±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: 320
Total: 320
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Home
02: Community Forums
03: Member Screenshots
04: Member Screenshots
05: Member Screenshots
06: Statistics
07: Home
08: Home
09: News Archive
10: Member Screenshots
11: Home
12: Home
13: Home
14: Community Forums
15: Photo Gallery
16: Home
17: Member Screenshots
18: Community Forums
19: Photo Gallery
20: Community Forums
21: Community Forums
22: Photo Gallery
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: Home
26: Photo Gallery
27: Community Forums
28: Downloads
29: Home
30: Home
31: Home
32: Community Forums
33: Home
34: Community Forums
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Community Forums
38: Home
39: Community Forums
40: Home
41: Photo Gallery
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Home
45: Home
46: Downloads
47: Member Screenshots
48: Community Forums
49: Photo Gallery
50: Photo Gallery
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Photo Gallery
54: Home
55: Home
56: Home
57: Downloads
58: Home
59: Home
60: Photo Gallery
61: Community Forums
62: Home
63: Member Screenshots
64: Community Forums
65: Photo Gallery
66: Home
67: Community Forums
68: Member Screenshots
69: Member Screenshots
70: Member Screenshots
71: Home
72: Photo Gallery
73: Home
74: Community Forums
75: Community Forums
76: Community Forums
77: News Archive
78: Home
79: Photo Gallery
80: Photo Gallery
81: Photo Gallery
82: News Archive
83: Home
84: Community Forums
85: Photo Gallery
86: Downloads
87: Community Forums
88: Home
89: Home
90: Home
91: Community Forums
92: Community Forums
93: Member Screenshots
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Home
97: Photo Gallery
98: Photo Gallery
99: Community Forums
100: Photo Gallery
101: Home
102: Home
103: Home
104: Community Forums
105: Member Screenshots
106: Community Forums
107: News Archive
108: Member Screenshots
109: Community Forums
110: Member Screenshots
111: Community Forums
112: Photo Gallery
113: Home
114: Home
115: Community Forums
116: Home
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Home
121: Community Forums
122: Photo Gallery
123: Photo Gallery
124: Community Forums
125: Home
126: Community Forums
127: Home
128: Community Forums
129: LinkToUs
130: News Archive
131: Home
132: Home
133: Home
134: Photo Gallery
135: Home
136: Your Account
137: Home
138: Community Forums
139: Photo Gallery
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Member Screenshots
143: Home
144: Home
145: Home
146: Home
147: Community Forums
148: Home
149: Community Forums
150: Photo Gallery
151: Community Forums
152: Home
153: Home
154: News Archive
155: Community Forums
156: Home
157: Home
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Community Forums
161: Statistics
162: Community Forums
163: Member Screenshots
164: Home
165: Community Forums
166: Home
167: Community Forums
168: Community Forums
169: Home
170: Home
171: Home
172: Member Screenshots
173: Community Forums
174: Home
175: Downloads
176: Community Forums
177: Home
178: Community Forums
179: News Archive
180: Member Screenshots
181: Community Forums
182: Community Forums
183: Member Screenshots
184: Home
185: Community Forums
186: Photo Gallery
187: News Archive
188: Community Forums
189: Photo Gallery
190: Member Screenshots
191: Home
192: Home
193: Community Forums
194: Home
195: Community Forums
196: Home
197: Home
198: Home
199: Photo Gallery
200: Home
201: Downloads
202: Downloads
203: Member Screenshots
204: Photo Gallery
205: Statistics
206: Home
207: Home
208: Downloads
209: Home
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Photo Gallery
213: Home
214: Home
215: Photo Gallery
216: Member Screenshots
217: Community Forums
218: Home
219: Downloads
220: Member Screenshots
221: Home
222: Community Forums
223: Home
224: Home
225: Photo Gallery
226: Photo Gallery
227: Your Account
228: Home
229: Home
230: Home
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Home
234: Photo Gallery
235: Home
236: Home
237: Community Forums
238: Home
239: Photo Gallery
240: Photo Gallery
241: Community Forums
242: News Archive
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Photo Gallery
246: Home
247: News Archive
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Community Forums
251: Home
252: Home
253: Members List
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Community Forums
258: Home
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: Contact
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Member Screenshots
268: Home
269: Home
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Home
273: Downloads
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: News Archive
277: Downloads
278: Member Screenshots
279: Home
280: Home
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Community Forums
286: Photo Gallery
287: Photo Gallery
288: Photo Gallery
289: Photo Gallery
290: Home
291: Home
292: Statistics
293: Photo Gallery
294: Home
295: Home
296: Community Forums
297: Home
298: Home
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Community Forums
302: Community Forums
303: Community Forums
304: Home
305: Home
306: Home
307: Photo Gallery
308: Home
309: Photo Gallery
310: Community Forums
311: Home
312: Home
313: Home
314: Home
315: Photo Gallery
316: Members List
317: Downloads
318: Your Account
319: Community Forums
320: Community Forums

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: 6258
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