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

Bruno Anthony said:
The 80s era Vehicle Integrated Defense System (VIDS) a passive protection system also had a slew turret-to-detected threat feature.
Click to expand...
It was semi-automatic turret slew and tube elevation. A modern system would have fully automatic + fuze setting for the round.
 
bobbymike said:

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
There seems to be no improvement to 105mm MGS, a decades long disaster. Why hasn't RAVEN replaced that gun, it wou;d appearARES doesn't not or can't mature the technology or the DoD hasn't the will or resources to do the right thing. Contemporary threats are likely too much for even 50mm autocannon.
 
helmutkohl said:
Every time I hear that there is demand for something light

light weight fighters
light naval ships, etc

what ends up happening is they realize its not as useful in actual combat (or at least the way they want it to be used)
and end up building heavier fighter jets, heavier naval ships, etc

even the Russians are now realizing this with their tanks that are getting heavier now after years of relatively light designs.
Click to expand...
Thanks to all the great ideas when running projects, all platforms under the same category must increase in size, cost, and complexity with passing time.

The need for "light everything" therefore must come from upgrading previously different category of assets. Thus, medium transports with turrets added, upgraded armor and internal space shifted to ammo on situation. Scout vehicles upgraded with heavy, advanced ATGMs. Light transports with autocannon RWS, and so on. The same can be seen in other domains as well. Frigates with AEGIS and VLS because no way you can make a destroyer on 7k tons in 2020 without it being a deeply shameful embarrassment that is fully indicative of national and civilizational decline.

One of the difficulty with new MBTs is that a 100ton vehicle is against the forces of geology, while a 50ton AFV is by definition not a MAIN BATTLE combat vehicle (unless Asiatic totalitarian cultures with pure disdain for human life) and barely good enough as transport, while problems that can be solved by 70 ton vehicles can be ship of theseus into existence without a new shiny project to spotlight failure of procurement and incompetence of leadership.

jsport said:
bobbymike said:

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
There seems to be no improvement to 105mm MGS, a decades long disaster. Why hasn't RAVEN replaced that gun, it would appear ARES doesn't not or can't mature the technology or the DoD hasn't the will or resources to do the right thing. Contemporary threats are likely too much for even 50mm autocannon.
Click to expand...
Why spend money on a system whose main value is saving money on shooting holes in the ground? You are not trying to get tissue paper and bad gun/sensor platform into direct fire exchange with....

It is not like MPF is actually dead and demand a interim solution.
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
There seems to be no improvement to 105mm MGS, a decades long disaster. Why hasn't RAVEN replaced that gun, it wou;d appearARES doesn't not or can't mature the technology or the DoD hasn't the will or resources to do the right thing. Contemporary threats are likely too much for even 50mm autocannon.
Click to expand...
You do find the oddest things to crucify the Army on. RAVEN is of questionable utility to an infantry support vehicle given its backblast concerns, and that's even if you waved a magic wand to put it at a TRL and cost to make it attractive for placing on an existing vehicle. At any rate, Army's intended solution to the shortcomings of MGS is MPF, which should be a clear indication that the gun is considered less of an issue than the rest of the vehicle .
 
Moose said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers

Army Begins Fielding Upgraded Third-Generation Strykers
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
There seems to be no improvement to 105mm MGS, a decades long disaster. Why hasn't RAVEN replaced that gun, it wou;d appearARES doesn't not or can't mature the technology or the DoD hasn't the will or resources to do the right thing. Contemporary threats are likely too much for even 50mm autocannon.
Click to expand...
You do find the oddest things to crucify the Army on. RAVEN is of questionable utility to an infantry support vehicle given its backblast concerns, and that's even if you waved a magic wand to put it at a TRL and cost to make it attractive for placing on an existing vehicle. At any rate, Army's intended solution to the shortcomings of MGS is MPF, which should be a clear indication that the gun is considered less of an issue than the rest of the vehicle .
Click to expand...
Proximity to large caliber guns discharging is not ever a good look for infantry for various reasons. Infantry support requires only an autocannon, Given what the threat is transforming into, the gun is only logical focus for MPF.
 

Attachments

  • 2s25Sprut-SD.jpg
    2s25Sprut-SD.jpg
    947.7 KB · Views: 46
The US Army had one in the past: the M551 Sheridan. They did parachute them in tests, although I've no real idea on how successful the tests were.
 
Moose said:
RAVEN is of questionable utility to an infantry support vehicle given its backblast concerns
Click to expand...

