Future Armour
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I fully agree with the family of vehicles argument, the CV-90 would make an acceptable base platform for a very impressive family of tracked vehicles including bridgelayers and engineering versions. I was looking at the same sort of argument if the wheeled solution is accepted, so an all LAV-III or LAV-H solution is the practical way to go.
A LAV-DF version provides a certain amount of flexibility; you could use them in Recce to provide overwatch, or put them in the combat suppoert company of an Infantry battalion (either the gun armed DF or a gun/mortar armed IF vehicle); the ammunition loadout would be quite different than a tank (HE, smoke/illum and canister for a DF vehicle in the Infantry battalion, Recce would probably want HEAT-MP vs HE, but still have smoke/illum as well).
Another argument is if the CF evolves towards a more "Cavalry" or "Mounted Rifles" orientation, then the argument shifts from having a tracked IFV to move with the tanks to having a wheeled DF vehicle to move with the LAV's.
A LAV-DF version provides a certain amount of flexibility; you could use them in Recce to provide overwatch, or put them in the combat suppoert company of an Infantry battalion (either the gun armed DF or a gun/mortar armed IF vehicle); the ammunition loadout would be quite different than a tank (HE, smoke/illum and canister for a DF vehicle in the Infantry battalion, Recce would probably want HEAT-MP vs HE, but still have smoke/illum as well).
Another argument is if the CF evolves towards a more "Cavalry" or "Mounted Rifles" orientation, then the argument shifts from having a tracked IFV to move with the tanks to having a wheeled DF vehicle to move with the LAV's.
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 182
- Points
- 710
Thucydides said:
I would, having been both RECCE and TANKS in an ARMOUR unit, argue that the Armour Corps does not need a DF vehicle as you allude to here. Like the LSVW, we failed the MGS on numerous trials, and calling it something new will not help it pass the sniff test.
If Armour units need a DF vehicle, such as you allude to, they can call on other arms, who would be added to an Armour or Infantry Combat Team/Battle Group/whatever as an attachment. Making a DF vehicle an integral part of an Armour Recce unit takes away from the "RECCE" capabilities of that unit. As is, it is argued that the current vehicles being used are "Surveillance" vehicles and not "Recce" vehicles. A DF vehicle would only make it more of a "Dogs Breakfast" than a true Recce unit.
The Armour Corps already has a DF vehicle. It is called a tank.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Not everyone works the way we have in the past, and given the various strange permutations that are imposed on the RCAC at the current time due to lack of vehicles, vehicles that are not particularly suitable for their primary role and a reserve element which is totally disconnected from the rest of the armoured family, it might make sense to see what other ways there are to skin the cat.
As for the argument that the tank is the DF element; true so far as it goes, but given the other attributes of a tank and their small numbers, I would think the higher command might find a different use for the tanks (this is similar to the argument that our allies will provide tanks etc. when we need them, we all know that our allies may have different priorities as well...)
As for the argument that the tank is the DF element; true so far as it goes, but given the other attributes of a tank and their small numbers, I would think the higher command might find a different use for the tanks (this is similar to the argument that our allies will provide tanks etc. when we need them, we all know that our allies may have different priorities as well...)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Love793 said:
This stuff cracks me up. This reminds me of a paper I read the other day from 2003 about how the MBT was done in Canada...It's really nobody's mistake in thinking this way. There was a whole group within and outside the CF that thought this way. We tend towards passivity in our military philosophy but as a guy doing his first regimental tour on tanks it's really interesting to dissect this mind set.
F
fraserdw
Guest
Then you would really be cracked up the Armd Schl Comdt who wrote an article about the end of armour in the Branch Journal on about 2002. Backed it up with all kinds of reasons why Canada did not need tanks. Then along came a war........ Wonder what ever happened to the Armoured Corps LtCol who wrote that article?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 182
- Points
- 710
fraserdw said:
He didn't go quite as far as the RCD CO, who later as CDS wrote a full page in the Ottawa Citizen praising the merits of the MGS and stating that the day of the tank was a thing of the past.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Please note I am hardly arguing against having tanks (we don't have enough as it is), but rather what would compliment the LAV-III fleet, should it be decided for whatever reason to go for more wheeled vehicles. Don't forget as ridiculous as it sounds, 2 of the 3 CCV contenders are wheeled vehicles, and one of them is another variant of the LAV family dressed up with a larger turret carrying a 30mm cannon.
I would say that buying yet another LAV variation as the CCV is probably the least effective use of funds imaginable (hence my minimum argument would be simply buy 118 more LAV III's), but since we are looking at the future, we know the Canadian LAV family is evolving towards a new configuration known as LAV-H so all the LAV's should be built/upgraded to that standard for logistical reasons.
We also know we don't have enough tanks, so as a minimum, providing every Infantry battalion with a platoon of fire support LAV's built on a LAV-H chassis makes a certain amount of sense as well (we can argue if a DF fire support LAV using a capable turret or an IF LAV with a turret mounted Gun/Mortar is a better use of resources). This adapts the mechanized Infantry model of the late 1980s to LAV's, but we could also adopt the SBCT model (using a better DF vehicle). Certainly given the lack of tanks, some sort of fire support version of the LAV might also be considered for the RCAC, so the tanks can be concentrated where they can be best employed.
I would say that buying yet another LAV variation as the CCV is probably the least effective use of funds imaginable (hence my minimum argument would be simply buy 118 more LAV III's), but since we are looking at the future, we know the Canadian LAV family is evolving towards a new configuration known as LAV-H so all the LAV's should be built/upgraded to that standard for logistical reasons.
We also know we don't have enough tanks, so as a minimum, providing every Infantry battalion with a platoon of fire support LAV's built on a LAV-H chassis makes a certain amount of sense as well (we can argue if a DF fire support LAV using a capable turret or an IF LAV with a turret mounted Gun/Mortar is a better use of resources). This adapts the mechanized Infantry model of the late 1980s to LAV's, but we could also adopt the SBCT model (using a better DF vehicle). Certainly given the lack of tanks, some sort of fire support version of the LAV might also be considered for the RCAC, so the tanks can be concentrated where they can be best employed.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Russian thinking for future armour. This is a "family of vehicles" project, so the tank is just part of a heavy family of vehicles. There is a complimentary light family and an 8X8 wheeled family in development as well.
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures.html
http://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_russian_army_tank_heavy_armoured_vehicles_u/armata_russian_main_battle_tank_technical_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_pictures.html
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Some deliciously silly prognostication from NextBigFuture: nuclear powered hovertanks! While compact nuclear reactors and electrical generators would have lots of interesting uses, I'm not seeing tanks as being one of those:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/hammers-slammers-like-nuclear-powered.html
Somewhere along the way the author seems to have forgotten the need for a heat rejection system in the Supercritical CO2 turbines, which would need to be a huge sail like fin or fins on a tank. A giant transport hovercraft like the Russian Zubr seems to be a good fit for such a powerplant, though, the waste heat could be pumped through heat exchangers in the plenum and "blown" out with the lift air (the 170 ton tank probably dosn't have the surface area to do this).
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/12/hammers-slammers-like-nuclear-powered.html
Somewhere along the way the author seems to have forgotten the need for a heat rejection system in the Supercritical CO2 turbines, which would need to be a huge sail like fin or fins on a tank. A giant transport hovercraft like the Russian Zubr seems to be a good fit for such a powerplant, though, the waste heat could be pumped through heat exchangers in the plenum and "blown" out with the lift air (the 170 ton tank probably dosn't have the surface area to do this).
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,878
- Points
- 1,160
Wait till said hover tank meets slope or even better a slope made up of cobbles around 1" in diameter. I can always tell who has never worked on a hovercraft by what they think they can do.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,878
- Points
- 1,160
A hovercraft sits on a bubble of air, which reduces friction, so gravity and momentum get to have a lot of fun with the hovercraft. The craft will want to follow whatever slope it is on and it requires power pushing air to maintain position, using props or puffports. Another problem is weather cocking, the craft will always weather cock into the wind. Reducing the lift, trimming the craft can all help reduce these effects. Also anything that causes that bubble to escape will affect the lift and performance of the craft, so cobbled beaches can cause all sorts of problems.
The bigger AP1-88's the CCG uses give the pilot more control as you have 2 variable pitch propellers and dedicated lift fan engines with rotating thrust nozzles. Size matters and hovercraft become more efficient as they become bigger. On the SRN-6 the bubble was around 28lb per square foot, not a lot, but enough. The area was divided into 4 by a Keel bag and 2 cross section bags. Also the design involves a High/low pressure design with the hinged bags having a slightly higher pressure than the rest of the confined area underneath. This British design was copied by both the US and Soviets for their big hovercraft. Smaller hovercraft use a lighter design using a single walled skirt, which does not require as much power, which I think the Griffon uses (used by the Royal Marines) as well as most recreational hovercraft.
That air bubble also adds a neat thing to stability calculations called the "Centre of Pressure" (COP) So you can have CoG, Metacentre and COP all acting at once. What this means to a lay person is that as your hovercraft is screaming along and you decide to turn, the hovercraft starts to skid like a car on ice. no problem normal stuff for them, but if the skirt encounters an obstacle like wave, it may "trip" or fold under the structure, which is still moving sideways, as the skirt folds, the hard structure contacts the water, all of sudden it wants to stop, but there is all that energy still involved causing the hovercraft to want to rotate over the stop bit. Meanwhile underneath the bubble is getting compressed on the down side and the COP decides to move over to the less compressed side adding it's energy to the turning moment already generated by the side hitting the water and voila you are capsized. The SRN 5 and 6's were quite prone to this and several bad accidents were the result of the learning curve.
I used to serve on this one as well as 045, 086
The bigger AP1-88's the CCG uses give the pilot more control as you have 2 variable pitch propellers and dedicated lift fan engines with rotating thrust nozzles. Size matters and hovercraft become more efficient as they become bigger. On the SRN-6 the bubble was around 28lb per square foot, not a lot, but enough. The area was divided into 4 by a Keel bag and 2 cross section bags. Also the design involves a High/low pressure design with the hinged bags having a slightly higher pressure than the rest of the confined area underneath. This British design was copied by both the US and Soviets for their big hovercraft. Smaller hovercraft use a lighter design using a single walled skirt, which does not require as much power, which I think the Griffon uses (used by the Royal Marines) as well as most recreational hovercraft.
That air bubble also adds a neat thing to stability calculations called the "Centre of Pressure" (COP) So you can have CoG, Metacentre and COP all acting at once. What this means to a lay person is that as your hovercraft is screaming along and you decide to turn, the hovercraft starts to skid like a car on ice. no problem normal stuff for them, but if the skirt encounters an obstacle like wave, it may "trip" or fold under the structure, which is still moving sideways, as the skirt folds, the hard structure contacts the water, all of sudden it wants to stop, but there is all that energy still involved causing the hovercraft to want to rotate over the stop bit. Meanwhile underneath the bubble is getting compressed on the down side and the COP decides to move over to the less compressed side adding it's energy to the turning moment already generated by the side hitting the water and voila you are capsized. The SRN 5 and 6's were quite prone to this and several bad accidents were the result of the learning curve.
I used to serve on this one as well as 045, 086
- Reaction score
- 8,286
- Points
- 1,160
This ain't an armour discussion now but I recently noticed an equipment powerpoint where the CAF was looking for an Over-ice/Over-Water vehicle and hovercraft were under consideration for that mission.
With that in mind, and with all the caveats that Colin raises, I've often wondered about the addition of skegs/leeboards/outriggers to the basic hovercraft design. I know there were some designs that used fixed skegs, much like the Norwegian Skjolds, but that turns the Hovercraft into a boat and limits its ability to manage marginal environments.
On the other hand retractable skegs, leeboards, dagger boards, outriggers would give the beast something of the handling characteristics of an ice-yacht on ice and a boat in the water while still retaining the ability to transition from fluid to solid environments.
Other wise, as Colin aptly describes, you have something with all the directional stability of a puck in an air hockey game.
With that in mind, and with all the caveats that Colin raises, I've often wondered about the addition of skegs/leeboards/outriggers to the basic hovercraft design. I know there were some designs that used fixed skegs, much like the Norwegian Skjolds, but that turns the Hovercraft into a boat and limits its ability to manage marginal environments.
On the other hand retractable skegs, leeboards, dagger boards, outriggers would give the beast something of the handling characteristics of an ice-yacht on ice and a boat in the water while still retaining the ability to transition from fluid to solid environments.
Other wise, as Colin aptly describes, you have something with all the directional stability of a puck in an air hockey game.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,878
- Points
- 1,160
Don't get me wrong the AP1-88-400 is leagues above the old SRN-6's and likely would do well for the military. It could carry a LAV or about 80 troops in the well. If I was the military I would buy 2 of the exact same models as the CCG has and use them in the North in the summer and down below in the winter. Keep them together so they can support each other. The biggest issue will be the interservice fights as to who runs and pays for them. Likely the Navy will want to run them as a ship with the army paying for them. The Army will want to have them, with the RCAF providing the crew and the Navy paying the bills. Hell it only took Transport Canada 25 years to figure out how to regulate them and how to allot seatime.
this image shows the crane and the optional extended compartment.
this image shows the crane and the optional extended compartment.
- Reaction score
- 8,286
- Points
- 1,160
Personally I don't have a problem with just increasing the Coast Guard inventory and having them deliver Troops and Equipment as OGDs. But see the bun fight over AOPS and arming the Coast Guard.... Not saying that we need to arm the Hovercraft, except to keep Thucydides happy.
Way off topic now. Or did we just manage to circle back?
Way off topic now. Or did we just manage to circle back?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,254
- Points
- 1,010
The Navy already knows which air cushion vessel it would like: L.C.A.C.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/US_Navy_030113-N-2972R-114_A_Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion_%28LCAC%29_Vehicle_from_Assault_Craft_Unit_Four_%28ACU-4%29_transports_Marine_Assault_Vehicles_to_Kearsarge.jpg
As you can see: Carries more than just one LAV (up to six) can carry a Leo II, or god knows how many other vehicles (up to 60 tons combined weight), 180 troops, is armoured for the operators and carries its own self protection weapons.
It conveniently fits, two at a time or more, in the belly of LPD's, LHD's or LHA's, sometime known in the Army as "Honking-Big-Ships".
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/US_Navy_030113-N-2972R-114_A_Landing_Craft_Air_Cushion_%28LCAC%29_Vehicle_from_Assault_Craft_Unit_Four_%28ACU-4%29_transports_Marine_Assault_Vehicles_to_Kearsarge.jpg
As you can see: Carries more than just one LAV (up to six) can carry a Leo II, or god knows how many other vehicles (up to 60 tons combined weight), 180 troops, is armoured for the operators and carries its own self protection weapons.
It conveniently fits, two at a time or more, in the belly of LPD's, LHD's or LHA's, sometime known in the Army as "Honking-Big-Ships".
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Future Armoured Hovercraft?
Hovercraft with rigid sidewalls have been experimented with (they are often known as "Surface Effect Ships") as a type of ship, this is very much like a high speed hydroplane which traps air between the hulls, except the air is delivered by the turbine engines. I don't see why in principle some sort of movable sidewalls could not be added to a hovercraft to convert it to a SES while operating at sea, but there must be some flaw in the plan, otherwise someone would have done this by now.
High speed hovercraft or SES's might need some sort of defensive weaponry to keep the captain happy (look at some of the larger Russian landing craft, they have 30mm cannon for local defense and supression), but as a weapons carrier, the best bet might be fire and forget missiles, since they would have minimal recoil effects on the craft and the crew won't have to try and control it from a bucking, sliding platform.
Of course the Russians were always into weird "bigger is better" ideas, they also experimented with "Wing in Ground Effect" aircraft, which "fly" at hovercraft hights as troop and tank carriers, as well as high speed missile platforms. Fortunatly for the pilots, the USSR collapsed before more than a handfull of experimental craft were built...
Hovercraft with rigid sidewalls have been experimented with (they are often known as "Surface Effect Ships") as a type of ship, this is very much like a high speed hydroplane which traps air between the hulls, except the air is delivered by the turbine engines. I don't see why in principle some sort of movable sidewalls could not be added to a hovercraft to convert it to a SES while operating at sea, but there must be some flaw in the plan, otherwise someone would have done this by now.
High speed hovercraft or SES's might need some sort of defensive weaponry to keep the captain happy (look at some of the larger Russian landing craft, they have 30mm cannon for local defense and supression), but as a weapons carrier, the best bet might be fire and forget missiles, since they would have minimal recoil effects on the craft and the crew won't have to try and control it from a bucking, sliding platform.
Of course the Russians were always into weird "bigger is better" ideas, they also experimented with "Wing in Ground Effect" aircraft, which "fly" at hovercraft hights as troop and tank carriers, as well as high speed missile platforms. Fortunatly for the pilots, the USSR collapsed before more than a handfull of experimental craft were built...
Similar threads
