Future Armour

[George Wallace]

They have got to do something with that big "TB" screen of a sight on top of the turret in your picture of the CT-CV WEAPON SYSTEM (105mm).  It is definitely not something I would want 'advertising' my position.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Well, that's one of the problems with a weapon that fires at high angles.  The sight has to be capable of observing over even higher angles.

On the bright side, the turret down would be very effective!  Also, one would think that with a larger objective lens, the thermal image would be better than we are experiencing now with the Coyote and LAVIII.

There's always trade-offs........

 

[a_majoor]

Someone remind me, because I forget.   Exactly what does the MGS bring to the table that the CV_CT does not?

Votes in the London Ontario region 

 

[George Wallace]

Lance

Recessing it would be a solution, but in this case a protective 'cap' would have to be built (as the sight box is too 'small' to recess it any).  It is too open, as is, to shrapnel from Arty, mortars, or even small arms fire.  There is too much reflective surface there, so it has to be shielded.

 

[Grizzly]

Substituting the CT_CV for the LPT won't necessarily affect votes in the London area. After all, we'd still need to buy the LAV-III / IV chasis to place it on, and these are made in London. The LPT (AFAIK) is manufactured in the States. Integration of the turret and hull would also probably happen in London too, so IMHO, I can't forsee any impact on jobs, and thus votes.

 

[a_majoor]

Lance

Recessing it would be a solution, but in this case a protective 'cap' would have to be built (as the sight box is too 'small' to recess it any).  It is too open, as is, to shrapnel from Arty, mortars, or even small arms fire.  There is too much reflective surface there, so it has to be shielded.

Changing or modifying the sight head is a lot easier than trying to change the laws of physics. Rather than be "all things to all people", the CV_CT turret could come with suitable packages for the intended user, so the ones slated for Infantry fire support and armoured cavalry would have "hunter/killer" sights, attachment points for DAS equipment and maybe extra weapons mounts (roof mounted GPMG, .50 over the barrel) to reflect the direct fire tasking, while CV_CT turrets slated for LAV 105/SP would mount equipment more suited for the artillery.

Getting even more "Blue Sky" (wow, the oxygen is getting pretty thin up here), the LdSH could drop the CV-CT turret into their Leopard Sqn for a heavy fire support vehicle, and the LAV hulls for the TOW and MMEV company/battery could also be fitted with CV_CT turrets firing 105mm through tube missiles as their primary weapon. The turret bustle and auto loader on that version would need to be modified, but they could always fire 105mm shells as a fall back.

 

[Kirkhill]

How big are the 105mm "through tube missiles" and how many ready rounds can be carried in the bustle and internally?  Would it make any sense to mount CKEM or Spike ER missiles on ready to fire mounts on the outside of the turret to complement the 105mm firing HEP/HESH?

 

[George Wallace]

Some of these posts, reinforce my bias towards German kit.  Not that the person making the post is 'off', but some of the ideas in MBT and AFV (for that matter much of our new equipment, including radios) are coming from 'Design' or 'Techno' Weenies who have never been 'end-users'.  Perhaps the Germany policy of 'Conscription' has had its' effect on their designing of modern military equipment.  After the Bundeswehr, professionals moved on to civilian companies like Mann, Mercedes, Kraus Maffi, etc. and put their experience to work.  We on the other hand, contract out to civilian Engineering and Design companies who may not have anyone with any form of military experience (other than Gamers) to develop our next generations of equipment.  Revolutionary design ideas don't necessarily mean that they are good or even practical.

When I see large 'reflective surfaces', be it on top of an AFV or on top of someone's helmet, I cringe.  If we intend to be tactical in employing any of these designs, those designs should be tactical to begin with, not an expensive mod that has to be done before production starts.  And the LCF has no place in AFV design....they should look 'mean' and be mean.  :threat:

 

[a_majoor]

I'm with you most of the way George, but at this point in time, we need good, modern kit and we need it quickly.

The CV_CT turret exists, it is proven on the LAV hull in trials and it provides 105mm hitting power for the Armoured corps as a minimum. I have pointed out other potential uses since getting several hundred turrets vs 66 would have logistical advantages for us and make the company much more inclined to see things our way. Modifying the sight head may be expensive, but it is still a heck of a lot quicker and cheaper than:

a. Endlessly modifying the LPT in an attempt to make it work, or

b. Hoping to create a "made in Canada" solution, or

c. Deciding we don't really need a DF platform after all.

My hope is that we not only generate some ideas and discussion on the board, but some of the "lurkers" might also get and impliment a few alternative ideas as well.

 

[Infanteer]

How big are the 105mm "through tube missiles" and how many ready rounds can be carried in the bustle and internally?   Would it make any sense to mount CKEM or Spike ER missiles on ready to fire mounts on the outside of the turret to complement the 105mm firing HEP/HESH?

Here is an article on through-the-tube missiles for the 105mm.  It is a few years old, so there may be more out there now.