The back blast analysis I read for RAVEN indicates it's sort of a hopped up 105/106mm recoilless in terms of back blast
danger zone.

Their argument is that because the major contributor to the danger zone is the missile effect of
unburned propellant expelled at high velocity, RAVEN might actually be better since it's much more efficient
than recoilless riles wrt unburned propellant.

View: https://youtu.be/xZE1ZOMTGmI?t=209
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
defense-update.com

GDLS Showcases a New Tracked Chassis for a 10-ton Military Robot - Defense Update:

General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has unveiled a tracked robotic platform (TRX) designed to meet the US Army’s ‘Robotic Combat Vehicle - Medium’ class requirement. Yesterday, TRX starred at the center of GDLS’ virtual display at the virtual Modern-Day Marine expo, hinting more information...
defense-update.com defense-update.com
Click to expand...
LOL. I'm thinking to myself "why did they crop the photo like that and omit the turret?"
 
Grey Havoc said:
They should have done at least a mockup of a sensor/weapons package.
Click to expand...

If you read the article, they do show an armed model. But I think the point here is the highlight that it is a blank canvas. It can carry any mission system that fits on the flattop.
 
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

GDLS Gets $1.2B For 144 Army Anti-Aircraft Strykers - Breaking Defense

General Dynamics Land Systems can now order materials to start building the first 28 vehicles, worth a total of $230 million, in 2021.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
The tracked Stryker always struck me as really good platform; it would be extremely useful to have SHORAD with significant off-road capability.
Click to expand...
GDLS isn't self-funding tracked Stryker anymore and DoD isn't interested in paying for it, so nothing likely there unless things change.
 
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
bobbymike said:
breakingdefense.com

GDLS Gets $1.2B For 144 Army Anti-Aircraft Strykers - Breaking Defense

General Dynamics Land Systems can now order materials to start building the first 28 vehicles, worth a total of $230 million, in 2021.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
The tracked Stryker always struck me as really good platform; it would be extremely useful to have SHORAD with significant off-road capability.
Click to expand...
GDLS isn't self-funding tracked Stryker anymore and DoD isn't interested in paying for it, so nothing likely there unless things change.
Click to expand...

I guess since the Army passed on a modernized Linebacker for IM-SHORAD, tracked capability isn't a priority.
 
During the Cold War the need for anti-armour support for airborne forces or helicopter assault troops was mainly met by long range Anti Tank Guided Weapons such as Malkara, Swingfire and TOW mounted on lightly or unarmoured vehicles. Only the US with the M551 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne had a light tank. The Soviet Union used the ASU85 assault gun.
Whether in Afghanistan or in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait such vehicles were delivered to airfields rather than dropped on the battlefield.
 
uk 75 said:
During the Cold War the need for anti-armour support for airborne forces or helicopter assault troops was mainly met by long range Anti Tank Guided Weapons such as Malkara, Swingfire and TOW mounted on lightly or unarmoured vehicles. Only the US with the M551 Sheridan in the 82nd Airborne had a light tank. The Soviet Union used the ASU85 assault gun.
Whether in Afghanistan or in the 1991 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait such vehicles were delivered to airfields rather than dropped on the battlefield.
Click to expand...
M551s were combat airdropped over Panama.
 
Last edited:
apologies, as this site explains
Would Scorpions or Scimitars (as in the Falklands) have been as effective? Was the air drop the only means of getting them there? (Panama City airfields available for air landing like Prague, Kabul, Saudi)
 
We had Scimitars in the Falklands but they were not utilised properly, mainly due to the personal opinions of some of the leadership. Their presence was wasted. I did wonder why some form of ATGM was not fitted to Scimitar, we had some for Recce troop but just the cannon in/on the turret.
 
Foo Fighter said:
We had Scimitars in the Falklands but they were not utilised properly, mainly due to the personal opinions of some of the leadership. Their presence was wasted. I did wonder why some form of ATGM was not fitted to Scimitar, we had some for Recce troop but just the cannon in/on the turret.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that the Scimitars actually could go over soft boggy ground easier than troops.
I think ATGM was not fitted because Swingfire had its own vehicle (Striker?) and also Scimitars were mainly intended to recce on the Inner German Border and hide/ run away if they met trouble
 
Scimitar was for recce but considering it could run into BMP and BMD types with ATGM in the WGTO, I think it SHOULD have been fitted with similar kit. Much more mobile than overloaded infantry and ankle/knee injuries were common as were lower spine muscular types but usually treated with simple paramedic methods.. Wet feet presented a similar problem to those in WWI. The upper echelon infantry commanders were not interested in using the fire suppression of the tracks due to being gung ho, imho and that of others.
 
uk 75 said:
Was the air drop the only means of getting them there? (Panama City airfields available for air landing like Prague, Kabul, Saudi)
Click to expand...

