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