Future Armour

[Kirkhill]

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...

Lasers, Thuc. Lasers! 

Off course it has to be lasers for a hover tank.

 

[a_majoor]

No, you're thinking about sharks 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

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".

Much to big for our requirements and the US is going to struggle with deploying them as they replace the ships that carry them with ships that don't.

Sidewall hovercraft are a niche machine within a niche  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alta_class_minesweeper . They have not been as popular as even hovercraft which have not been the hot sellers they thought they would be. If you want an attack hovercraft you could go for a modern BH 7

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Meanwhile back at the PLAN

Zubr-class LCAC gives PLA quick access to disputed islands

After the Zubr-class air-cushioned landing craft was commissioned by the People's Liberation Army Navy, Shenzhen Television reports that China will be able to deploy its troops to the disputed Diaoyutai or Diaoyu Islands (administered by Japan as the Senkaku but also claimed by China and Taiwan) in the East China Sea and the Spratly islands in the South China Sea in a shorter period of time.

The report said China had already placed an order for four Zubr-class landing craft under a contract worth US$315 million. While two were constructed by the Ukraine-based Feodosiya Shipbuilding Company, the remaining two were licensed to be built in China. The first Zubr-class air-cushioned landing craft arrived in China in May 2013 according to the state-run China Radio International based in Beijing. China was also licensed to design and produce its own Zubr-class vessels as part of the deal.

With a cargo hold of 400 square meters and a fuel capacity of 56 tonnes, Shenzhen Television stated that the Zubr-class landing craft is capable of carrying three battle tanks or ten armored vehicles with 140 troops. Without any vehicles, it is able to carry 500 troops on board. Its top speed is about 63 knots or 111 kilometers per hour.

If China embarks on a territorial conflict with Japan over the East China Sea or with Vietnam or the Philippines over the South China Sea, the Zubr-class landing craft will play a decisive role due to its speed and size. As the Zubr-class landing craft is three times larger than the patrol vessels with which the Japanese coast guard and most countries in Southeast Asia are equipped, it is nearly unstoppable, even when detected.

Setting off from the closest naval facilities in eastern China, the Zubr-class could arrive at the Diaoyutai in just three hours. If the PLA were able to occupy the disputed islands before the Japanese government could react or deploy military forces to the battlefield, Shenzhen Television stated that China would win the war even before any battle had even taken place. The Zubr-class landing craft is more of a threat when it is equipped with anti-air missiles and naval guns, according to the report.

The Spratly islands are a group of disputed islands in the South China Sea. They are claimed in whole or in part by China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia and Taiwan.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20140102000017

 

[Journeyman]

As the Zubr-class landing craft is three times larger than the patrol vessels with which the Japanese coast guard and most countries in Southeast Asia are equipped, it is nearly unstoppable, even when detected.

    ???    Maybe if the plan is to ram it.  I would think that if you are engaging with guns/missiles, being three times larger just makes for a better target.

 

[dapaterson]

Maybe if the plan is to ram it.  I would think that if you are engaging with guns/missiles, being three times larger just makes for a better target.

[off topic]

As always, Spinal Tap provides the best explanation: www.metacafe.com/watch/mv-XJBra/this_is_spinal_tap_big_bottom/

[/off topic]

 

[Kirkhill]

This is the solution D&B's mates are pursuing.

The Hov-Cat.  http://homepage.ntlworld.com/john.lewthwaite1/website_000002.htm

It has half the beam of an LCAC and is designed to carry 1/3 the payload (20 tonnes vs 60 tonnes)

It needs a smaller BHS than the LCAC.

IMAA has recently developed a novel type of amphibious craft known as the HOVCAT. 

Primarily designed to meet the requirements of the Royal Marines who have an interest in an
fast amphibious landing craft, which would fit within the confines of the 8m wide well dock on
their LSD(A) ships, as well as have the ability to land equipment and men, dry onto a beach. 

The HOVCAT has to be robustly constructed to withstand the forces likely to be incurred 
during docking. Such structural loadings preclude the use of conventional type hovercraft 
which are lightly constructed and have a peripheral bag type skirt which is usually wider than
the available dock width.

IMAA's solution is catamaran type hull with skirt segments attached underneath, as shown below by
an artist's impression: 

A range of military vehicles can be carried which are discharged down a 4.5m wide bow ramp.
Twin ducted air propeller propulsion is adopted with centrifugal fans providing the lift air.
Bow thruster units are fitted to provide side force to facilitate docking.
Substantial side fendering is fitted resulting in an overall beam of 7.5m.

The novel design of the HOVCAT is covered by UK patent no. GB2458003 dated 22 January 2009.                                 

The arrangement permits adequate roll stiffness when operating in rough beam sea conditions, 
since immersion of the buoyant side hulls (shown hashed) generates a restoring moment as the
craft heels. The method of attaching the skirt segments directly to the side-hulls permits the 
craft to operate at higher cushion pressures than typical of conventional hovercraft, permitting
heavier loads to be carried.

Here's a 1/3 manned model

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Basically they are taking more care to seal the skirt, making the airbag more efficient. However it makes maintenance more problematic. The hinged skirt of the SRN6 was attached at the hinge line by stainless rods that went through the hinges, it made skirt replacement very easy and could be done in the field.



By the way hovercrafts we might get to meet one way or another
http://www.shahyad.net/iiarmy/Navy/Hovercraft/Hovercraft.html

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Much to big for our requirements and the US is going to struggle with deploying them as they replace the ships that carry them with ships that don't.

Don't quite get what you are talking about:

All of the new San Antonio class LPD that will be around for another 30 years can carry two, The LHD's in current service can carry three and will all be around for another 30 years, so can the LSD's and they will be around for another while.

The new America class LHD's don't carry any, but over the next 20 years, will only replace the old LHA's that could only carry one anyway - and are so designed so as to accommodate a larger number of F-35's and V-22 Osprey, two aircrafts that more than make up for the loss of one LCAC in the makeup of an ARG.

Moreover, all the new dock landing ships of various nations, the French Mistral (and by ricochet, the Russian navy ones), the Turkish new selectee, the Australian Canberra's, The ROK's Dokdo's, the Japanese? and the Spanish Juan Carlos can all accommodate the LCAC's.

 

[a_majoor]

Getting back on track, here are some pictures of a Soviet era hovertank, Objekt 760. Sadly, I can't seem to find any documentation on this:

 

[GR66]

For a dedicated combat vehicle wouldn't the large fans be quite vulnerable to fragmentation damage?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Landrover tried it as well, the problem is that the aircushion stuff takes up most of the useful payload.

http://youtu.be/q8TA3mDd_5M


They do move large objects with air cushion skirts, but the ground has to be prepped and smoothed out. Redfern resources was planning a hoverbarge to be pulled by special tractors, barge was built but company went belly up before it was completed.

For anyone interested a good read on the proposal here  http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/mining/largemine/tulsequah/pdf/opplan.pdf

 

[a_majoor]

Sort of future, the Turkish Army upgrades some of their Leopard 2 fleet, and apparently is in talks with the Finns to upgrade their tanks as well. While cost is always an issue, some of these upgrades would be useful for our fleet as well (and the idea of using all around panoramic cameras to assist the crew is so non controversial it should be applied to all combat vehicles):

http://defesaglobal.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/8221/

The Turkish firm Aselsan Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret is expected to conclude by current March the performance trials of its Leopard 2NG (Next Generation) main battle tank.

The Leopard 2 NG consist of a Kraus-Maffei Wegman (KMW) Leopard 2A4 main battle tank of the Turkish Land Forces Command (TLFC or in Turkish Türk Kara Kuvvetleri Komutanlığı-TKKK) upgraded with new advanced technologies to provide the vehicle´s with improved protection and fire power. The upgrade package gives the vehicle´s another life of 25 years and minimum life cycle cost.

The solution feature modular add-on ballistic and mine protection modules integrated on the turret and the hull, suspended driver seat, crew compartment fire suppression system, driver´s sight system composed of a forward and rear thermal cameras and rear charge-coupled device (CCD) camera, gunner´s periscope and commander´s panoramic sight with associated electronic units, advanced fire control system, battle management system, laser warning system, electrical gun & turret drives, inertial navigation system, user interface, and as well as stabilized remote weapon station armed with a 12.7mm heavy machine gun, 40mm automatic grenade launcher or 7.62mm light machine gun and fitted with thermal imager, day TV camera and laser range finder and automatic tracking capability.