C-5s had landed four at the US AFB in the west of Panama; the seizure of the international airport in the east required an airdrop.

uk 75 said:
Would Scorpions or Scimitars (as in the Falklands) have been as effective?
Click to expand...
Hard to beat 152mm HEAT.
 

Attachments

  • m551-panama.pdf
    2.6 MB · Views: 23
marauder2048 said:
uk 75 said:
Was the air drop the only means of getting them there? (Panama City airfields available for air landing like Prague, Kabul, Saudi)
Click to expand...

C-5s had landed four at the US AFB in the west of Panama; the seizure of the international airport in the east required an airdrop.

uk 75 said:
Would Scorpions or Scimitars (as in the Falklands) have been as effective?
Click to expand...
Hard to beat 152mm HEAT.
Click to expand...

A very good persuader at the very least.
 
Foo Fighter said:
marauder2048 said:
Hard to beat 152mm HEAT.
Click to expand...
A very good persuader at the very least.
Click to expand...

What comes across in the "Armor" journal account was just how good 152mm HEAT was at penetrating
reinforced concrete.

The modern approaches to gun-fired reinforced bunker/barrier defeat seem to be based on HV penetrator
rounds with precise, programmable delay fuzes that permit the warhead to embed itself deep enough to
allow the detonation to push the rebar outwards.
 
High velocity weapons have their place on modern battlefields. For example, the 25 mm Chain guns mounted on LAV proved effective for reducing mud brick walls and grape-drying huts in Afghanistan.
HV weapons also allow much quicker response to moving targets.
Finally, 25 mm ammo is only a fraction of the cost of missiles.
 
Understand the recoil from conventional 152mm in the Sheridan was quite jolting to the crew.
 
riggerrob said:
High velocity weapons have their place on modern battlefields. For example, the 25 mm Chain guns mounted on LAV proved effective for reducing mud brick walls and grape-drying huts in Afghanistan.
HV weapons also allow much quicker response to moving targets.
Finally, 25 mm ammo is only a fraction of the cost of missiles.
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer. When I'm talking about HV penetrators, I'm talking about 120mm AMP (or related) MBT rounds.
Even 50mm autocannon is going to struggle punching unobstructed holes in single reinforced concrete.

AMP has an objective requirement of punching a 30 inch x 50 inch unobstructed hole in 8 inches of double reinforced concrete
with a single round.

The "Armor" article was claiming that the 152mm HEAT round was able to punch comparable or larger width holes
in "reinforced" concrete of the same average depth.
 
jsport said:
Understand the recoil from conventional 152mm in the Sheridan was quite jolting to the crew.
Click to expand...
There's more anecdote than data for the Sherdian but from the gunnery manuals, the shock seems to be an issue
mainly for quick follow-up shots on armor targets. Against barriers and bunkers, a la Panama, the recoil was not
cited as an issue.
 
I personnally talked to a crewman who said they (the crew) never wanted to fire anything but the missile because the tank so light.
 
What was so special about 152mm HEAT? Just deepness of penetration into concrete? Cuz if it's that... Then there's really very little to look at it in fact, especially today. HE-FRAG shell of 125mm is stronger than one of Sheridan. Same for HEAT. No reason for refreshed 120mm not having same superiority. And bringing back 152mm just for the sake of developing whole new set of ammunition... Is it worth it?
 
GARGEAN said:
What was so special about 152mm HEAT? Just deepness of penetration into concrete? Cuz if it's that... Then there's really very little to look at it in fact, especially today. HE-FRAG shell of 125mm is stronger than one of Sheridan. Same for HEAT. No reason for refreshed 120mm not having same superiority. And bringing back 152mm just for the sake of developing whole new set of ammunition... Is it worth it?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing because it was a big round on a light, mobile chassis. Besides AT4's, what other direct fire weapons did the 82nd Airborne have? There might have been a handful of M67 90mm rifles with engineer group and the Dragon missile was quite finicky at best in the 80s.
 
