±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: HighestAce
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6648

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 409
Total: 409
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Home
03: Contact
04: Community Forums
05: Member Screenshots
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Home
09: Home
10: Home
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Home
14: Home
15: Photo Gallery
16: Your Account
17: News Archive
18: Community Forums
19: Member Screenshots
20: News Archive
21: Community Forums
22: Community Forums
23: Home
24: Community Forums
25: News Archive
26: Community Forums
27: Home
28: Home
29: Member Screenshots
30: Home
31: Home
32: News
33: Community Forums
34: News
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Member Screenshots
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Photo Gallery
41: Community Forums
42: Home
43: Photo Gallery
44: Home
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Downloads
48: Downloads
49: Home
50: Home
51: Photo Gallery
52: Home
53: Member Screenshots
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Home
58: Member Screenshots
59: Member Screenshots
60: Community Forums
61: Member Screenshots
62: Photo Gallery
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Home
66: Community Forums
67: Home
68: Community Forums
69: Your Account
70: News Archive
71: Home
72: Home
73: Home
74: Community Forums
75: Home
76: News
77: Photo Gallery
78: Community Forums
79: Home
80: Downloads
81: Home
82: Home
83: Community Forums
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Home
88: Photo Gallery
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Photo Gallery
97: Community Forums
98: Home
99: Your Account
100: Community Forums
101: Downloads
102: Member Screenshots
103: Home
104: Home
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Community Forums
108: LinkToUs
109: Member Screenshots
110: Home
111: Community Forums
112: News
113: Your Account
114: Home
115: Photo Gallery
116: News
117: Photo Gallery
118: Community Forums
119: Home
120: News
121: News
122: Community Forums
123: Your Account
124: Community Forums
125: Photo Gallery
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Your Account
129: Community Forums
130: Home
131: Community Forums
132: Home
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: News Archive
136: Photo Gallery
137: Home
138: Statistics
139: Community Forums
140: Member Screenshots
141: Community Forums
142: Downloads
143: Home
144: Home
145: Community Forums
146: Home
147: Community Forums
148: Home
149: Downloads
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: Photo Gallery
156: Home
157: Home
158: Home
159: Home
160: Community Forums
161: News Archive
162: Community Forums
163: Home
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Home
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Home
173: Home
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Your Account
177: Downloads
178: Photo Gallery
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Home
182: Community Forums
183: Home
184: News
185: Community Forums
186: Member Screenshots
187: Community Forums
188: Community Forums
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Your Account
193: Home
194: Community Forums
195: Photo Gallery
196: Community Forums
197: Home
198: News
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Community Forums
203: Member Screenshots
204: Home
205: Home
206: Tell a Friend
207: Community Forums
208: Home
209: Home
210: Downloads
211: Tell a Friend
212: Member Screenshots
213: Home
214: Home
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Home
218: Home
219: Community Forums
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Your Account
223: Photo Gallery
224: Home
225: Community Forums
226: Photo Gallery
227: Home
228: Community Forums
229: Photo Gallery
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: News Archive
234: Community Forums
235: Home
236: Community Forums
237: Home
238: Home
239: Community Forums
240: Home
241: Community Forums
242: Member Screenshots
243: Community Forums
244: Home
245: Community Forums
246: Home
247: Photo Gallery
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Member Screenshots
253: Member Screenshots
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Community Forums
258: Member Screenshots
259: Home
260: Community Forums
261: Home
262: Downloads
263: Statistics
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Your Account
269: Community Forums
270: Home
271: Photo Gallery
272: Home
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: News Archive
276: Community Forums
277: Home
278: Member Screenshots
279: News
280: News Archive
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Home
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: Home
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Home
293: Community Forums
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Member Screenshots
300: Home
301: LinkToUs
302: Community Forums
303: Home
304: Home
305: Home
306: Community Forums
307: Member Screenshots
308: Community Forums
309: Community Forums
310: Your Account
311: News Archive
312: News Archive
313: Treasury
314: Home
315: Home
316: News Archive
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Home
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Community Forums
329: Community Forums
330: Home
331: Community Forums
332: Home
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Home
336: Community Forums
337: Member Screenshots
338: Community Forums
339: Home
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Home
343: Community Forums
344: Home
345: Home
346: Community Forums
347: Home
348: Member Screenshots
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Your Account
353: Home
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Home
357: Community Forums
358: Home
359: News Archive
360: Home
361: Community Forums
362: Home
363: Downloads
364: Home
365: Community Forums
366: Home
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Home
371: Community Forums
372: Home
373: Member Screenshots
374: News Archive
375: Downloads
376: Community Forums
377: Downloads
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Home
381: Home
382: Community Forums
383: Home
384: Home
385: Search
386: Home
387: Home
388: Community Forums
389: Home
390: Community Forums
391: Search
392: Home
393: Community Forums
394: Home
395: Community Forums
396: Your Account
397: Community Forums
398: Home
399: Community Forums
400: Home
401: Community Forums
402: Community Forums
403: Downloads
404: Home
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Home
408: Community Forums
409: Photo Gallery

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:31 am
Post subject: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

From a new white paper by the Maneuver Center of Excellence:
www.benning.army.mil/m...9_9_13.pdf

"the Army requires a light tank to support IBCTs with mobile protected firepower in an offensive role, closing with and destroying enemy dismounts and providing supporting fires for Infantry assaults. A light tank will preserve freedom of maneuver and action for Infantry formations in contact with the enemy and make IBCTs more effective in future operations.

"Additionally, the IBCTs require a light reconnaissance vehicle to equip its cavalry squadrons so that those formations can conduct mounted and dismounted reconnaissance and security operations to give IBCTs greater depth, provide early warning of enemy activity, and protect IBCT forces when they are most vulnerable to enemy action (i.e., while stationary or moving mounted in trucks). A light tank and a light reconnaissance vehicle would greatly enhance the IBCT’s mobility, protection, and precision firepower capabilities."

The white paper also takes about replacing the Stryker MGS with the new light tank:

"The MGS lacks cross-country mobility of a tank and does not have a stabilized weapon system that would allow it to provide protection to ICVs while closing with the enemy... the integration of the light tank as a replacement for the MGS, would significantly increase the lethality —and the tactical agility—of our SBCTs."

The irony here is that the Army rejected United Defense's Interim Armored Vehicle offering because if offered a mix of M113s and M8 AGS that wouldnt have commonality.

The white paper also seems to imply that the Stryker ICV and RV will get something larger than the current .50 cals - potentially as large as a 30mm heavy remote weapon station.

"...the Stryker Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV) and Reconnaissance Vehicle (RV) possesses optics that allow Soldiers to identify the enemy at extended range, but the vehicles’ weapons can only engage the enemy out to the maximum effective range of the .50 caliber machinegun... Stryker-based ICVs and RVs require weapons systems that provide precision direct fire out to the range of their optics (i.e., Remote Weapon Stations)... a heavy remote weapon system armed with the XM813 30mm chain gun (currently under development for the GCV program) or a modified M230E1 30mm chain gun (currently employed on the AH-64 Apache) are potential candidates for assessment."

Will be interesting to see how larger weapons on the Stryker ICV and RV will impact their C-130 deployability - or if the Army doesnt care about that as much post-Iraq & Afghanistan.

For the Armored Brigade Combat Teams (formerly Armored or Mechanized or Heavy) the Army wants a new Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle - in addition to the Ground Combat Vehicle IFV and Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle M113-replacement.

"ABCTs also require an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle that can maneuver scout squads under the overwatch of precision direct fires and enable the ABCT’s cavalry squadron, troops, and platoons to conduct simultaneous mounted and dismounted reconnaissance and security operations."

This last one doesnt really surprise me - the Army really kicked the can down the road on several requirements when it replaced the 8-variant FCS Manned Ground Vehicle family with the 1-variant GCV and AMPV. An "Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle" would be the service's 3rd attempt in two decades to fill that requirement - after FSCS/TRACER and the FCS Reconnaissance Vehicle (not counting the pre-Bradley ARSV). The Army is still kicking the can down the road on a self-propelled howitzer (after Crusader and FCS NLOS-C), which was the service's #1 requirement two decades ago.

Of course this all sounds like a lot of recurring engineering to me for a GCV, and an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, and a Light Tank, etc.

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

I'm also curious how/if the Army can build in IED suitability onto a light tank - it appears to result in a rather large weight penalty for the GCV.

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Costas_TT
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Feb 15, 2012
Posts: 387

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:57 pm
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

The M8 AGS and the Stingray 2 (and the M8 precursor CCVL) aside, there were also proposals to use the Bradley hull with a 105mm turret.


www.jedsite.info/fullt...intro.html

Or, for minimum fuss, they could try turning the Stryker MGS into Tracked Stryker MGS, as offered with the DVH (Double Vee Hull). Just sayin'... It could be a nice piece of whiffery for modelers.

_________________
1/72 and 1/76 scale fanatic.


Last edited by Costas_TT on Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:11 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:47 am
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

Yeah, I suspect BAE will offer an updated M8 AGS/Thunderbolt or whatever...

The current Stryker MGS Low-Profile Turret is probably a no-go due to the lack of stabilization. That doesnt seem to have been an issue when they wanted it as an infantry support vehicle, which was the original requirement - do you need stabilization if you're firing HE into buildings or canister rounds? Reading between the lines, it sounds like they want a tank-killer instead.

Of course the FCS Mounted Combat System would have made a perfectly fine light tank, if not more, but dont get me started...

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:45 am
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

- Neil_Baumgardner
I'm also curious how/if the Army can build in IED suitability onto a light tank - it appears to result in a rather large weight penalty for the GCV.

Neil


I can think of a vehicle that meets all but one of the stated requirements already in the inventory. It's called a "tank". Like yourself, I noted phrases like "protected', "overwatch", etc. and presumably, "protected" means against IED's as well as direct fire. Unless there is some new miracle material that affords that kind of protection at ~1/3rd of conventional MBT weight, then that air mobility will have to be sacrificed.

For a few older members, this is going to sound a lot like "deja vu all over again". I suspect those requirements are going to require either a lot of refinement....or modifications. They seem to be asking for an RV that's 36' long on the inside, and 22' on the outside. It won't be the first time.

And after it's designed, will it be determined that it has to swim, too? Laughing


Sorry, age and experience have made me cynical...and occasionally, snide.

...and how are we going to pay for this little trinket, "constrained resources" being what they are?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Pzkpfw-e
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jul 21, 2010
Posts: 1202

PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:29 am
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

How about going for full remote control? Take out the need for crew, reduce the space needed for them, thus overal vehicle size reduced, reduce the armour, because you don't have to protect the squishy things inside, build lots & cheaply!
Back to top
View user's profile
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:09 am
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

Pzkpfw-e,
That was the original FCS vision, c1998 or so, when it was a DARPA project - manned command and control vehicles, manned infantry fighting vehicles (of course) with robotic direct fire vehicles, reconnaissance vehicles, self-propelled howitzers, etc.

But even that turned out to be too ambitious for industry when it was competed out.

Neil
Back to top
View user's profile
piney
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 2330
Location: Republic of Southern New Jersey
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:19 am
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

maybe they can use the "Gavin" Twisted Evil

_________________
The only good skwerril is a dead un
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
JG300-Ascout
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 05, 2005
Posts: 6257
Location: Cyberspace
PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

- piney
maybe they can use the "Gavin" Twisted Evil


The demise and replacement of the M113 is specifically spelled out in the paper. Of course, this will be derided by the professor emeritus of armor development as "f***tard narcisism", but in all caps. Laughing

_________________
"All facts go to clearly prove that Shades is a thrice-cursed traitor & mentally deranged person steeped in inveterate enmity toward mankind"
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Rick_Eshleman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 26, 2011
Posts: 909
Location: Lewes, Delaware, USA
PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:44 pm
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

Neil,
My "deja vu" photos of the CCLV made by the former FMC back at AUSA '87. Nothing like a new white paper to come out and dredge the past. Interesting as usual, but will be too costly. Rick
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail AIM Address Photo Gallery
Neil_Baumgardner
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3942
Location: Arlington, VA
PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:06 am
Post subject: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)

From an article on military.com:

"Maneuver officials say they would want a platform that could be air-dropped from a C-130 aircraft. It should have a base armor package capable of defeating 14.5mm ammunition. Once follow-on forces arrive, addition armor packages could be bolted on as necessary.

"One option could be to take another look at the Armored Gun System, a 105mm light tank that the Army had considered as a replacement to the Sheridan in the mid 1990s.

"It met the requirement in 1996 and still does, according to Benning officials, who described the AGS as "old technology that kills T72 tanks.""

www.military.com/daily...828&rank=1
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 6 Hours



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum