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