GARGEAN said:
What was so special about 152mm HEAT? Just deepness of penetration into concrete? Cuz if it's that...
Click to expand...

Big, velocity independent effects on target are nice. And it's cheap. XM1147 AMP is ~ $10k/round.

GARGEAN said:
Then there's really very little to look at it in fact, especially today. HE-FRAG shell of 125mm is stronger than one of Sheridan.
Click to expand...
Is there data to support this? The standard OF-26 is only credited with IFV armor penetration.

GARGEAN said:
Same for HEAT. No reason for refreshed 120mm not having same superiority.
Click to expand...

Probably just by virtue of modern liner materials/explosives; otherwise it's impossible for a smaller diameter
shape charge to compete with a large diameter shape charge.

Yes, the 120mm XM1147 by virtue of a muzzle velocity of 1100 m/s and sophisticated fuzing is very
nice. But it's also a huge, heavy round and expensive.


GARGEAN said:
And bringing back 152mm just for the sake of developing whole new set of ammunition... Is it worth it?
Click to expand...

Sprut, despite having one fewer crewmember and being a larger vehicle and firing a smaller diameter round
has, from memory about the same ammo capacity as the M551 with conventional rounds.
 
marauder2048 said:
Sprut, despite having one fewer crewmember and being a larger vehicle and firing a smaller diameter round has, from memory about the same ammo capacity as the M551 with conventional rounds.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting revisiting old concepts with new tech? A low velocity gun firing tube launched ATGMs for anti-armor and larger caliber explosive shells for direct fire support?
 
apparition13 said:
marauder2048 said:
Sprut, despite having one fewer crewmember and being a larger vehicle and firing a smaller diameter round has, from memory about the same ammo capacity as the M551 with conventional rounds.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting revisiting old concepts with new tech? A low velocity gun firing tube launched ATGMs for anti-armor and larger caliber explosive shells for direct fire support?
Click to expand...

Yes. But I'll concede that it's easier to get the desired effects on different target types with a single projectile
built around a high velocity penetrator + blast/frag and smart fuzing.

Dynamically altering the penetration width (ex: punch wide hole in 8 inch concrete wall) vs depth effects (punch deep hole in armor)
of a shaped charge is much harder.
 
And the "30 inch x 50 inch unobstructed hole in double reinforced concrete" requirement for AMP has an empirical basis!
It was the mean fastest hole to ingress through in an Army study of three hole types.
ingress-holes.png
 

Attachments

  • a467433.pdf
    513.7 KB · Views: 4
marauder2048 said:
jsport said:
Understand the recoil from conventional 152mm in the Sheridan was quite jolting to the crew.
Click to expand...
There's more anecdote than data for the Sherdian but from the gunnery manuals, the shock seems to be an issue
mainly for quick follow-up shots on armor targets. Against barriers and bunkers, a la Panama, the recoil was not
cited as an issue.
Click to expand...

The Australian Army tested the M551 Sheridan for use in it's Pentropic divisional structure. It was not taken up because it was judged too marginal. When test fired, it would leap apparently up to a metre rearwards with the handbrake set hard on. It was ajudged too dangerous to attempt to fire it thwartships to the vehicle. That didn't stop it appearing though in the Divisional Training Pamphlet for about 10 years as the "standard reconnaissance vehicle" for the Australian Infantry Division. It was never actually adopted.
 
marauder2048 said:
...
Click to expand...
125mm HE-FRAG has 3.4kg of A-IX-2, so around 6.1kg in TNTe. 152mm Sheridan had ~4.3kg of pure TNT. So you can make new and stronger round, but not the one already developed. (Wasn't mentioning penetration for HE-FRAG but OF26 was able to punch trough T-34 hull front)
HEAT is same: caliber allows for higher pen due to caliber, but original round was quite unimpressive with less than 500mm pen, so lower than most 125mm and 120mm HEAT round. Granted, you don't need really MUCH penetration to deal with concrete, its penetration is roughty x3 of steel, but in whole HEAT is not really optimal for that work.
In the end only thing M81 had is caliber, but it failed in exploiting it quite significantly. You can make some M81A4E6 with whole new ammo set today, and it will be great solution on paper... But is it needed? Lower ammo count (comparison with 2S25 is not really valid since layout and many engineering solutions are different, plus isn't it 30 rounds in 551 and 40 in 2S25?) and higher recoil are significant drawbacks, and are there that many targets that need theoretical new 152mm round over 120-130mm one?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom