Major Hat Tip to WAR IS BORING Blog!
DARPA and the US Army are on crack! Consider that just a year ago they were looking for an APC that had a weight of 80+ tons. Now they're looking at a Main Battle Tank that is parachute deployable, is stealthy, is mine/IED resistant, can cross terrain that would bog down a top model modded civilian Jeep and at the same time is (presumably) affordable.
DARPA and the US Army are on crack! Consider that just a year ago they were looking for an APC that had a weight of 80+ tons. Now they're looking at a Main Battle Tank that is parachute deployable, is stealthy, is mine/IED resistant, can cross terrain that would bog down a top model modded civilian Jeep and at the same time is (presumably) affordable.
this is interesting but in reality it would only work as long as you could control the battlefield, where, when and how you fight... i.e. not urban warfare or anywhere you can't manouver, because the moment you loose that things are going to real bad, really fast.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.popsci.com/article/technology/darpa-thinks-less-armor-could-make-tanks-safer
this article was quite interesting as it brought up the Future Combat Systems, which was a similar idea... but which seems to have been droped in light of recent experience...
I did put this up before but it didn't stay for some reason... so hopefully this isn't twice...
yours sincerely
Alexander
They are looking for...BMD-3/4s with a lot of gold plated and high tech stuff like active defense.
ReplyDeleteI read stealth, I laugh and I wait for overcost and cancellation... Altough it would be logical to have disposable drones, they want to have Over the top Roys rolls.
ReplyDeleteStealth is a magic phrase that make many people wet pants.
DeleteSuch a vehicle already exists - the Israel Weapons Industries Combatguard with weapons/active defense turret. Weighs about 9 tons, high ground clearance, large tires, 350 HP engine. Carries 6-8 infantry at up to 90 kph in terrain and 150 kph on road. Supposedly not cost an arm and a leg. It was exhibited at Eurosatory.
DeleteWhy does IED/mine resistance need to be in the base spec? Does anyone routinely encounter IEDs and mines other than in an urban assault or patrol environment?
ReplyDeleteDesign some attachment points for a field-installable/removable IED bottom-plate and call it done. The tank will lose some speed when it's installed, but its not like you need to zoom around at 60+ MPH in a city.
Because, first... the mine protection or any type of explosive protection became rather not optional but need to be in modern military equipment. That's the reaction on rather low intensity conflicts that's are popular now. And second, why not?
DeleteBecause designing anything is a matter of tradeoffs. Tanks balance the weight of armor, engine, & weapons. Too big a gun and your mobility and/or armor will be shit. Too much armor, and you'll have to loose either weapons or mobility. Go for all 3 at once, and costs/maintenance skyrocket far beyond what it would take to design and build separate solutions for each theatre type.
DeleteSolomon,
ReplyDeleteAll of this points back to the same basic problem in all weapon procurement which is that we only green light leap ahead systems.
Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Future Combat System, and all of the other systems that were supposed to be leap ahead technologies that failed.
Joint Strike Fighter, Lightweight Small Arms Technology, DDG1000, Littoral Combat Ship. All of these systems are behind schedule and massively over budget. All were supposed to be ground breaking technologies that have instead taken forever to make it out of development and massively under delivered on the original promise.
Instead that has left us with yet another upgrade on the AAV7, plummeting readiness rates on F/A-18s and AV-8Bs, and a assault rifle that continues to come in near last place in every competition to name just a couple of the legacy systems that we continue to use. This leaves our warfighters using weapons systems that were designed before they were born because the replacement is always just another couple of years away and is always just a couple of years away.
Once all the experts give their opinion on this piece of equipment it will end failing like every previous design that has followed this same doomed development model. Luckily for this program it is a DARPA science experiment and thus will only need waste about 10-20 million for everyone to determine it will never work and throw it away.
This is not a tank or a MBT. If they think they need this they should take a JLTV cut off the fenders mount a crows turret on top with a missile back (this thing has what looks like a missile as its main weapon and a maybe a assume a 30chain), then cut out the wheel wells and mount track tires.
ReplyDeleteWhala you got your scout "tank killer" kit.