The missing piece is a vehicle for troop transport. For that limited role upgraded M-113's would be perfect.
With this mix the 82nd maintains strategic mobility but would also have limited tactical mobility to either expand or protect their airborne bridgehead. The CV90120 weighs in at around 35 tons which means that one
It would need to be certified for airdrops or LAPPES but that shouldn't be a big lift for the USAF. These vehicles wouldn't be the first choice to operate in IED infected areas but would more than suffice when it comes to fulfilling the 82nd's out of area operations requirement.
One brigade of CV-90120's assigned to the 18th Airborne Corps along with another brigade of upgraded M-113's.
Mechanized Airborne is borne.
were do i sign ?
ReplyDeleteAgree whith you,and i think that this is closer to happen than most people tink...if not the CV 90 than somethig very similar .Just hope they dont go back to the Stryker on this one...
Sol,
ReplyDeleteYou might mean C17, not C130 there. C130 is rated to around 20 tons.
While I'm not platform centric and the main thing is getting light tanks back with the airborne community I'm not sure we want a light tank that can't be carried by a C-130. Both CV-90 and the M8 can be protected up to 30mm and both can carry either a 105 or 120mm gun. The M8 can, however, be air dropped by a C-130 (level I armor).
ReplyDeleteAt 25 tons with max protection there was nothing wrong with the M8 and it was scheduled for production to replace the M551 and was simply cut at the last minute in FY97 due to a very low priority.
level 1 armor is below even that of the M-113 isn't it? i mean seriously does it make sense to have a vehicle that is transportable by C-130 but incapable of going into combat once its dropped?
DeleteThe level 1, 2 and 3 armor packages on the M-8 were related to different vehicle weights that were seen as significant (weight to drop out of a C-130, weight to roll off a C-130, and so on) though I think they blew the original weight targets in development.
DeleteAnyway my point is that these levels have nothing to do with Stanag levels 1, 2 and 3. I would be very surprised if level 1 was worse than the M113 and level 3 should have been much, much better (essentially level 1 plus 6 tons of applique armor).
To put this in perspective, M18 tank destroyers had thinner armor and did a lot of good infantry support work, as well as AT work, in WWII. It's not desirable but you can still get a lot of use out of a fire support vehicle with low armor as long as it is employed carefully.
The key is to consider it a "Fire Support Vehicle", not a "Main Battle Tank". Even though it looks like a tank, it isn't.
DeleteHow does the WPB Anders perform in comparison to this platform?
ReplyDeletei've posted the pics but i have little info on it. i don't even know if its in production yet.
Deletewhy not just get CV90 IFVs as well, they may only carry eight soldiers but it would make any air bridge easier to run by being logistical almost identical with the tank?
ReplyDeletetrying to save money. buying an airborne tank is gonna be a tough enough climb without trying to add a new apc to the mix. better out of storage and upgraded than brand new if possible.
DeleteCV90120 + CV90 Armadillo + CV90120 mortar (NEMO, AMOS or turretless) + CV90(40) AAV would be a good combo. Maybe rubber tracks and active defences instead of add on armor could save weight? A CV90 brigade would mess up anybody's plans...
Deleteactive defenses + adaptive stealth = awesome
DeleteDarren, that sounds way too much like the Farcical Combat System. Of course, those technologies didn't exist in 2003 and the state of the art has progressed. And BAE already has 'ADAPTIV' IR masking technology.
Delete@Sebastian: and with one stroke you've found a common vehicle for the AMPV, GCV and an Airborne fire-support vehicle.
It is a flexible platform. I bet if they stretched it and put in a seventh roadwheel, it could be capable of 50 tons.
i was being a little silly, but i do like the adaptive stealth, think it has a good future, as long as weight & power can be handled properly
DeleteIs the CV90 really that much better than what we have in service in the USMC AND USAR now? (i.e. Bradley)
DeleteIts not a game changer but if you need better mobility and a fleet of common vehicles (and have the money) then the CV90 is a great choise. Fighting beside the CV90 is a joy, the enemy just melts away.
DeleteThere is a CV90 variant with ATGM but it was never ordered. Put TOW on the Armadillo and you have a great tank killer as well.
/Sebastian
The CV90 is a great family of vehicles but it's not a good fit for the US military. The US Army has recently figured out it needs a full 9 man squad in it's mechanized units and is now requiring it's new IFV (GCV) to carry 9 dismounts and the USMC needs to carry 17. The point is that before we invest in a new family of vehicles the basis needs to be the main variant which is the IFV. If the respective companies want to submit a derivative of CV90 or Puma that'd be great but right now neither fits stated requirements for GCV.
DeleteMoreover, it's worth considering how a true IFV like CV90 makes any sense as an airborne vehicle for either carrying or supporting infantry. Normally CV90 is for armored/mechanized forces.
note in my post that i called for the CV90120 to be the fire support vehicle and upgraded M113's to act as APC's. the point is that the CV has a proven gun, it can carry more ammo than the Stryker MGS, uses the same ammo as the Abrams and weighs the same or less than Stryker DVH's.
Deleteit would act in the same way that Sheridans did except that it could in an emergency situation carry a section of infantry.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere's no way the USMC is going to get 17 in any vehicle short of an AAV or MTVR. Nine is easier, especially if you have a two-man crew and the squad leader acts as the vehicle commander. Then it's eight in the back - just one more than a Bradley.
DeleteIMHO, the fire support vehicle requirement for airborne forces is a niche capability. I find it hard to justify a totally new vehicle for this purpose. Maybe Stryker MGS is enough.
The point about the M8 being able to air drop from a C-130 indicates a potentially useful capability not that you normally want to deploy in that manner with level 1 armor. You can roll an M8 with level 3 armor off a C-130. That's probably more useful than being able to para drop one.
ReplyDeleteAgain I'm not platform centric here. The US Army has a long standing need for light armor to support it's airborne forces. I'm not sure it matters which light tank, armored support gun, etc., is utilized; however, I would suggest it should probably be light enough to be carried within a C-130.
Is there any precedent for air dropping a 35 ton AFV?
ReplyDeleteGood idea to bad it won't get funded and if it did it would never be deployed the military is going to be cut down to the size so small it cannot be used except in operations CONUS.
ReplyDeleteThe M8 is 19 tons at level 1 and while I'm not sure a 35 ton AFV has been dropped the C-17 has dropped a Stryker at 30 tons and a 42.5 ton test vehicle last year (and was supposed to test 45 tons this year). I think the record drop was by a C-5 dropping 4 M551's at once.
ReplyDeleteWhat competition for a light tank? Do you have an article about it?
ReplyDelete