 

[DG-41]

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf

DG

 

[a_majoor]

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf

DG

I don't think you will find anyone on this board who disagrees with the premise of the article, but for our immediate future, the Armoured Corps will be mounted on an 8X8 wheeled chassis. I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing the Armoured Corps versions of the LAV have a proven ability to provide firepower against hard targets, rather than some nebulous promise that "It worked really good in the company proving ground", hence the long digression with the CV_CT turret.

In the longer run, I hope that common sense will kick in and the CF gets some sort of tank again. Given the forcast future of expeditionary warfare, certainly something light and transportable like the CV 90120 or perhaps an evolutionary development of the "PUMA" IFV would do.

I have less consideration for the "passive armour" protection argument, given the ever evolving nature of the threat. The extreme position is the US FCS program, where even the tank analogue weighs about 20 tonnes. This is based on trend extrapolation, where it is considered that anti-tank weapons will be able to deliver something on the order of 42 Megajoules of energy by 2020. Compare this to a current 120mm cannon which can deliver "only" 12 Megajoules of energy to the target and we need tanks weighing 70 tonnes to even have a chance of defeating attacks of this magnitude. The Merkava is perhaps the best protected of any Generation 3 tank today, yet Palestinians have been able to defeat the protection and kill the crews using monster sized IEDs, so beyond some point (where exactly can be debated), extra armour protection does not add to crew or force protection, but adds complications to tactical mobility and logistical footprint, making operational and strategic mobility more difficult as well.

Bottom line: Future armour needs reliable firepower and lots of it, tactical, operational and strategic mobility, and a level of protection that defeats or negates attacks up to a certain level (TBD).

 

[Kirkhill]

The CV90 just got a boost - US Army scrapping the 20 tonne/C-130 limit on FCS - New Target 3/C-17 or 24 tonnes

They've also decided they want a 120mm vehicle - 105mm isn't lethal enough

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/Nov/UF-For_Army.htm


CV90 26 tonnes combat loaded http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cv90/specs.html
PUMA 29.4 tonnes basic armour (14.5 mm all round, 30 mm frontal) http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/

 

[a_majoor]

This is a bit "back to the future", but I found a picture of a proposed "Rapid Deployment Force" (RDF) tank form the 1980s. The idea at that time was to be able to insert a force into the Perian Gulf to prevent an invading force from the USSR from establishing itself in the region. The force needed to be almost as quick to insert as an airborn assault but have enough protection, mobility and firpower to take on an enemy mechanized force such as an MRR. This dosn't sound too different from the SBCT or the FCS program, but the "bottle" for that vintage of wine was tracked light armour.

If memory serves (and please help out), this prototype was by AAI, and featured the ARES 75mm high velocity cannon. The cannon fired telescoped rounds (i.e the projectile is embedded in the charge, not stuck in front the way we are used to) in single shots or three round bursts. the two man crew was down in the front hull, and most of the mechanical components were derived from the M-113.

With today's technology, the FCS would be vastly superior to anything available in the 1980s, while mobility and protection would be much improived as well. I am not too sure about the gun, but it certainly seems like it could deal with anything less than an MBT, and the low profile would make it hard to see. An idea still worth persuing or one who's time has come and gone?

 

[GK .Dundas]

This is a bit "back to the future", but I found a picture of a proposed "Rapid Deployment Force" (RDF) tank form the 1980s. The idea at that time was to be able to insert a force into the Perian Gulf to prevent an invading force from the USSR from establishing itself in the region. The force needed to be almost as quick to insert as an airborn assault but have enough protection, mobility and firpower to take on an enemy mechanized force such as an MRR. This dosn't sound too different from the SBCT or the FCS program, but the "bottle" for that vintage of wine was tracked light armour.

If memory serves (and please help out), this prototype was by AAI, and featured the ARES 75mm high velocity cannon. The cannon fired telescoped rounds (i.e the projectile is embedded in the charge, not stuck in front the way we are used to) in single shots or three round bursts. the two man crew was down in the front hull, and most of the mechanical components were derived from the M-113.

With today's technology, the FCS would be vastly superior to anything available in the 1980s, while mobility and protection would be much improived as well. I am not too sure about the gun, but it certainly seems like it could deal with anything less than an MBT, and the low profile would make it hard to see. An idea still worth persuing or one who's time has come and gone?

Truly one of my favorite AFVs capable of taking out a T- 72 frontally or being used to shred hinds with ! It had in that role a 90 % hit rate with a 3 round burst . It could be used a light artillery spg or as already noted as a AAA piece.
14 tonnes with out applique armour as for speed I promise you all the speeding tickets your  lil heart desires! ;D

 

[a_majoor]

From "Popular Science", a prototype Robotic vehicle which can flip over and keep going. (Don't let your driver get ideas)

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/50a33bcc2eb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Rolls Over, Keeps On Fighting

Preston Lerner

SPINNER SPECS

CONSTRUCTION: Lightweight composite hull
WHEEL POWER: Six high-torque liquid-cooled electric hub motors
OPERATION: Controlled remotely
GROUND CLEARANCE: 14 in.
TIRES: 48-in.- diameter run-flats
PAYLOAD CAPACITY: 1.5 tons, 71 cubic ft.
WIDTH: 102 in.
HEIGHT: 54 in.
LENGTH: 16 ft.
WEIGHT: 5.2 tons


The topsy-turvy, Humvee-size Spinner -- which sports a rotatable payload bay and a remarkable inversion-recovery technique -- is the prototype for what may be the Army’s first purpose-built robotic combat vehicle. “I describe it as ‘Robot Wars’ on steroids,” says Charlie Guthrie of Boeing Unmanned Systems, which is helping Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute develop a prototype of the vehicle for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. “It’s big, and it’s designed to take a real pounding.”

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are a familiar part of the military’s armory, but unmanned tanks have yet to advance much beyond the realm of science fiction. “Air is much more forgiving because there’s not much to hit,” says John Bares, director of Carnegie Mellon’s National Robotics Engineering Consortium. “But when you’re slogging through a forest at 30 mph and you make a little mistake -- Bam! You hit a tree.”

The Department of Defense’s Future Combat Systems program calls for the deployment of terrestrial robotic technology as soon as 2010. Unmanned ground combat vehicles (UGCVs) like the Spinner could be used as motorized mules to ferry materiel to the front lines, but they can also conduct everything from armed reconnaissance to medical evacuation from the battlefield without risking soldiers’ lives. “Our premise is to exploit the fact that it’s an unmanned vehicle,” Bares says. “(Most) vehicles are designed to support and protect the guys inside.”

Freed from that constraint, the Spinner’s designers created a rough-and-tumble prototype that’s meant to negotiate obstacles as tall as 3 feet and survive major upsets. Six individually powered and independently suspended wheels, built by Ireland’s Timoney Technology, maximize traction and redundancy while lessening the likelihood of high-centering (getting stuck on vertical obstacles). The aptly named Spinner also has an ingeniously designed suspension that enables it to recover from rollovers: It can reorient its wheels and payload a full 180 degrees. “It’s an invertible machine,” explains Bares. “There is no right-side-up.” (The Spinner’s designers won’t divulge how the novel suspension works because they are seeking to patent it.)

The testing program stipulates that the Spinner must be able to cover 450 kilometers without refueling during a two-week mission. To achieve the necessary fuel efficiency, designers opted for a hybrid powertrain created by Huntsville, Alabama-based PEI Electronics. Liquid-cooled electric hub motors drive each wheel. Lithium-ion batteries, in turn, are powered by a 60-kilowatt turbine.

The Spinner is slated to begin testing early this year as a radio-controlled vehicle. Later, it will be “tele-operated” via video images generated by onboard sensors, and eventually it could operate semiautonomously. But the Spinner is unlikely to become a truly self-sufficient robot anytime soon -- though its technology could lead there -- because of the limitations of today’s sensors. Rocks and trees are one thing, says Scott Fish, DARPA’s UGCV program manager, but “the ability to detect what we call negative obstacles -- trenches and cliffs, for example -- is another issue.”

Copyright © 2005 Popular Science

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    Given the new generation of non LOS missles that can be targeted after launch, a drone of this type could be used to target fire from manned vehicles tucked beyond LOS from the enemy.  I don't see it replacing recce elements in scouting, but I do see it standing fire to target for our launch platforms, instead of leaving manned units to take fire as spotters.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to the Spinner this video was posted in September.  It refers to the same vehicle.

http://www.uqm.com/

Maj. Baker just posted this under the "Just Plain Robots...." thread.

Seems applicable to this discussion -  not just for what it means for robots but also wheeled mobility

Check out the Spinner vehicle video on the top right.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

My concern with the growing UAV use has little to do with their unquestioned utility in the current low intensity conflicts that we are fighting.  My question is, what happens when we again face an opponent who possesses significant EW resources.  Will drone control units, while beyond FEBA LOS, be deathtraps as they draw indirect fire, airstrikes, and seeking missiles.  Will drone control links be jammable, subvertable, provide an enemy with a window into our own communications and battlefield intelligence picture?
    I don't see Iraq or Afghanistan providing a problem with these units, but I do wonder what happens when we again face an enemy on equal terms.  Preparing only to face your technological inferiors leaves you ill prepared in doctrine and training when you face an enemy of equal ability.  I'm not saying that I see us in that war tomorrow, but then again, I haven't seen tomorrow yet.

 

[a_majoor]

The question about jamming and EW is a very good one. Even low tech enemies can use fairly simple and easy to get "scanner" type equipment to DF our transmitting nodes and go to town from there. (Even just noting the activity patterns is important, even if they have no idea what is being Tx'd).

Certainly the designers have taken some of this into account, and rigorous use of proper EMSEC procedures will help as well. If the next generation and beyond have autonomous capabilities (i.e. become Robots), then the device has to be physically attacked in order to degrade its capabilities, which is the long term hope.

In the medium term, I think we will see most of the activity in Robotic vehicles concentrated in the "rear area", with such devices as automatic "litter bearers", CSS supply trucks and so on. In the front line we already see unmanned vehicles used for mine clearing, I would guess robotic engineer vehicles able to advance under fire to breach obstacles or minefields are next. So long as the roles and rule sets are reasonably limited, the vehicle "should" be able to function as required.