First, go to THINK DEFENSE and read this article....
Next, consider this....
The other technique employed by the CVRs is known as “zapping”: …the CVR crew would engage the Argentine position with a brief burst of machine gun fire provoking a response, which was promptly silenced by the main gun. The 30mm RARDEN cannon, with its high velocity and great accuracy, was much favoured for this technique.The issue isn't whether or not such a tactic would work today...against even a moderately capable foe it wouldn't...the issue is the fact that even a light tank mounting a 30mm cannon provided fire support to airborne troops that they normally wouldn't have available.
The other issue is time.
The US Army announced a while ago that they were interested in a mobile gun or airborne tank for the 82nd. Since that announcement we haven't heard a thing. We've wasted time and the Army risks falling into the Marine Corps trap.....seeking perfect when good enough is all around them.
The CVR is being retired and is long in the tooth, however their are plenty of vehicles that match the requirements of the airborne tank. Its time the US Army got this done...even if they have to do an urgent operational request.
There is only one unit in the free world that can put a division ready brigade on the ground within 72 hours...they need to have the tools to fight and win when they get there...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/16498755@N07/5838906562/in/photostream/
ReplyDeleteThis was a proposed evolution of the CVRT Scimitar, that was never adopted by the British Army. It looks like it would have made a great little airborne tank.
I can see something like that for 82 Airborne Division. It would be a Light tank that can fit into the C-130 an air dropped to the troops. It can protect the light infantry troops on the ground and provide extra firepower for them.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget the 173rd Airborne Brigade and 4/25th IBCT (Airborne). They are in Alaska and Italy for a reason. With the loss of 4th Brigade 82nd Airborne Division, 40 percent of the Army's Airborne regular forces will be not in the 82nd.
ReplyDeleteThe US Army uses the Stryker MGS, isn't this vehicle capable for this task?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w06OQgPxstE
Gunner,
ReplyDeleteYes, a Stryker MGS is air droppable by C-17. However the wheeled variant is the least maneuverable off road because it is the heaviest. The "tracked stryker" variant would be much more suitable for supporting Airborne infantry.
If they do come up with a tracked Stryker, wont the M113 replacement program get a shot in the arm ?
DeleteThere was a vehicle that was specifically designed for the Airborne....
ReplyDeleteFeatures?
- Tracked --> Means much better offroad mobility
- 24tons with Level-III Armor Package (using titanium for best strength & lowest weight) protected against ballistic threats and RPGs - 3 can be carried in a C17 Globemaster 3.
- 105mm Main Gun with 30 ready to fire rounds.
- Advanced Fire Control with thermal imagers and commander's independent viewer providing hunter-killer type operation.
- Coaxial 7.62mm and commander's .50 M2.
- Even the powerpack was located on a quick removal sliding rails for field maintenance. No need for a special recovery vehicle.
- The vehicle was designed to be autonomous for X number of days (I forgot the duration). It means the vehicle is on its own in the battlefield for a prelonged duration without the need for any maintenance or re-supply.
It was the M8 Armored Gun System...
What happened to the vehicle? It was sacrificed to allow other programmes to continue... Sounds familiar?...
Your right that vehicle would have been good, very good, now the airborne gets nothing, would also have been interesting to see a version with a smaller cannon 35-76mm and lots off ammunition. The CVR-T was however air transportable by helicopter, and was a family of vehicles.
DeleteThe vehicle is still available and can be manufactured and purchased by the Army. It has the "thunderbolt" upgrade option with a 120mm cannon, smaller hybrid electric engine, and some other things. The thing now has space in the back for things like 4 jump seats, ammo storage, communications stuff, or whatever else you want. It most likely wouldn't of had an upgrade like this if we didn't cut the project so the army could save money to keep their troop numbers.
DeleteWe only purchased 6 prototypes and put them in storage beforehand. A few years back, it was being considering to take them out of storage and refurbish them to provide needed fire-support but that got canned because some in the top brass were worried it would interfere with the Stryker MGS.
I am a little confused here......wasnt the XM-8 supposed to be the testbed for the NLOS cannon ?
DeleteNo, I know it wasn't the M8. I believe it was the General Dynamic Expeditionary Tank.
DeleteIt was a 2-man crewed tank with an unmanned turret(the very same turret the stryker mgs uses a modified version of) that was competing against the M8 and Stingray in the AGS competition
The question is, are you after a big gun for FS or a tank to kill other vehicles?
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASU-57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASU-85
Both are good, a 57-76mm cannon would be ideal for both anti-personal and anti-vehicle use, a 35-40mm cannon would pack less off a punch and not be as good for anti-vehicle use, but could have many more rounds, the CV9040 has 250.
ReplyDeleteIf all else fails, there is always the M551 Sheridan to the rescue.
ReplyDeleteWhat about the Wiesel?
ReplyDeleteA lighter weight transport variant may work for the ULCV, but not as an airdroppable tank. Too small, too little armor, and can't carry much firepower.
Delete82nd needs something with more armor and firepower yet light enough to be carried and airdropped by c130. Need to be able to bolt-on extra armor to have level 3 protection at minimum. I did hear a year ago that it should have IED protection, but they might have cut that off(I hope so at least).
Basically everything the M8 and Stingray are.