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

Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Pioneer said:
Once again what's wrong with a re-vamped Rapid Deployment Force Light Tank by AAI Corporation?
AAI proposed a revamped RDFLT with convential gun, the Expeditionary Tank concept which lost to the tank now known as the Buford. Its unmanned turret evolved into that which sits atop MGS Strykers.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

DrRansom said:
When you look for air dropped vehicles, there aren't a ton of 'good' options out there.

Uh yeah. That would be why they want to design one.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

sferrin said:
DrRansom said:
When you look for air dropped vehicles, there aren't a ton of 'good' options out there.

Uh yeah. That would be why they want to design one.

But if the Army goes to design a new air-dropped light tank, they'll follow TomS suggestion: Armored for modern combat and protection against IEDs.

That will be awfully tough to get under 20 tons...

More precisely: an air dropped light tank has serious constraints. There aren't a ton of good options in feasible engineer space for a 'good' tank.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

It would also be rather tough to get it into the volume considerations of most transport aircraft. Deep "V" shaped hulls (the most survivable against mine/IED attack) tend to take up a lot of space as well.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Design a new one?

I don't see how there is much room for improvement over a modernized M8 AGS derivative.

Save the extra belly armor and anti-IED kit for once the thing actually gets to the ground, else I don't see how they'll possibly be able to air-drop it.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20141216/DEFREG02/312160026/US-Army-Researches-Light-Vehicle-Concepts-Futures-Chief-Says

Army wants more firepower on lighter vehicles could you take a GAU-8 off of a no longer needed A-10 and mount on a Stryker/LAV or something? Cause that would be firepower.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Why? It's not a terribly accurate weapon with a relatively low armour penetration. It throws a lot of rounds into a very large circle at quite a short range.

Precision: 80% of rounds fired at 4,000 feet (1,200 m) range hit within a 40 feet (12 m) diameter circle
[...]
Armor penetration:

69 mm at 500 meters
38 mm at 1,000 meters

Armor penetration during Aircraft Launch(BHN 300; 30˚; 250Kn Aircraft Launch):[18]

71 mm at 500 meters
59 mm at 1000 meters
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger#Specifications]

As you can see, the extra velocity of the aircraft adds substantially to it's armour penetration.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Hot Breath said:
Why? It's not a terribly accurate weapon with a relatively low armour penetration. It throws a lot of rounds into a very large circle at quite a short range.

Air-droppable, mobile, organic C-RAM (GAU-8 in Goalkeeper guise) would be extremely useful though.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

C-17s airdrop heavy artillery all the time via LAPS. - SP
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

As a general rule, the very high rate-of-fire weapons have not proven practical for ground use, they just require too much ammunition for a sustained fight. On an aircraft that will be on a sortie of a few hours and actually engaging a target for a matter of seconds or, at most, minutes, or for a CIWS that is on alert for weeks, months or years waiting for just a few seconds of actual fire, something like the GAU-8 makes a lot of sense. For a ground vehicle, not so much. There are a number of low rate of fire guns, including the Bushmaster II, that can fire the same ammunition as the GAU-8 (or more effective roudns) in a much more appropriate package for ground combat.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

cluttonfred said:
As a general rule, the very high rate-of-fire weapons have not proven practical for ground use, they just require too much ammunition for a sustained fight. On an aircraft that will be on a sortie of a few hours and actually engaging a target for a matter of seconds or, at most, minutes, or for a CIWS that is on alert for weeks, months or years waiting for just a few seconds of actual fire, something like the GAU-8 makes a lot of sense. For a ground vehicle, not so much. There are a number of low rate of fire guns, including the Bushmaster II, that can fire the same ammunition as the GAU-8 (or more effective roudns) in a much more appropriate package for ground combat.

Yet cheap prolific ground vehicles can carry huge payloads and don't have to 'fly' and land at limited and specific well prepared spots before heading back to the fight. You could reload a ground vehicle anywhere don't think there are reloadable aircraft............while they are flying. The Army's truck heavy hauler can carry 70 tons compared to an AC-130 that can carry less than 20 tons.

