Well before the Ajax news broke, GDLS was already stressing how their vehicle was not simply Ajax with a 105mm. The running gear and power pack are different, and they're being built by seasoned vets of the M1 family. Doesn't mean it wouldn't have the same or similar issues, of course.

The "how" of Ajax's problems depends a lot on details we are still short on. I hope a proper UK gov investigation, or credible investigative reporting, provides that someday. Based on the reporting so far, it's mainly a project management problem. The information you need to make the right decision can be out there and the wrong decision is still made because the person with the authority to make the call is too naive, overwhelmed, rushed, disinterested, or just plain stupid to do the legwork.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678
Were just digging around ideas on this topic....and I hit

combatreform....

Still, the pitch of fielding 106mm RR as interim light direct fire solution seems interesting and would be far more available than say XM-8.

The T114 BAT turret on a modern vehicle should enable good HE capability with a small development time and no exposed crews. (may even fit on a heliborn vehicle) A Raven gun can be the longer term objective.
5veCBBW01ASgfo0yP0R2Esxsd4puvi__nvT-shNhrHw.jpg


It doesn't seem worthwhile to have a completely new vehicle type to extend dumb-fire HE range a bit. AT fires can be done with better with Javelin on a RWS as 105mm does not defeat MBT threats.

Is "dual-recoil" another way of saying soft-recoil?
997201ebd035799ad9fa3b8da79dc783.JPG

c900f124164231bae562eb8cea3551ca.JPG


The gun mounting absorbs part of the recoil by shifting back. This lowers ROF but reduces impulse, and adds weight and cost. The system is used in the following ww2 guns
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,819
Reaction score
2,864
I think the UK had the best approach in the 70s with its CVRT family. They fit easily inside a C130 (originally AW681) or underneath a CH47/53.
Changes in UK Defence Policy after 1967 meant they went to Germany as recce/armoured cav. But they could have re-equipped the three airportable brigades effectively.
They relied on the Swingfire ATGW vehicle (Striker) to deal with MBTs but the 76mm gun (Scorpion) and 30mm cannon (Scimitar) could handle other stuff. Light and fast they could go places (Falklands) that Chieftains and FV432 could not.
A modern equivalent would suit the UK well.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678

FA3yIswVIAAhUpo.jpg

EMAV was designed with a narrow hull to ensure it is transportable in the V-22 and CH-47.

Can this really fit?
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
752
Reaction score
637

View attachment 665754

EMAV was designed with a narrow hull to ensure it is transportable in the V-22 and CH-47.

Can this really fit?
Looks like a Matilda.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946

View attachment 665754

EMAV was designed with a narrow hull to ensure it is transportable in the V-22 and CH-47.

Can this really fit?
Looks like a Matilda.
Just waltzing around the battlefield
 

uk 75

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Messages
3,819
Reaction score
2,864

View attachment 665754

EMAV was designed with a narrow hull to ensure it is transportable in the V-22 and CH-47.

Can this really fit?
At this rate the US might as well have one of these
 

Attachments

  • WH215736.jpg
    WH215736.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 26

Similar threads

Top