±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: 421
Total: 421
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Home
03: Community Forums
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Home
07: News Archive
08: Photo Gallery
09: Downloads
10: Downloads
11: Community Forums
12: Member Screenshots
13: Community Forums
14: Your Account
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Photo Gallery
18: Home
19: Member Screenshots
20: Home
21: Community Forums
22: Member Screenshots
23: Home
24: Home
25: Member Screenshots
26: Home
27: Home
28: Home
29: Home
30: Community Forums
31: Home
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Community Forums
35: News Archive
36: Home
37: Community Forums
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: News
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Home
44: Community Forums
45: Your Account
46: Community Forums
47: Home
48: Member Screenshots
49: Community Forums
50: Your Account
51: Home
52: Member Screenshots
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Community Forums
60: Member Screenshots
61: Member Screenshots
62: Community Forums
63: Downloads
64: Community Forums
65: News
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Home
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: Home
72: Home
73: Community Forums
74: News Archive
75: Downloads
76: Community Forums
77: Downloads
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: Community Forums
84: Photo Gallery
85: Home
86: Member Screenshots
87: News Archive
88: Community Forums
89: Home
90: Community Forums
91: Member Screenshots
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Member Screenshots
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Member Screenshots
101: Member Screenshots
102: Home
103: Downloads
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Home
107: Community Forums
108: Community Forums
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Home
112: Community Forums
113: Community Forums
114: Statistics
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Member Screenshots
121: Home
122: Community Forums
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Community Forums
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Home
130: Community Forums
131: Community Forums
132: News Archive
133: Member Screenshots
134: Home
135: Downloads
136: Community Forums
137: Community Forums
138: Home
139: Community Forums
140: Photo Gallery
141: Member Screenshots
142: Photo Gallery
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: Community Forums
146: Home
147: Home
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Home
151: Community Forums
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Photo Gallery
155: Community Forums
156: News Archive
157: Home
158: Community Forums
159: Community Forums
160: Your Account
161: Home
162: Community Forums
163: Community Forums
164: Home
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Home
168: Home
169: Member Screenshots
170: Community Forums
171: Member Screenshots
172: Community Forums
173: Home
174: Photo Gallery
175: Community Forums
176: Home
177: Home
178: Home
179: Photo Gallery
180: Home
181: Community Forums
182: Home
183: News Archive
184: Photo Gallery
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Home
188: Community Forums
189: Home
190: Home
191: News Archive
192: Member Screenshots
193: News Archive
194: Home
195: Community Forums
196: Community Forums
197: News Archive
198: Home
199: Community Forums
200: Photo Gallery
201: Home
202: Community Forums
203: Photo Gallery
204: Community Forums
205: Home
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Member Screenshots
209: Photo Gallery
210: Home
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Home
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Home
217: Home
218: Photo Gallery
219: Community Forums
220: Community Forums
221: Home
222: Home
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Member Screenshots
226: Community Forums
227: Member Screenshots
228: Photo Gallery
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Home
234: Home
235: Home
236: Community Forums
237: Home
238: Community Forums
239: Member Screenshots
240: Photo Gallery
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Photo Gallery
244: Photo Gallery
245: Member Screenshots
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Downloads
251: Home
252: Photo Gallery
253: Home
254: Community Forums
255: Community Forums
256: Community Forums
257: Home
258: Member Screenshots
259: Downloads
260: Member Screenshots
261: Community Forums
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Downloads
266: Community Forums
267: News
268: Community Forums
269: Member Screenshots
270: Home
271: Community Forums
272: Home
273: Community Forums
274: Home
275: Home
276: Community Forums
277: Home
278: Community Forums
279: Your Account
280: Home
281: Community Forums
282: News Archive
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Community Forums
286: Community Forums
287: News Archive
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Home
291: Downloads
292: Home
293: Community Forums
294: Home
295: Community Forums
296: Community Forums
297: Home
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: News Archive
301: Home
302: Home
303: Community Forums
304: Home
305: Home
306: Community Forums
307: Community Forums
308: Home
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Downloads
312: Statistics
313: News Archive
314: Community Forums
315: Member Screenshots
316: Downloads
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Your Account
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Community Forums
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Photo Gallery
327: Community Forums
328: Community Forums
329: Community Forums
330: Community Forums
331: Home
332: Community Forums
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Downloads
336: Community Forums
337: Home
338: Home
339: News Archive
340: News Archive
341: Community Forums
342: Community Forums
343: Member Screenshots
344: Home
345: Community Forums
346: Member Screenshots
347: Home
348: Member Screenshots
349: Home
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Downloads
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Member Screenshots
358: Community Forums
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Member Screenshots
362: Statistics
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Downloads
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: News Archive
375: Statistics
376: Community Forums
377: Member Screenshots
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Home
381: Member Screenshots
382: Community Forums
383: Community Forums
384: Community Forums
385: Community Forums
386: Home
387: Community Forums
388: Community Forums
389: Downloads
390: Member Screenshots
391: Home
392: Member Screenshots
393: Home
394: Home
395: Home
396: Community Forums
397: Community Forums
398: Downloads
399: Community Forums
400: Home
401: News Archive
402: Member Screenshots
403: Statistics
404: Member Screenshots
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Community Forums
408: Home
409: Member Screenshots
410: Community Forums
411: Photo Gallery
412: Home
413: News Archive
414: Downloads
415: Community Forums
416: Community Forums
417: News Archive
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: 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