Not saying a ground based GAU-8 would ever happen but having something on the ground seems far less limiting than having it attached to a very limited payload airborne platform.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

I think the major problem is that high ROF weapons use up loads of ammunition very quickly. Airborne forces tend to be at the end of tenuous logistics chains where resupply cannot be guaranteed. The weapon could well use up its available ammunition plus what has been dropped with it for first line use very quickly, with no guarantee that there will be more. Sometimes lower ROF can be better in such situations. I would however, be far more concerned about it's inaccuracy. High ROF are pointless if its throwing it's rounds all around the target without hitting it.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/trucks-from-the-sky-polaris-pitches-dagor-for-ulcv/?hootPostID=f52df07bacddef15e03a077a08a6a959

On Monday, truck makers will submit data to the Army on potential candidates for the Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle. ULCV has to be big enough to carry nine fully equipped infantrymen, small enough to sling-load under a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, and tough enough to parachute out the back of a C-130 or C-17.

UCLV is the first of what’s intended as a trio of vehicles for the 82nd Airborne’s Global Response Force and, eventually, other light infantry units. (By contrast, the much better armored Joint Light Tactical Vehicle will be used Army-wide). The unarmored, nine-man ULCV will be followed by a lightly armored six-man Light Reconnaissance Vehicle and a well-armed light tank called the Mobile Protected Firepower system.


Wonder what constitutes 'well armed'? 30mm, 105mm??
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Every time this thread updates without a new concept for an air droppable light tank, I get sad. ;)
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/the-feasible-four-army-exploring-4-new-combat-vehicles-odierno-says/

Still looking at air-droppable tank as well as 'light tank' according to this article.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Why have a "tank" at all? Why not go for a light armoured vehicle which carries a large number of ATGWs? Seeming to attempt the impossible in building a light tank than a C-130 can carry (and still be armoured enough to take on a real MBT) is rather pointless when it would be much, much cheaper and easier to build a light armoured vehicle which could carry an ATGW powerful enough to knock a tank out.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Hot Breath said:
Why have a "tank" at all? Why not go for a light armoured vehicle which carries a large number of ATGWs? Seeming to attempt the impossible in building a light tank than a C-130 can carry (and still be armoured enough to take on a real MBT) is rather pointless when it would be much, much cheaper and easier to build a light armoured vehicle which could carry an ATGW powerful enough to knock a tank out.

IMO, there are problems for light armored with ATGW. Light armored vehicle limits the tactical and strategical use, e.g. you can use it in some roles but not other. I think it is good in defense but not good in offense. To be offensive you need armored enough to take surprised and unavoidable attacks

ATGW also has it own limits, expensive, limited number of round, and shaped charge ATGM is limited against modern armor and active protection system. Even kinetic ATGW may be defeated in near future. To be offensive, you need hi capacity of rounds for different types of target.

The easiest way to achieve light armored vs MBT is active + reactive + light weight base armor, and IMO, C 130 is very possible. I think there are other methods as well. The real advantage of air deployable is numerous, one is that you have strategic mobility, flank or surprised deployment to take high value target. With light armored vehicle, it is very hard to be offensive other than sabotage and retreat.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/05/big-boost-for-small-firm-spartan-teams-with-vyper-for-army-ulcv/
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

ynm said:
Hot Breath said:
Why have a "tank" at all? Why not go for a light armoured vehicle which carries a large number of ATGWs? Seeming to attempt the impossible in building a light tank than a C-130 can carry (and still be armoured enough to take on a real MBT) is rather pointless when it would be much, much cheaper and easier to build a light armoured vehicle which could carry an ATGW powerful enough to knock a tank out.

IMO, there are problems for light armored with ATGW. Light armored vehicle limits the tactical and strategical use, e.g. you can use it in some roles but not other. I think it is good in defense but not good in offense. To be offensive you need armored enough to take surprised and unavoidable attacks

ATGW also has it own limits, expensive, limited number of round, and shaped charge ATGM is limited against modern armor and active protection system. Even kinetic ATGW may be defeated in near future. To be offensive, you need hi capacity of rounds for different types of target.

ATGWs don't have to be expensive and if manufactured in sufficient numbers, can be even cheaper. Electronics are becoming cheaper and cheaper, every year. While a shaped charge warhead has it's limitations if fired directly against an MBT's armour, a top attack method would allow most of the armour to be bypassed. If a hyper-velocity round it utilized, then it utilizes kinetic energy, not chemical energy to defeat the armour.

