Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff)
-> AFV News Discussion Board
#1: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:31 am
    ----
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
#2: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:22 pm
    ----
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
#3: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Costas_TT,  PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:57 pm
    ----
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.

Last edited by Costas_TT on Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:11 am; edited 1 time in total
#4: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:47 am
    ----
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
#5: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Doug_Kibbey, Location: The Great Satan PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 2:45 am
    ----
- 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?
#6: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Pzkpfw-e,  PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 8:29 am
    ----
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!
#7: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:09 am
    ----
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
#8: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: piney, Location: Republic of Southern New Jersey PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:19 am
    ----
maybe they can use the "Gavin" Twisted Evil
#9: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: JG300-Ascout, Location: Cyberspace PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 5:39 pm
    ----
- 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
#10: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Rick_Eshleman, Location: Lewes, Delaware, USA PostPosted: Fri Sep 20, 2013 10:44 pm
    ----
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
#11: Re: Deja Vu: The Army wants a Light Tank (and other stuff) Author: Neil_Baumgardner, Location: Arlington, VA PostPosted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:06 am
    ----
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
-> AFV News Discussion Board

All times are GMT - 6 Hours

Page 1 of 1