The new fire control system includes the gun elevation system, turret azimuth sensor, military automatic weather sensor, muzzle reference collimator, gun/turret inertial measurement units, ammunition and the temperature sensor. The battlefield management suite includes the digital intercom system, digital displays units, software defined tactical radio systems, command and control computer and command and control software.

The Turkish company could be in talks with the Finish authorities to upgrade the country´s army Leopard 2A4 vehicles to the Leopard 2NG standard.

171 of the TLFC´s Leopard 1 main battle tanks were upgraded with the Volkan fire control system from Aselsan Elektronik Sanayi ve Ticaret.

 

[a_majoor]

The Indian army looks to an ambitious set of specifications for their future MBT. They have very clever engineers (look at their nuclear submarine program or the recent mission to Mars), but also have had serious difficulties with project management (the ARJUN tank program has been repeatedly delayed and scaled back). I'm not so sure tank commanders will like the idea of built in videoconferencing in their tanks...

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Indian-FMBT-to-be-equipped-with-highpowered-lasers/3977/1/12.html

Indian FMBT to be equipped with high-powered lasers

NEW DELHI (PTI): Looking to strengthen its armoured capabilities, the Indian Army wants its futuristic Main Battle Tank to be equipped with high-powered lasers for taking on enemy rockets, aircraft and electro-optical sensors.

"High/medium-energy level laser is expected to be a lethality option against rockets, air vehicles, light ground vehicles, antennas of armoured vehicles and electro-optical sensors," the Army stated in its long-term technology plans submitted to the Defence Ministry.

Officials said concerned DRDO labs are already working in this direction and developing the capability.

They added that these capabilities might be deployed on the Arjun Mk-II project, which was recently cleared by the Defence Ministry after the Army decided to place orders for another 124 Arjun MBTs with the DRDO.

It also wants the futuristic Main Battle Tank (FMBT) to have an Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) system to decrease chances of own tanks firing at each other during battle.

The Army wants the new tank to have stealth technologies in form of paints and materials to provide limited invisibility and for scrambling and avoidance of detection by enemy sensors.

It also seeks technologies which would enable officials sitting in operational headquarters to have video conferences with the tank commanders in field.

The Army wants the DRDO and the defence industry to provide it with technologies which would help the new FMBT protection against hard-kill weapons such as the Anti-tank Guided missiles, missiles and artillery shells.

The Indian Army has a fleet of over 3,000 tanks in its fleet, which includes a majority of Russian-origin T-72 and T-55, which are likely to be replaced in the near future.

For my own part, I think that high power defensive systems on AFV's are reaching a series of limitations. The power, size and weight of these systems detract from the primary duty of the vehicle (a laser will be quite large and power hungry), and short sensor sight lines and ranges (not to mention the danger to nearby personnel) mean these are really last ditch systems. Armoured vehicles and formations may be better protected by putting the defense systems off board or in the air, where sensors and weapons will have longer sight lines, and engagements of anti armour weapons can take place at longer ranges.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For a country the size of India and with often poor infrastructure I suspect weight and reliability are significant issues. They know their current battlefields could be in highly mountainous terrain or in perfect tank country. The Indian-Pakistani war is notably for it's use of a fairly large scale amphibious assault by PT-76's with however indifferent end result as I recall. I don't see a lot of change in MBT's over the next 15 years other than gradual improvements. If some of the battery tech that is showing promise now comes into play, you see battery material integrated into the armour structure which might allow for a tank to operate on battery alone for short periods of time or to be able to maintain a long period of readiness and overwatch purely on the APU and battery, reducing fuel consumption by significant amounts

If I was looking for a armour niche it might be a light tank built around a L7 105mm type gun with newer ammo, with a high HP to weight ratio, extra cooling and strong drive train and moderate weight class, but with some weight growth potential built into the suspension. 

 

[a_majoor]

Darpa looks for another magic carpet. I would think the real answer isn't on the ground at all but an evolution of the attack helicopter: General Senger und Etterlin’s main battle air vehicle concept: The main battle air vehicle uses ground tactically without relying on it for mobility.:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/08/darpa-gxv-t-seeks-to-develop.html#more

DARPA GXV-T seeks to develop revolutionary technologies to make future armored fighting vehicles more mobile, effective and affordable

[DARPA] For the past 100 years of mechanized warfare, protection for ground-based armored fighting vehicles and their occupants has boiled down almost exclusively to a simple equation: More armor equals more protection. Weapons’ ability to penetrate armor, however, has advanced faster than armor’s ability to withstand penetration. As a result, achieving even incremental improvements in crew survivability has required significant increases in vehicle mass and cost.

The trend of increasingly heavy, less mobile and more expensive combat platforms has limited Soldiers’ and Marines’ ability to rapidly deploy and maneuver in theater and accomplish their missions in varied and evolving threat environments. Moreover, larger vehicles are limited to roads, require more logistical support and are more expensive to design, develop, field and replace. The U.S. military is now at a point where—considering tactical mobility, strategic mobility, survivability and cost—innovative and disruptive solutions are necessary to ensure the operational viability of the next generation of armored fighting vehicles.

GXV-T’s technical goals include the following improvements relative to today’s armored fighting vehicles:

* Reduce vehicle size and weight by 50 percent
* Reduce onboard crew needed to operate vehicle by 50 percent
* Increase vehicle speed by 100 percent
* Access 95 percent of terrain
* Reduce signatures that enable adversaries to detect and engage vehicles

Ground-based armored fighting vehicles and their occupants have traditionally relied on armor and maneuverability for protection. The amount of armor needed for today’s threat environments, however, is becoming increasingly burdensome and ineffective against ever-improving weaponry. DARPA's Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program seeks to develop revolutionary technologies to enable a layered approach to protection that would use less armor more strategically and improve vehicles’ ability to avoid detection, engagement and hits by adversaries. Such capabilities would enable smaller, faster vehicles in the future to more efficiently and cost-effectively tackle varied and unpredictable combat situations.

DARPA has created the Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) program to help overcome these challenges and disrupt the current trends in mechanized warfare. GXV-T seeks to investigate revolutionary ground-vehicle technologies that would simultaneously improve the mobility and survivability of vehicles through means other than adding more armor, including avoiding detection, engagement and hits by adversaries. This improved mobility and warfighting capability would enable future U.S. ground forces to more efficiently and cost-effectively tackle varied and unpredictable combat situations.

“GXV-T’s goal is not just to improve or replace one particular vehicle—it’s about breaking the ‘more armor’ paradigm and revolutionizing protection for all armored fighting vehicles,” said Kevin Massey, DARPA program manager. “Inspired by how X-plane programs have improved aircraft capabilities over the past 60 years, we plan to pursue groundbreaking fundamental research and development to help make future armored fighting vehicles significantly more mobile, effective, safe and affordable.”

The GXV-T program provides the following four technical areas as examples where advanced technologies could be developed that would meet the program’s objectives:

Radically Enhanced Mobility – Ability to traverse diverse off-road terrain, including slopes and various elevations; advanced suspensions and novel track/wheel configurations; extreme speed; rapid omnidirectional movement changes in three dimensions
Survivability through Agility – Autonomously avoid incoming threats without harming occupants through technologies such as agile motion (dodging) and active repositioning of armor
Crew Augmentation – Improved physical and electronically assisted situational awareness for crew and passengers; semi-autonomous driver assistance and automation of key crew functions similar to capabilities found in modern commercial airplane cockpits
Signature Management – Reduction of detectable signatures, including visible, infrared (IR), acoustic and electromagnetic (EM)

Technology development beyond these four examples is desired so long as it supports the program’s goals. DARPA is particularly interested in engaging nontraditional contributors to help develop leap-ahead technologies in the focus areas above, as well as other technologies that could potentially improve both the survivability and mobility of future armored fighting vehicles.