It is all a question of commitment and of course, resources. If you can manufacture (and deploy) 25 light armoured vehicles to each MBT that the enemy can deploy, his MBTs have to defeat 25+ rounds to each that it fires. Time and density of fire would in the end lead to the defeat of the MBT. Sure, you'd lose some light armoured vehicles but that is just the cost of battle.

The easiest way to achieve light armored vs MBT is active + reactive + light weight base armor, and IMO, C 130 is very possible. I think there are other methods as well. The real advantage of air deployable is numerous, one is that you have strategic mobility, flank or surprised deployment to take high value target. With light armored vehicle, it is very hard to be offensive other than sabotage and retreat.

Easiest way to achieve an air deployabled light armoured vehicle is to either ditch the C-130 in favour of something with a bigger hold and a larger lifting capacity or you end up delivering the light armoured vehicle in several packages which require assembly. As you're basically paying for the recoil of that big gun, which an ATGW negates by being rocket and hence recoilless. You're also paying for the armour and everything else, if you're going to try and take MBTs on head on. ATGW equipped light vehicles rely on flank attacks, so don't require the same level of armour!
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

For the first time in the annals of SPF I agree with HB. :eek:

Mobility, armor, firepower are the three main armored vehicle trade-offs. For the foreseeable future we won't have lightweight advanced materials capable of MBT levels of protection and of bringing vehicle weights down for C-130 carriage. So pump up the mobility and firepower side of the equation seems to be the only short term solution to under armed early entry forces IMHO.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Hot Breath said:
ynm said:
Hot Breath said:
Why have a "tank" at all? Why not go for a light armoured vehicle which carries a large number of ATGWs? Seeming to attempt the impossible in building a light tank than a C-130 can carry (and still be armoured enough to take on a real MBT) is rather pointless when it would be much, much cheaper and easier to build a light armoured vehicle which could carry an ATGW powerful enough to knock a tank out.

IMO, there are problems for light armored with ATGW. Light armored vehicle limits the tactical and strategical use, e.g. you can use it in some roles but not other. I think it is good in defense but not good in offense. To be offensive you need armored enough to take surprised and unavoidable attacks

ATGW also has it own limits, expensive, limited number of round, and shaped charge ATGM is limited against modern armor and active protection system. Even kinetic ATGW may be defeated in near future. To be offensive, you need hi capacity of rounds for different types of target.

ATGWs don't have to be expensive and if manufactured in sufficient numbers, can be even cheaper. Electronics are becoming cheaper and cheaper, every year. While a shaped charge warhead has it's limitations if fired directly against an MBT's armour, a top attack method would allow most of the armour to be bypassed. If a hyper-velocity round it utilized, then it utilizes kinetic energy, not chemical energy to defeat the armour.

It is all a question of commitment and of course, resources. If you can manufacture (and deploy) 25 light armoured vehicles to each MBT that the enemy can deploy, his MBTs have to defeat 25+ rounds to each that it fires. Time and density of fire would in the end lead to the defeat of the MBT. Sure, you'd lose some light armoured vehicles but that is just the cost of battle.

The easiest way to achieve light armored vs MBT is active + reactive + light weight base armor, and IMO, C 130 is very possible. I think there are other methods as well. The real advantage of air deployable is numerous, one is that you have strategic mobility, flank or surprised deployment to take high value target. With light armored vehicle, it is very hard to be offensive other than sabotage and retreat.

Easiest way to achieve an air deployabled light armoured vehicle is to either ditch the C-130 in favour of something with a bigger hold and a larger lifting capacity or you end up delivering the light armoured vehicle in several packages which require assembly. As you're basically paying for the recoil of that big gun, which an ATGW negates by being rocket and hence recoilless. You're also paying for the armour and everything else, if you're going to try and take MBTs on head on. ATGW equipped light vehicles rely on flank attacks, so don't require the same level of armour!

Currently composite armor comes to the point that it is lighter than ERA (50kg/sqr m) against shaped charge. Even if you want, you can be protected from top attack, let say 10m2, you only need about 500 kg which is insignificant for MBT. Composite armor is tandem resistant by its nature. That didn't even count APS, so to kill tank and AFV, KE is required.

Currently, no KE missile in service, and it seems KE missile will be very expensive, much more than shaped charge ATGM. So big gun is the only option.

OTOH, if you fight against on par enemy, then victory at all cost is the only option. And out number enemy, if that enemy is not well prepared, then it is easy. But if enemy is well prepared, then battle will be fought at worst condition, e.g. at extreme range, with cover, smoke, constantly retreat and change location... so concentrating fire is not easy and may deplete ammo very quick. And if you fight against weaker enemy, armored vehicle has its own value, it will decrease the cost of war (both in materiel and lives, political cost...) Armor is often not the most expensive part of vehicle. So armor can be used to trade for other things, like lives. Now a day, if you fight on par enemy, you use nuke, not tank. Weapons are used to fight weaker enemy and should be design with that mindset.

IMO, mobility on land will be useless against modern fire control system and guided munition. Only strategic mobility is good for war planning, e.g. flank, surprise attacks... But if you rely on mobility and firepower, then air force + special force/ recon is the best option. The point of fighting on land is not total annihilation, but to control, capture and hold territories, which will inevitably face unavoidable attack, which will require armor.

Light armored vehicle can do sabotage operation, fire and retreat, but will have higher risk in other operations. OTOH, you have armor doesnt mean you must use it, as lightweight heavily armored vehicle can use flank, too. Heavy armor brings more option to the table, which will change the strategics and tactics of war. You can flank, but what if your plan fails and forced to fight head on? Armor allows you to have more option between death and life.

Gun allows more rounds than ATGM but I think ATGM + autocannon (30-40mm) is a good option instead of big gun. But armor is a must. Armor is similar to stealth in air warfare. Stealth brings more option but you still can do it with normal airplane but with higher escort price. After all, lives are precious, and it should be protected (with armor).
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

bobbymike said:
For the first time in the annals of SPF I agree with HB. :eek:

Mobility, armor, firepower are the three main armored vehicle trade-offs. For the foreseeable future we won't have lightweight advanced materials capable of MBT levels of protection and of bringing vehicle weights down for C-130 carriage. So pump up the mobility and firepower side of the equation seems to be the only short term solution to under armed early entry forces IMHO.

Still waiting for my CKEM LAV. :'(
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
For the first time in the annals of SPF I agree with HB. :eek:

Mobility, armor, firepower are the three main armored vehicle trade-offs. For the foreseeable future we won't have lightweight advanced materials capable of MBT levels of protection and of bringing vehicle weights down for C-130 carriage. So pump up the mobility and firepower side of the equation seems to be the only short term solution to under armed early entry forces IMHO.

Still waiting for my CKEM LAV. :'(
I might have asked you this before but why has there been no LOSAT/CKEM vehicle? A weapon that can outrange and is faster than a MBT round would seem like a no brainer especially for light early entry forces.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

Even CKEM was big and expensive. Light forces in Iraq found that Javelin was sufficient for killing tanks. Sure, it was outranged by tanks, but tanks couldn't find the shooters effectively because they could fire and relocate rapidly.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

TomS said:
Even CKEM was big and expensive. Light forces in Iraq found that Javelin was sufficient for killing tanks. Sure, it was outranged by tanks, but tanks couldn't find the shooters effectively because they could fire and relocate rapidly.
Yes it's 20/20 hindsight but with all the money spent on FCS/GCV, etc. you could have outfitted a few BCT's with thousands of CKEM's??
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

ynm said:
Currently composite armor comes to the point that it is lighter than ERA (50kg/sqr m) against shaped charge. Even if you want, you can be protected from top attack, let say 10m2, you only need about 500 kg which is insignificant for MBT. Composite armor is tandem resistant by its nature. That didn't even count APS, so to kill tank and AFV, KE is required.

None of this armour is yet in use and it is likely to be expensive, bulky and degrade mobility for the MBT.

Currently, no KE missile in service, and it seems KE missile will be very expensive, much more than shaped charge ATGM. So big gun is the only option.

KE missiles are just faster missiles. The US military has experimented with them and while not yet in service, I am sure they could be quite quickly.

Gun allows more rounds than ATGM but I think ATGM + autocannon (30-40mm) is a good option instead of big gun. But armor is a must. Armor is similar to stealth in air warfare. Stealth brings more option but you still can do it with normal airplane but with higher escort price. After all, lives are precious, and it should be protected (with armor).

I have no said it necessarily needs to be ATGM only equipment. Obviously some form of anti-personnel weapon would be necessary. However, an ATGM which undertakes a top attack profile is available now and has been deployed. There are many light armoured vehicles around, just put the ATGM launcher on one and your C-130 could carry as many as 4-6 vehicles, depending on size and weight. That is 4-6 more launchers than one light-weight tank which doesn't exist yet can be carried now.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/russia-threat-boosts-stryker-upgrade-budget-to-371-million/
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

I was thinking something more along the lines of the Panhard VBL:

panhard.jpg


The CVR(T) Striker:

fv102_striker_l1.jpg


Both small, agile and easily concealable. Strykers are big and carry too many men.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/21177/?utm_source=Breaking+Defense&utm_campaign=9b2524dcb0-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4368933672-9b2524dcb0-407814345

First of three stories on future light vehicles.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

bobbymike said:

From the article posted above : "That means a tracked vehicle with a manned turret, rather than a wheeled vehicle with turret remotely controlled from inside the hull, as on the much-criticized Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS)."

Leaving aside the wheel vs track debate, what's the main source of dissatisfaction with the Stryker MGS : the Low Profile Turret or the entire vehicle ?

Assuming the main issue to be with the LPT, why not replace it with the Cockerill CT-CV 105HP turret by CMI Defense ?

The CT-CV was successfully tested on a Piranha 3 chassis on September 13, 2005 at the Lulworth Camp firing range and was (at the time) offered with a 12-round autoloader in C130 air-transportable configuration.

The CT-CV seems to offer some interesting features, such as :

* High QE (up tp 42°) allows BLOS firing (up to 10 km range) and might offer a useful advantage in urban or mountainous environments.

* The Cockerill CV gun itself seems to offer adequate firepower (design pressure = 120% of 105mm L7/M68) : with a muzzle velocity of 1,620 m/s, the M1060CV APFSDS developed by MECAR is said to offer a penetration path of 560mm @ 2,000 meters (R50) and GLATGM solutions (LAHAT, Falarick 105) might do the job against the hardest targets.

In theory, NIH shouldn't be an issue since "[the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle] AOA will see whether a new design is necessary or whether something already in production — in Europe, for example — might fit the bill."
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

People over-credit NIH, as long as it's built in the US the DoD will buy designs from abroad. But I don't think there's anything sitting on the shelf of the European market which fits the MPF goals.
 
Re: Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank

If the US wants a light air-droppable tank, there is always the Sprut tank. That would be the ultimate NIH purchase...

That is the elephant in the room when it comes to mobile parachute forces. The Soviets and then the Russians have spent quite a lot of time developing such systems. Those Russian vehicles represent perhaps the state-of-the-possible, unless you want to spend a massive amount of money in R&D.
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2015/July/Pages/SpecialOpsForcesFuelDemandforUltralightVehicles.aspx
 
Because Land Rovers don't fit inside a V-22.
 
The U.S. Army and its backing bureaucracies have proved incompetent at developing an armoured vehicle for combat or a helicopter for combat for three consecutive decades.
The last time it did was the Abrams/Bradley/Apache/Blackhawk generation which originated in the relatively budget-austere 70's and despite making bad calls (turbine in Abrams, initial Bradley flaws, old-style rotor heads) proved to have yielded good material.

<blockquote> "We know exactly what we want. We want a fast, highly mobile, fully armored, lightweight vehicle. It must be able to swim, cross any terrain, and climb 30 degree hills. It must be air-transportable. It must have a simple but powerful engine, requiring little or no maintenance. The operating range should be several hundred miles. We would also like it to be invisible."</blockquote>
General Bruce C. Clarke, 1960 (link)​
 
I seem to recall a general saying that if you needed to airlift tanks, you'd already lost the battle.

Any idea who said it?

Chris
 
CJGibson said:
I seem to recall a general saying that if you needed to airlift tanks, you'd already lost the battle.

Any idea who said it?

Chris

Airlift or airdrop? The US C-5 airlift of tanks (amongst other war material) to the Israelis in 1973 is often cited as decisive.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom