±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 383
Total: 383
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: News Archive
02: Search
03: Community Forums
04: Photo Gallery
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Community Forums
08: Community Forums
09: Downloads
10: Photo Gallery
11: Member Screenshots
12: Community Forums
13: Home
14: Photo Gallery
15: Home
16: Your Account
17: Home
18: Community Forums
19: Photo Gallery
20: Statistics
21: Your Account
22: Community Forums
23: Member Screenshots
24: Statistics
25: News
26: Home
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Photo Gallery
32: Downloads
33: Community Forums
34: CPGlang
35: Home
36: Community Forums
37: Home
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: News
41: Photo Gallery
42: CPGlang
43: Community Forums
44: CPGlang
45: Home
46: CPGlang
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Community Forums
52: Community Forums
53: Home
54: Community Forums
55: Home
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Member Screenshots
59: Community Forums
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Home
64: Home
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: CPGlang
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Home
72: Community Forums
73: Photo Gallery
74: CPGlang
75: CPGlang
76: Home
77: Home
78: Community Forums
79: Community Forums
80: Home
81: Community Forums
82: Community Forums
83: CPGlang
84: Community Forums
85: Community Forums
86: Home
87: Photo Gallery
88: Community Forums
89: Community Forums
90: CPGlang
91: Community Forums
92: Photo Gallery
93: CPGlang
94: Community Forums
95: CPGlang
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Your Account
100: CPGlang
101: Your Account
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Member Screenshots
106: CPGlang
107: CPGlang
108: Photo Gallery
109: Member Screenshots
110: Community Forums
111: Home
112: Home
113: Home
114: CPGlang
115: Community Forums
116: CPGlang
117: CPGlang
118: CPGlang
119: Member Screenshots
120: Community Forums
121: Home
122: CPGlang
123: Community Forums
124: Home
125: Home
126: Photo Gallery
127: CPGlang
128: Home
129: Photo Gallery
130: Community Forums
131: Home
132: Home
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Community Forums
137: Home
138: Member Screenshots
139: Community Forums
140: Community Forums
141: Home
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Community Forums
145: CPGlang
146: CPGlang
147: Statistics
148: Home
149: Home
150: CPGlang
151: News
152: Community Forums
153: Search
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Statistics
157: Photo Gallery
158: Downloads
159: Community Forums
160: CPGlang
161: CPGlang
162: News Archive
163: Community Forums
164: Home
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: CPGlang
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Photo Gallery
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: CPGlang
174: Community Forums
175: Community Forums
176: Community Forums
177: Downloads
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Community Forums
182: Home
183: News
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Home
187: Community Forums
188: Community Forums
189: Photo Gallery
190: Home
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Downloads
194: Your Account
195: CPGlang
196: Community Forums
197: Photo Gallery
198: Member Screenshots
199: Photo Gallery
200: Home
201: Photo Gallery
202: Community Forums
203: Home
204: Community Forums
205: CPGlang
206: News Archive
207: Photo Gallery
208: Member Screenshots
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Home
217: Photo Gallery
218: News Archive
219: Home
220: Photo Gallery
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: Home
224: Community Forums
225: Member Screenshots
226: Home
227: Home
228: Community Forums
229: Home
230: News
231: Your Account
232: Community Forums
233: CPGlang
234: Community Forums
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: CPGlang
238: CPGlang
239: Member Screenshots
240: Community Forums
241: Photo Gallery
242: Community Forums
243: Search
244: Home
245: Home
246: Home
247: Home
248: Community Forums
249: Search
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Home
253: Community Forums
254: Your Account
255: Downloads
256: CPGlang
257: News
258: Community Forums
259: CPGlang
260: Community Forums
261: Community Forums
262: Home
263: Community Forums
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Home
268: Community Forums
269: Community Forums
270: Home
271: Community Forums
272: Photo Gallery
273: Downloads
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Home
277: Community Forums
278: Community Forums
279: News Archive
280: Home
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: CPGlang
285: Downloads
286: Community Forums
287: Community Forums
288: Photo Gallery
289: CPGlang
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: CPGlang
295: Community Forums
296: Photo Gallery
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: CPGlang
300: Community Forums
301: News Archive
302: Home
303: CPGlang
304: CPGlang
305: Home
306: Home
307: Photo Gallery
308: CPGlang
309: Community Forums
310: Home
311: Community Forums
312: Home
313: Photo Gallery
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: Community Forums
317: Photo Gallery
318: Home
319: Home
320: Photo Gallery
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Home
324: Photo Gallery
325: Photo Gallery
326: News
327: News Archive
328: Community Forums
329: Photo Gallery
330: News Archive
331: Photo Gallery
332: Community Forums
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Member Screenshots
336: Home
337: Community Forums
338: Photo Gallery
339: Community Forums
340: Home
341: Photo Gallery
342: News
343: Home
344: Community Forums
345: Downloads
346: Community Forums
347: News Archive
348: Community Forums
349: Community Forums
350: Community Forums
351: Community Forums
352: Community Forums
353: Photo Gallery
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Downloads
362: Community Forums
363: Home
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Your Account
369: Community Forums
370: CPGlang
371: Photo Gallery
372: CPGlang
373: Community Forums
374: Home
375: Home
376: Home
377: Downloads
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Home
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: 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