DARPA aims to develop GXV-T technologies over 24 months after initial contract awards, which are currently planned on or before April 2015. The GXV-T program plans to pursue research, development, design and testing and evaluation of major subsystem capabilities in multiple technology areas with the goal of integrating these capabilities into future ground X-vehicle demonstrators.

 

[CougarKing]

The GXVT mentioned above, again in the news:

Fox News

US military targets revolutionary new tank designs

By James Rogers
Published August 19, 2014FoxNews.com

The U.S. military is planning a new type of high-tech tank which will use less armor but provide greater mobility to troops and present a much smaller target to enemies.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has launched a program called Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) which aims to revolutionize mechanized warfare. Since tanks made their combat debut during the First World War, more protection has typically meant adding more armor.

Now, however, the ability of weapons to penetrate armor has advanced faster than armor's ability to withstand the weapons, according to DARPA. "GXV-T's goal is not just to improve or replace one particular vehicle - it's about breaking the 'more armor' paradigm and revolutionizing protection for all armored fighting vehicles," said DARPA Program Manager Kevin Massey, in a statement.

DARPA is pursuing what it describes as "a layered approach to protection" that uses less armor more strategically and improves vehicles' ability to avoid detection, engagement and hits by enemy forces.

(...EDITED)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Must have made a swell power point with many buzz words. I see active defenses and active camouflage being the most technology feasible way to go. If you end up fielding something made from a 'super material" likely it will not be field repairable.

 

[a_majoor]

More on the various US Army programs for lightweight and airmobile or at least airportable vehicles. Considering the Russians have had similar desires and design constraints to create their BMD series of vehicles, it might be a good idea for the US to simply suggest their designers "Reverse engineer" some Soviet and Russian airborne fighting vehicles as an opening step. While the BMD may not be a "great" vehicle, it certainly shows what can and cannot be done, and building a BMD using American methods, standards and equipment (engines, fire control etc) would provide a template as to what is possible.

Other directions to look might be Marginal Terrain Vehicles (the Swedes did some experiments and the UDXX-20 was one result, a vehicle based on a BV-206 chassis that carried a 120mm cannon), since the performance of these vehicles on the ground would greatly enhance the mobility of lightly equipped airmobile soldiers once on the ground, and allow them to be inserted and operate in the flanks and rear in places the enemy would have difficulty going.

http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/us-army-wants-parachuting-tank

U.S. Army Wants A Parachuting Tank
Three vehicles will replace the Humvee -- and they'll all arrive by air.
By Kelsey D. Atherton Posted 09.18.2014 at 3:00 pm 
0
A CH-47 Chinook With Japan's Self Defense Forces PD-self, via Wikimedia Commons
After years of service in wars -- from Iraq to Afghanistan to Iraq again -- the Humvee is on its way out. Officially named the High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle, (HMMVV) its acronym and stature is so iconic that it launched a series of commercial vehicles. Now the Army wants to fill its light and fast shoes, and to do so, they looked at three different vehicles last week during exercises in Fort Benning, Georgia.

Together, the vehicles would enable the Army to do “forcible entry missions,” which is Pentagonese for “land and operate in a hostile place.” The first vehicle is, in essence, a light tank. Creatively titled “Mobile Protected Firepower” (MPF), it’s an armored vehicle that can be dropped from cargo planes. The United States hasn’t had a light parachutable tank since they retired the M551 Sheridan in 1996, and even then its performance was underwhelming; armor light enough to drop isn’t very protective. (Earlier attempts at flying tanks proved less effective.)

The next vehicles is the ultra-lightweight combat vehicle (ULCV). The ULCV is, in essence, a turbo jeep. It will carry a full nine person infantry squad along with their equipment, up to 3,200 pounds total. The vehicle itself will weigh no more than 4,500 pounds, making the fully loaded and crewed vehicle under 8,000 pounds. It has to fit inside a CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter, so that the crew can drive right in or out, and the vehicle should drive for at least 250 miles at full weight, while also being able to survive a rollover. The Army also wants it to drive cross-country, primary road, secondary road, and urban rubble during both day and night missions. While the current solicitation for the ULCV doesn’t specify it, a previous solicitation wanted the vehicle to “ to incorporate a medium caliber weapon into squad operations.” In essence, the ULCV should get a squad into the fight right off the helicopter, over unpaved ground, and with a big gun onboard to help them out.

Lastly, the Army is also looking at a light reconnaissance vehicle (LRV), also carried by Chinook helicopters both inside and underneath. The LRV will carry six soldiers and their gear, and it will go on rougher terrain than the other two Humvee replacements. Under the solicitation category “lethality,” the Army says it wants an LRV with the “capability of defeating and engaging hardened enemy bunkers, light armored vehicles, and dismounted personnel in machine gun and sniper positions.” In addition to seeking out threats like that, the LRV, as requested, will go farther than current Humvees, protect against some blasts, work in all weather and with degraded visibility, and defeat outdated tanks.

Together, these vehicles will let the Army arrive from the sky, and start fighting on day one, all while waiting for heavier vehicles and reinforcements to arrive. If they all work as expected, the vehicleds would add greatly to what the Army can do early on in a war, with the light tanks protecting the landing zone, the combat vehicle carrying soldiers to the fight, and the light reconnaissance vehicle seeking out hidden dangers.

Of course, the Marines may already be there. Their MV-22 Ospreys can already deploy troops from the sky, and soon they’ll deploy vehicles too.

Since this article is actually about HMMVW replacements, I will say that going for a heavier and somewhat more capable vehicle is probably the "real" way to go.

 

[a_majoor]

Stumbled across an old piece about turretless tanks from @ 1990. This was a thesis written to examine the trade-offs between a hypothetical turretless tank based on a M-1 chassis and a vastly up gunned M-1 carrying a 140mm cannon (the Turretless tank also was armed with a 140mm cannon).

They 140mm armed M-1 was a real project, and a test article was built to examine the concept. As expected, it was much larger and heavier than the base M-1. The hypothetical tank was also modelled on an experimental vehicle, although the M-1 chassis carried a conventional 120mm cannon in the test article. The hypothetical vehicle carried a 140mm cannon and a coaxial 25mm bushmaster cannon, and as result of losing about 1/3 of the armoured volume with the deletion of a turret, it was considered to be lighter (estimated 45 tons), more mobile (much higher power/weight ratio) and better protected (mostly by having a lower profile in the firing position, and having the crew in an armoured "pod" inside the tank). Being equipped with an autoloader and an automatic cannon as the coaxial weapon, it was also considered to be more lethal.

It occurred to me that in the intervening time, we have made pretty incredible progress in almost every field, such as optronics and sensors, computers, even more reliable mechanical and electrical systems and so on. Even in the 1990's, 1500hp power packs about 40% smaller than the M-1 power pack were demonstrated, making a front engined version of the M-1 a possibility (yes, everything else would have to be rearranged as well).

Some other things strike me as well:

1. Many of the projected US military projects from that era like TERM (Tank Extended Range Munitions) have come to fruition (although the actual round is built in Korea and used by the ROK Army in the K-2 tank; the US having abandoned the project). Fighting vehicles using advanced ammunition are far more lethal than the hypothetical 140mm armed vehicles of the 1990's.

2. Much of the expense of military procurement is due to Byzantine bureaucratic rules and massive layers of overhead. If defense contractors were organized like the SpaceX corporation, we would expect much lower costs and faster turnarounds from concept to delivered product. SpaceX charges @ $50 million for a space launch on a Falcon 9, while government contractor ULA charges $400 million for a launch on the similarly sized Atlas V rocket (and the Atlas was initially developed in the 1950's, so suggesting ULA is charging for R&D is a bit of a stretch). Demanding management changes both within the military (our project management) and without (TB rules and corporate management) should deliver similar orders of magnitude changes as well.

3. A front engined chassis would be the appropriate basis for a family of vehicles. If the Canadian Army really wanted to create a capable mechanized force then getting a capable, inexpensive family of vehicles is the way to go. Engineer vehicles, CCV's and platforms for a variety of other systems are quite possible under this scenario.

The real challenge is to provide the right incentives for the changes in management to allow the rapid and relatively inexpensive acquisition of equipment.