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

Indeed it was, but I've been trying to track down this tale (possibly apocryphal) for a while.

Perhaps the fact that the tanks were being airlifted indicated that the Israelis were in the situation (I won't say losing, but...) that the general was describing.


Chris

NB only three tanks were delivered by C-5As before hostilities ceased. The influence was more psychological and political than material.
 
TomS said:
Because Land Rovers don't fit inside a V-22.

Very little seems to fit inside the V-22. I've often wonder why designers design aircraft that don't fit standard, pre-existing tactical formations and/or vehicles...

A Landrover will IIRC fit inside a Chinook, though...
 
Kadija_Man said:
TomS said:
Because Land Rovers don't fit inside a V-22.

Very little seems to fit inside the V-22. I've often wonder why designers design aircraft that don't fit standard, pre-existing tactical formations and/or vehicles...

The V-22 cabin is nearly exactly the same size as the CH-46 cabin. That's not an accident.
 
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Fiberglass_armor_with_printed_electronic_antenna_tested_999.html
 
TomS said:
Kadija_Man said:
TomS said:
Because Land Rovers don't fit inside a V-22.

Very little seems to fit inside the V-22. I've often wonder why designers design aircraft that don't fit standard, pre-existing tactical formations and/or vehicles...

The V-22 cabin is nearly exactly the same size as the CH-46 cabin. That's not an accident.

24 troops is not what I'd call a "tactical formation". It is smaller than a standard infantry platoon. Do you have the cabin dimensions?
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQVWH3L0YiM#t=166

GD's Flyer 60 light vehicle
 
Kadija_Man said:
TomS said:
The V-22 cabin is nearly exactly the same size as the CH-46 cabin. That's not an accident.

24 troops is not what I'd call a "tactical formation". It is smaller than a standard infantry platoon. Do you have the cabin dimensions?
The dimensions for the V-22 are a bit elusive, but NAVAIR says

Length: 24 feet, 4 inches (7.41m);
Width: 5 feet, 11 inches (1.80m);
Height: 6 feet (1.83m)

Compare to the CH-46

Length, max, 24.17 feet (7.37m);
Width, max, 6.00 feet (1.83m);
Height, max, 6.00 feet (1.83m)

Point being that when the V-22 specs were being set, the requirement was basically to take a CH-46 cargo compartment and build a faster aircraft around it. No one was overly concerned about fitting vehicles inside, because that had never been a major role for the CH-46.

As far as troop capacity, it's largely down to the need to maximize the carrying capacity versus shipboard footprint. A capacity of 24 troops is roughly half a Marine rifle platoon, meaning that two aircraft can carry the whole platoon, rather than four aircraft per platoon using the Army doctrine of one squad per helo. It's a lot easier to fit two V-22s on an amphibious assault ship than four or five Blackhawks or similar sized aircraft.
 
I wasn't suggesting using a capacity of 10 (1 section/squad) but rather perhaps a capacity of 34 (1 platoon). Marines have always been an odd bunch in their unit sizes.

Even so, A landrover short-wheel base Defender has a wheelbase of 1.48 metres. It should fit inside that cabin width. Armed with ATGW or an automatic grenade launcher or a HMG it would be a potent addition to any airborne force.
 
Hot Breath said:
I wasn't suggesting using a capacity of 10 (1 section/squad) but rather perhaps a capacity of 34 (1 platoon). Marines have always been an odd bunch in their unit sizes.

A Marine rifle platoon is 43 people (three 13-man squads plus a 4-man HQ) plus the inevitable odds and ends (attachment from the Company Weapons platoon, forward observer, sniper team, or whatever else). To lift a platoon in one aircraft takes something close to a CH-53.


The dimensions I gave are "maximum." Judging from the specs of the proposed vehicles for the V-22, the effective dimensions at the door are a bit less. I very much doubt that a Defender will fit through the door with enough room to be done in the field.
 
http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/land/vehicles/2015/09/05/us-army--issue-ultralight-vehicle-rfp-next-year/71282064/

Renamed the Ground Mobility Vehicle
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/October/Pages/Army%E2%80%99sLightCombatVehicleGainingTraction.aspx
 
https://twitter.com/BAESystemsInc/status/651497750614417408
CQqVwGiW8AAmMaJ.jpg
 
The M8 rises from the grave. Looks like a new module on the turret front -- maybe active defense of some sort? Also looks like rubber band track instead of linked track.


PS: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20151006006804/en/BAE-Systems-Showcase-Technologies-Meet-Complex-U.S.#.VhSOff3D_MI

Mobile Protected Firepower: BAE Systems will exhibit a solution to meet the U.S. Army’s proposed requirement for a Mobile Protected Firepower capability, which would involve an expeditionary light tank that could be air-dropped from a C-130 aircraft. The company’s solution is based on the purpose-built M8 Armored Gun System, modernized with mature technologies from the CV90 family of infantry fighting vehicles and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.
 
UD/BAE was toying around with a lot of updates for the M8 concept over the years. Seeing the band track makes me wonder if the Hybrid Drive from the Thunderbolt demonstrator is also in there, although that might have a weight penalty that impairs its ability to be air-dropped.
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/northrop-grumman-scout-truck-is-laser-ready-boasts-huge-power-generation/

100Kw in a vehicle this size could you get 'railgun' power in a tank sized vehicle?
 
Land Warfare
"AUSA 2015: BAE light tank goes back to the future"
12th October 2015 - 19:37 by Grant Turnbull in Washington DC

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2015-bae-goes-back-future-light-tank/

A two decade-old light tank design is being displayed by BAE Systems at the AUSA exhibition that it says could meet the US Army’s future mobile protected firepower (MPF) requirement.

Going against the general industry convention of releasing new technologies at trade shows, BAE Systems has a M8 Armoured Gun System (AGS) prototype built in the 1990s on its stand.

The company is even showing the original promotional video made in that period on a TV screen next to the vehicle. Sometimes old ideas are the best.

The M8 was selected to equip the 82nd Airborne Division in 1992 but was subsequently cancelled in 1997. Though there was some interest overseas, the M8 never achieved success and only six prototypes were built.

But the requirement for a light tank has never gone away and the US Army has just released a new request for information for a MPF vehicle, according to industry sources.

Explaining the decision to display the vehicle, BAE Systems’ director of new and amphibious vehicles, Deepak Bazaz said it was designed to stir debate about the army’s future requirements for a light tank capability.

‘What we are trying to do here is start the conversation, because the requirements haven’t solidified for MPF,’ Bazaz told Shephard. ‘We don’t want to put in a bunch of technologies and have someone say “that’s not quite what I’m looking for”.’

The M8 has shared components with the M1 Abrams MBT and Bradley IFV, meaning that technology from the modernisation of those vehicles could be transferred to the light tank platform.

‘All those platforms are still in the fleet today so what have they done to modernise their systems?’ said Bazaz.

Some technologies that could be integrated onto the platform include a situational awareness package and a digital architecture to aid with future sensor integration and networked operations.

A lightweight rubber band track derived from the company’s CV90 IFV has already been fitted, which ‘drops a significant amount of weight,’ according to Bazaz.

The platform on display features a soft recoil 105mm gun turret – which houses the gunner and commander – with a 21-round magazine capable of firing 12 rounds a minute. The gun also features an autoload capability.

Powered by a Detroit Diesel 580hp powerpack, the M8 can achieve 45mph on-road and around 30mph off-road.

With Level 1 armour the vehicle weighs around 30,000lb but that increases to 50,000lb with additional armour, such as armour boxes that can be fitted to the sides. In its Level 1 configuration, a single M8 can be transported in a C-130 and three can be transported in a C-17.

BAE Systems said it would be capable of providing a prototype to the army 18 months after a contract award. There could also be additional opportunities for the M8 as well, including exports.

‘Our target is the US Army, but that opens up other markets as well,’ said Bazaz.
 
bobbymike said:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/northrop-grumman-scout-truck-is-laser-ready-boasts-huge-power-generation/

100Kw in a vehicle this size could you get 'railgun' power in a tank sized vehicle?

Railgun tank?

Let's say 10MJ muzzle energy, accelerated in 10ms -> 10MJ/0.01 = 1000MW = 1GW

If efficiency is about 30% then the required power is 3.3GW...
 
Remember that railguns don't run on continuous input -- you use the engines to charge a pulse power system and discharge that at those very high powerr levels for extremely short periods.


But 100 kW is still well short of serious railgun levels -- the General Atomics land-based Blitzer (10 MJ) has a couple of tractor trailers with generators and a pulsed power supply, IIRC.
 
10 MJ / 100 kW = 100 s

Assuming 30% efficiency the gun could fire once every 5 minutes.
 
mz said:
10 MJ / 100 kW = 100 s

Assuming 30% efficiency the gun could fire once every 5 minutes.

The problem is not energy, but power.

Current consumer grade lithium battery is about 1MJ/kg IIRC so you need only 50kg of battery for 50MJ. The problem is you need to release 10MJ in a very short time, i.e. under 10ms, which in itself requires very high power output, at 3.3GW. With battery you can not release that kind of energy, and you need e.g. supercapacitor which the energy density is much lower than battery. Also there is a limit on how much power the energy storage can release (how fast). It is similar to fuel and explosives, fuel has high energy, but can not release it fast enough. After all, you still need 3.3GW to fire a single shot, and it is 4 orders of magnitude higher than that 100kw laser.
 
Published on Oct 21, 2015

The Expeditionary Light Tank is an improved version of the M8 AGS (Armoured Gun System) designed and manufactured by the Company BAE Systems. Following an international competition, in mid-1992 the US Army selected the FMC Corporation, Ground Systems Division (now United Defense LP), to design and build its Armored Gun System (AGS) to replace the M551 Sheridan light reconnaissance vehicle uses mainly by U.S. airborne troops.

https://youtu.be/WPQjHLYx954
 
ynm said:
mz said:
10 MJ / 100 kW = 100 s

Assuming 30% efficiency the gun could fire once every 5 minutes.

The problem is not energy, but power.

Current consumer grade lithium battery is about 1MJ/kg IIRC so you need only 50kg of battery for 50MJ. The problem is you need to release 10MJ in a very short time, i.e. under 10ms, which in itself requires very high power output, at 3.3GW. With battery you can not release that kind of energy, and you need e.g. supercapacitor which the energy density is much lower than battery. Also there is a limit on how much power the energy storage can release (how fast). It is similar to fuel and explosives, fuel has high energy, but can not release it fast enough. After all, you still need 3.3GW to fire a single shot, and it is 4 orders of magnitude higher than that 100kw laser.

Wasn't there a study somewhere for a railgun equipped Leopard 3? It was being compared to an advanced conventional cannon. Late 1980s/Early 1990s stuff but they seemed to think it was plausible.
 
Avimimus said:
ynm said:
mz said:
10 MJ / 100 kW = 100 s

Assuming 30% efficiency the gun could fire once every 5 minutes.

The problem is not energy, but power.

Current consumer grade lithium battery is about 1MJ/kg IIRC so you need only 50kg of battery for 50MJ. The problem is you need to release 10MJ in a very short time, i.e. under 10ms, which in itself requires very high power output, at 3.3GW. With battery you can not release that kind of energy, and you need e.g. supercapacitor which the energy density is much lower than battery. Also there is a limit on how much power the energy storage can release (how fast). It is similar to fuel and explosives, fuel has high energy, but can not release it fast enough. After all, you still need 3.3GW to fire a single shot, and it is 4 orders of magnitude higher than that 100kw laser.

Wasn't there a study somewhere for a railgun equipped Leopard 3? It was being compared to an advanced conventional cannon. Late 1980s/Early 1990s stuff but they seemed to think it was plausible.

Sure that wasn't one of the Electro-Thermal chemical cannons (aka plasma cannons) kicking around during the period? The DSSP guys are still examining it per the attached pdf.

Apropos of the M8 AGS post above, I believe an ETC cannon was tested on that platform.
 

Attachments

  • etc-cannon-dssp-reduced.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 76
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/December/Pages/ArmyMaySlowDownProcurementofNewLightReconnaissanceVehicle.aspx
 
lastdingo said:
That link doesn't work for me.
Works for me must mean you're a security threat? ;D

Try the main website National Defense Magazine and find the article that way ??
 
Sorry folks,
But I see "air-droppable" and "armoured" as mutually exclusive concepts.

If you want to deploy "the firstest with the mostest " off-airfield, then you cannot afford to drop armour.
At most you can drop a semi-monocoque hull who's belly-plates also transmit suspension loads from the wheels to the frame.

Yes, I said "wheels" because wheels are but far the best way to reduce chassis/curb weight and light curb weight is by far the best way to improve cross-country mobility.
If you worry that the chassis is too light to fire a 105mm KE gun, then add a recoil spade .... like the artillery do. Sure, needing a recoil spade limits your ability to fire on the move, but a properly designed recoil spade can be used - like a bulldozer blade - to dig gun pits, ambush sangers, etc.

If you are going to install a large-bore gun, then allow high elevation to A: allow you to kill enemy combatants a in the top floors of tall buildings (think Burj al Arab) and B: provide howitzer-like fire-support to paratroopers.

If you really need armour, then land it with the second assault wave and bolt the extra armour on during a lull in fighting. Bolt-on armour is an old concept dating back to WW2, and is still needed to respond to changing threats.

Definitely limit weight and dimensions to what can be carried on existing C-130 airplanes.
The idea of limiting dimensions to what will fit into an ISO 20 foot long shipping container also helps keep weight and cost within reason. ISO shipping containers vastly reduce the cost of shipping and open up a whole slew of pre-positioning possibilities. Imagine a bus full of "tourists"
unlocking a shipping container and pulling out an army's worth of weapons!
Right out of a Clive Cussler novel!
Hah!
Hah!
 
http://blog.plasansasa.com/armored-vehicles-its-all-about-strength-safety-and-simplicity?utm_campaign=February%202016%20blog%20post%3A%20Armored%20Vehicles%3A%20It%E2%80%99s%20All%20about%20Strength%2C%20Safety%20and%20Simplicity&utm_content=28883095&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
 
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/army-to-upgun-all-strykers-30-mm-javelin/
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa-global-force/2016/03/17/northrop-grumman-hellhound-continues-draw-crowd-ausa/81906772/

Please put into a Walking Dead episode, 30MM cannon for some Zombie 'explodin'
 
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/06/03/army-nixes-light-recon-vehicle-taps-humvee-replacement-mission.html

This will not end well. At all.
 
Does anyone really think the Army will order one of these?
 
I think they want to buy an MPF vehicle, certainly. Whether they can make the money work is a more open question.
 
Moose said:
I think they want to buy an MPF vehicle, certainly. Whether they can make the money work is a more open question.

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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom