Loren Thompson made this statement in one of his latest articles...
If the Army were to part ways with the notion of stuffing an entire squad into one vehicle, then an array of options for modernizing quickly and affordably would open up. Perhaps the most appealing such option would be to adapt the Scout SV armored vehicle that the British Ministry of Defense announced it would be buying from General Dynamics on September 3. The British Army will procure nearly 600 such vehicles in multiple variants employing a common chassis and electronics architecture. The $5.8 billion contract is the biggest order for armored vehicles the ministry has made in several decades.The reason why I think that Thompson missed the mark is because there are vehicles that are capable of meeting Army requirements.
What makes the Scout SV — SV for specialist vehicle — appealing is that over the last five years, the British government has funded all the complex engineering tradeoffs required to reconcile contending design drivers in an optimized vehicle. The result is a combat system sporting best-in-class survivability, lethality, mobility and reliability. Its open electronics architecture supports diverse missions while its common chassis minimizes logistical requirements. And one of the six variants, dubbed the “protected mobility recce support” vehicle, can carry 4-5 passengers in addition to its crew. In other words, it can provide superior protection, agility and situational awareness to an Army fire team.
In addition to the vehicles that the Army recently trialed at White Sands...vehicles like the German Puma, Israeli Namer and the CV90-30....we've seen new vehicles arrive on the scene that meet Army requirements out the box.
Most interestingly we see the FFG PMMC G5, the CV90 Armadillo and all the contestants in the Marine Corps Personnel Carrier contest.
Adopting a sub-optimal, long in the tooth British design would be a horrible mistake. (Note: this vehicle was first designed in 1992...its only a few years younger than the Bradley...1981.... with far fewer upgrades)
Quite honestly the ASCOD (Scout SV if you're into rebranding) wasn't even the best vehicle in that competition! The Army shouldn't settle for less...especially when there are better vehicles available now.
off
ReplyDeletehttp://www.janes.com/article/44220/austrian-defence-minister-announces-major-cuts-programme
the Austrians haven't taken defense seriously for.....well, ever. They spend more on the Ministry of Arts and Culture than the Bundesheer.
DeleteWhile they have some excellent capabilities and equipment, they just don't have the size or intent to defend themselves. They tend to want to model themselves after the Swiss, but without the budget or societal commitment/buy-in.
They one among many Toy Armies in Europe.
It makes better sense in this age of a proliferation of anti mechanized weapons and IED deployment to lessen the causalities from vehicle kills.
ReplyDeleteThe old LVTP-5 amtrac carried almost a plt and was a flaming death trap in Vietnam to the point Marines would ride on top in sand bag forts for safety.
A smaller more agile and faster vehicle carrying a fire team plus a TC and driver is more better.
It doesn't have to kill MBT's but it does need to have weapions that are Infantry support.
A good heavy MG and a auto Grenade launcher would do, the AT capability could be a SMAW carried on board by the FT for any AT engagements, if they bump into an MBT best course would be to un ass the FT with SMAW and then the vehicle would un Ass the AO.
A Horde ( yup I said horde) of fire team carrier and support vehicles would be cheaper and better.
Like attempting to shoot a covey of quail or a herd of mice with a rifle.
Small, fast and maneuverable is the key, not hauling so many Marines it makes a good target.
Spam in a can is what the AT and anti mech shooters call them.
hate to disagree Zebra but that's not where the US military is at anymore. that's industrial age thinking and we've given that type of warfare up. as a matter of fact the plentyful armored vehicle thing is WW2 style warfare.
Deletein this day and age, any armored vehicle is valuable and numerous throw away, cheap armored vehicles just don't exist anymore. better fewer, better armed and protected vehicles versus numerous lightly armed and poorly armored ones is the trend. even in Russia and China.
the reason is obvious even if ground forces haven't caught on to it yet.
the future of electromagnetic cannons, lasers and missiles that disable the electronics in entire grid squares is coming. against that threat you're going to need even more expensive and have fewer vehicles than we do even now.
Mass armor versus small units with more capability, I see your point, in the face of a Grad attack up armor would be a better solution.
DeletePerhaps for Light Infantry or Airborne forces?
If super-tech MBTs and IFVs are better, why not take it to the extreme and build seven 600-ton land-ships for the next war at $20B a piece? Nuclear reactors, 300mm chobham armor with reactive panels, 16in guns, AWS systems, redundant crew, hover-skirts for crossing water, drone-copter flight decks, tomahawk launchers, etc. They should be invulnerable, right? We'll just build one on-site for every continent, and nobody could win against us ever! Right?
DeleteTo me, the solution is what it's always been. Large numbers of reliable, low-cost, low-logistics weapon systems. With R&D, you have to figure out the point at which you get the most combat capability for the money from your industries' tech level, and then crank out large numbers of chassis. Then you design a few specialist models to deal with specific likely situations. Like pushing into choke points, city fighting, etc.
But no, we always go for the new shiny. The crap that never works right, costs 10x as much as it should, has to be transported to the front on the backs of other vehicles instead of driven there, takes forever to repair, and requires 3-5x the consumables that it should during an op.
Meanwhile, Russia and China steal our super-tech, throw out the useless crap, commodify the aspects with the best return on value, redesign the whole thing for reliability, and crank out large numbers of low-cost chassis.
The game isn't hard if you're not idiots. But we're mostly creative morons.
so instead of trying to actually debate the issue you take to an obscene level in an attempt to ridicule it? amazing. the reality is simple. the US Army is simply trying to acquire a vehicle that is technologically current, mounted on tracks and protects to standard.
Deletewithout even attempting to do any leap ahead tech they're still coming in at an obscene cost. the SCOUT SV is simply an upgraded 30 year old vehicle and the results are the same. it ain't cheap.
thats the point. even so called cheap vehicles are anything but these days.
I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of the bigger/heavier is better line of thinking. At what point does it become a joke? I’d argue that we’re already there with the mostly undeployable Abrams. A tank that can’t be used outside of German plains or Arab deserts. Precisely because of its size, cost, complexity, unreliability, poor range, and logistics footprint.
DeleteYou say that we’re just trying to find a vehicle that’s “technologically current, mounted on tracks and protects to standard”.
Define “technologically current”. What does that even mean? Because armored vehicle technology has been fairly mature for a while now. Short of eliminating the crew entirely, there’s no real room for a huge breakthrough.
Except… in reliability and cost.
and again, your bias is showing. the Abrams is just a bit heavier than the Leopard 2A6. want to talk about vehicles getting heavier? talk about the VBCI. it was just upgraded and went from 28 tons to now about 35 if i remember correctly. ... oh and thats a wheeled vehicle. it was once thought that 30 tons was the upper limit of what you wanted in a wheeled vehicle, so why is it craziness to expect the same trend in tracked vehicles?
Deleteits being seen in combat aircraft. the Advanced gripen is bigger and heavier than the airplane that it was developed from as is the F-16 in later variants and teh F-18. same applies to the Rafale.
bigger and heavier is just part of evolution.
*looks that i lost my post because i wasnt loged :(
Deletethat's the main points:
Western new IFV's (vg., Puma) are heavier, costly and more capable than ever ... Leo2/Puma is the new standard for EU land forces, as M1Ax/Bradley and many other IFV/MBT combos around ... IDF has another aproach, tho, as MerkavaIV has a limited carrier capacity and it is pretty well designed to fight close to their borders and assimetric (low intensity) warfares with air supremacy on their side ... not matter what, tho, all of this proven or future techs stills vulnerable against modern ATGMs or artys ... with 30, 40 tons or more, IFV's cant really protect enough the troops ... the remain question is if stills capable of doing what it was suposed to do: provide fire suport for MBT's formations or mixed ones ...
On this matter, Id noticed that Puma has 80% of the weight of t72 and cost (maybe) 5-6 times more ... or 60% of t90 weight ... that being said, and considering the proposed retrofit of t72 chassis with unmanned turret and only 2 crews aside the Armata plataform, I'm in doubt if a new US IFV will really rebuf the M1/M2 combo BGs or just add more cost ...
M2 is, IMO, a very mature plataform ... with new turret and add-on's, it could fit for many roles ... M1 are almost on the end of its industrial suport, if im not wrong ... someone should think about to copy some few things reds did well, like to abandon t80 program (t64+) and focus on low cost, high available chassis with mission specific turret setup ... a new Trillion USD program to replace actual fleet of m1/m2 could not meet the need for the next 2-5 years, recalling many budget cuts last years ...
In resume: Im not seeing the point in building IFV as MBTs and not just improve APCs ... Kornets are cheap to produce and it has a very good appeal to spread around ME and other markets, as will have new versions (vikhr and so) ... so, as far as we fit more armor on it (and even if it being heavier than a MBT), it will face the same problem, just with more cost on troops ...
Thus, Im trying to figure out the real advantage of this sign: heavier=better ... specially when actual MBT/IFVs aren't enough heavier at all ...
PS: about evolution, Maus was a 200 ton class ... just makes me think about :p
well said but i think you're missing the bigger point i failed to make. when they talk about 10 years away from producing a viable IFV they're really talking about advances in the protection systems .... vehicles are heading that way already with the Trophy system. BAE is working on advanced camo and others are doing the same. soon we'll see dazzler type devices to decoy anti-tank missiles away from vehicles making them even lighter. the real problem is IEDs. even there they're looking at high tech solutions of defeating teh device by scrambling the detonation signal and such. its an electronic battlefield and armor is going to have to catch up. you can't add enough armor to beat kinetic weapons now so the only answer to those is to avoid them, spoof them or kill the launcher before it fires. now that IS a DARPA hard project.
Deleteagreed entirelly, sir ...
Deletebut, one more thing:
IDF did pretty well with soft kill systems and also with laser auto-tracking on the last incursion, reacting in auto mode and firing on position without manned interference ... im suposing the improved Shtora-1/Relict suite to armata will aim the same capabilities ... but it wont last forever in a battlefield ... it's most like a couple of rounds defensive system and can't match war attriction of days or weeks ... it will make a huge diference for tankers humor, tho ...
Some Ukraine T64's, however, Bulltat standard, didn't do well against arties and atgms, even with "Warta" ADS, with many loses in a couple of days of low level battles ... by low level, don't take me wrong: they were facing some rebels with old weaponry and about 3k RF regular troops with vintage BTGs (note that RF didnt use t90's, t80's, or even t72b3x on that move - aug, 24-26) ... and low level because there wasn't air suport (su25-vikhrs or mi28/ka52 mostly) ... a little push, to be honest, and all the 50-60k card numbers went down ...
On this case (war attriction), even the next gen of ADS shouldn't be enough to revert the tide (one man with 200 bucks atgm defeating a multi-billion IFV/MBT combo program) ... that leads me to be afraid of the next dev steep, that could lead to move forward (with unmaned fighting vehicles) or backward (more APCs to deploy more troops with missiles)... on any of this two scenarios, i cant honestly see clearly the IFV role ... on the first one, no troops should be carried ... on the second, well, quantity matters and the sum wont change ...
In resume: IFV's may be facing the duck dilema: it can't fly well nor swim well ... it gives a good dish, tho
@Solomon
DeleteBigger and heavier is just part of evolution? Tell that to the Dire Wolf. Bigger and heavier has to come with useful long-term benefits, or it’s just a detriment. See the WWII German Maus or Ferdinand.
This guy pretty much lays out my views:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-america-can-learn-from-russias-cheap-but-deadly-t-1540829820
If you can’t armor a vehicle enough to make it survivable against common battlefield threats, then your thinking is the problem. Start splitting roles, and don’t expect one vehicle to do it all. Be realistic about losses, and balance protection against that. Make the best 80% generalist weapons system you can, then make cheap specialist solutions for the other 20% of battlefield cases.
And yeah, I’m biased against stupid thinking. So shoot me.
You can talk about dazzlers, skirt-chillers, and hybrid-electric drives all you want. But those are all systems that could be retrofitted to a well-designed, modular chassis. Or saved for the 5-10% of the force that really needs to be cutting edge.
ok. then lets take it to the other side in your absurd way of thinking. buy bare bone Ford pickup trucks, mount machineguns on them and send them into battle. anti-missile teams will deal with enemy armor and since the trucks will be 4x4's and everyone knows that wheels vs tracks is so 20th century we won't lose any ground mobility and since we're only using 1/4 ton trucks we have tons of strategic mobility. make them run on natural gas since the US has tons of it and you have a war winner right?
Deleteforget the fact that Soldiers and Marines will get sliced and diced. forget the fact that the US govt pays out a 1/4 million dollars everytime a servicemember is killed and even more if they're injured. forget all that.
we have a cheap, mechanized force that meets your requirements right?
No, because you're not looking for the value peak in the performance curve.
DeleteEver bought a computer? That last 10-20% boost in the power of the system to the absolute bleeding edge can easily double what you pay. So you step back. Not to the cheapest models, but to the models that get you the most performance for each dollar spent. Such that you're spending about half as much per unit on 80% of the theoretical maximum performance.
I don't want to take side on this matter ... but:
DeleteIt's obvious that the best protection to troops is the a wise commander ...
It's obvious that the ultimate protection to troops is, in fact, leaving them out of the enemy range ...
It's obvious that 100% protection to troops is a "end game" ...
Ergo:
It implies that Unnamed FV is the only solution in the 10-20 year horizon (Darpa equation) ...
I'm afraid, however, that way will not be feasible with current economy limits ... It's doable right now, and it will be easier and easier next years, but it closes the gap entirelly ... digital arena needs infraestructure, and global players already have, in many levels, ways to just interdict (deny) another uses of all the spectrum, including space facilities ...
TBH, to guys from the old school, the discussion ends here ... rail guns, coil guns, air guns, all this techs are knew for a while ... as soon as it starts to be implemented, we should stop talking about armor, that will turn pointless ...
1,700 m/s projectile right now is a fair standard compared with hyper-v 10-20 km/s terminal ballistics ... at this speed, even solid armor will act as a fluid (soft) target, which principle was being exploited for almost 75 years with heat ammo, but with little mass (the jet itself) ... on this case, i would prefer to have no armor than the oposite, but none can really tell what will come next :p
now you're equivocating. which is it? best of the breed in the MBT or a Ford pickup? middle ground? IFV's only with a bunch of anti-tank missiles? dial it back even further? 8x8 IFV's? even further? first gen 8x8's? how far do you dial it back until you're satisfied and then explain why going with the Ford pickup wouldn't' end up being the optimum solution to what you present!
Deletegetting light and cheap is easy. explaining to the American people and families why you skimped on combat vehicles is hard.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBTW: it wasn't easy to sell the IFV idea o russians too ...
Deletecheck the link for BMPT-72 (using t72 chassis) with a robotic turret:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEqYRaj6Kps
Kinda too "hollywood" but interesting ...
PS: Bradley isn't ok untill 2025?
Sorry to reply to myself, but just to make my point clear ...
DeleteModern EU IFVs cost more than an export version of t90, link bellow, mainly thing it should face next years as recalled by new NATO commander (if not armata plataform itself, as west started to look after reds again):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfGP-dGjjnY
So, what im trying to say is that western IFV concept will produce true light tanks with some carrier capacity ... or ... just an version of merkava aproach ... it just doesnt make sense (to me) invest more money to get less than IDF are getting nowadays ...
And wihtout really improvement over M2 Bradley, that could be retrofit with high end EW suite and, maybe, an cutting edge turret and weapon systems ...
It's just a honest opinion, ok?
Im with sandwyrm on this. Simple, robust, and reliable platforms will win wars, not highly expensive, complex, and temperamental white rhinos roaming the battlefield.
Deletewe HAD a vehicle that met the requirements but discarded it in favor of the Stryker: The M113A4/MTLV. A 113 with the hull lengthened with a different powerpack and band track systems. What does general dynamics do when faced with the laundry list of problems with the Stryker? why, they put tracks on it LOL. http://breakingdefense.com/2012/11/gds-tracked-stryker-aims-to-knock-bae-out-in-race-to-replace-m/ (no really, its fucking stupid. and the overreaching front is a failed idea from the monstrosity of a failure that was the M114 because god forbid you design a vehicle to cross obstacles).
The idea of splitting up the infantry squad in favor of the hypothetical event that a IED might wipe them out is really adding a new set of issues, such as, you know, splitting up the infantry squad. That is fundamentally flawed in every way and the world's militaries are ignoring it (with the PUMA and ASCOD)
You need unified infantry squads. and why cant you have a V-shaped hull vehicle (like the M113A4, which a integrated v-shape) while retaining the same capability? not to mention modular armor so you can add or decrease the armor?
"explaining to the American people and families why you skimped on combat vehicles is hard"
Explaining to the american people why you spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a family of vehicles, with each vehicle being the most expensive mass production in IFV history, while retaining no measurable improvement to far cheaper vehicles, is much harder IMO.
The fact stands: complexity is destroying militaries. What the fuck do you think the F35 is doing to militaries across the west?
@Solomon
DeleteI’m not equivocating. You’re just not grokking my point.
It’s not about being the absolute cheapest weapons platform, or the most expensive. It’s about being the best VALUE.
If you’re buying a computer, a car, or a tank, there is always a point where each dollar you’ve already spent gained you big increases in capability, but each additional dollar spent buys you less additional capability than you had before.
Buy a computer CPU, and you’ll typically see a price range like this:
1ghz = $100 <–– Dumb buyer only cares about cost.
2ghz = $150
3ghz = $175 <—— Best Value For Money!!! Buy 2 for same as top-end!
3.5ghz = $250
3.8ghz = $350 <–– Dumb buyer only cares about performance.
So you buy up to the point where the increase in capabilities stops growing as fast as the cost. Then you take the money you save and buy another copy of whatever it is you want.
THAT is my point.
The son served alongside German units in Afghanistan who had good results in convoy protection from their Wiesel AWC some could carry up to a four man unit.
ReplyDeleteToo light for sure in armor (defeats 5.56 and 7.62 mm only) it could conceivably carry a fire team in it's Wiesel 2 configuration as a Fire team carrier and support vehicle.
The old book about the mythical Dorsai mercs Genetic General >Gordon R. Dickson< comes to mind, the premise of Military using less modern weapons and such as opposed to more modern lasers and blasters. The Dorsai would use a sliver gun, basically an air rifle/spring gun that shot a multitude of tiny high powered flechettes the reason was given that if you had a modern laser killozap gun the enemy could gimmick it so it didn't function or blew up in your hands.
ReplyDeleteThe main idea was any common criminal on the streets was better armed with more advanced weapons than the military for that reason, ECW/ECM and EMP. So the military dumbed down it's forces to almost medieval level with more advanced crossbows.
What will the impact on AAV battalion manning be if we have to have crews for vehicles that carry 4 or 5 instead of a full squad? Sounds like you would need 3 times as many vehicle crews, more maintainers, more comm types to maintain connectivity. How big would AAV battalions have to be in an age where the USMC is pushing towards combining tracks and tanks into "Combined Amor Battalions" just to save on manpower.
ReplyDeleteUnrelated, what is your take on the three females that passed the Combat Endurance Test at IOC? Apparently 2 were Captains
your point about manning requirements with a move toward a smaller APC is being debated at the highest levels according to what i've been told and people are pissed. its not a solution. as a matter of fact thats another thing that points toward the program actually not going forward.
Deleteas far as the females are concerned even if they pass it won't be worth the squeeze. too few women will want in and it will be a case of twisting the infantry into knots just to accomodate a very few that will need special berthing etc....but i don't believe that they won't pass if its fairly given. pencil whipped yeah they can make it. real deal? ain't no way unless they're juicing.
I was really behind the 'one squad, vehicle' idea until it was pointed out that so many of our attacks are due to IED aka landmines. The idea of losing an entire squad to an IED isn't good, so a vehicle like the PUMA where six can fit would be ideal.
ReplyDeleteEconomy of scale: Sandwyrm's point of building thousands of affordable, low operating costs vehicles is something that could really be embraced.
Something so ubiquitous and common like a jeep, but with rubber tracks and armor. I was watching this video on Russian women officer cadets and the BMD they were tooling around in seemed just like that. Track pops off, crew fixes it. get it so common that every grunt in the field could do a basic repair on an engine so common, everyone new the basics for it. Think Model T Ford, not Bugatti Veyron.
But this new vehicle would need to be modular in terms of weaponry and protection packages: active, passive, counter-threat, laser-dazzling, smoke, etc.
RE: M1 Abrams - it's heavy, but worse than than is the fuel. This thing is a dog. I don't care what the original intentions were for a gas turbine, but the logistics nightmare of having a fuel inefficient engine that requires several unarmored fuel trucks to keep it topped off should make getting a new fuel efficient diesel power pack a priority.
That is the real cost of deploying an Abrams, the fuel and protecting the fuel trucks/drivers. Any future vehicle is going to need to look at fuel consumption/power generation.
When the Russian KV series tanks appeared in WWII, the Germans couldn't scratch them with anything short of an 88. But they could (and did) attack the supply lines that kept the KVs operating. The result of which was that most of the first waves of KVs ran out of gas and/or were abandoned due to parts shortages.
DeleteWhat did the US do when the Tiger appeared in North Africa? Same damn thing. You don't attack the beast head-on, you go after its logistics tail.
"Something so ubiquitous and common like a jeep, but with rubber tracks and armor."
DeleteDear fucking god people....LOL (and im not mad at you paralus, you make excellent points)
we HAD SUCH A VEHICLE!!!! it was the M113 that the US military threw away alongside the possibilities of such a platform. I mean, god forbid, the family get upgraded for 21st century warfare. Nope. Lets just reinvent the wheel and spend hundreds of billions to do so.
"get it so common that every grunt in the field could do a basic repair on an engine so common, everyone new the basics for it"
well yeah because that would actually mean the US military wants to fight and win wars versus acting as a welfare/profit machine for the defense contractors to repair them in their air conditioned super FOBs in the middle of the battlefield (fat chance of that happening in the Pacific or Russia LOL).
The new high tech army is going to get clubbed in a manner unseen since the British defeat at Singapore. Thats a fucking fact.
The concept of the M113 is excellent, but its aluminum hull and poor bottom hull protection make it a no-go. The materials and design date back to the 50's and it just isn't survivable.'
DeleteA new model of it, like n0truescotsman mentioned, with an alloy or steel hull, maybe with some ceramic armor in key spots and some better ground clearance, it would have real advantages, but the M113 as is RPG/IED bait.
Aluminium hulls are there to keep weight down, but it means protection decreases. For a general APC/IFV vehicle, we need to dispense with the idea that they will be arriving by C130/A400. It's either arriving by rail, RO/RO ship or C17.
Look at the M113A4. It has a integrated V within its hull that is designed for substantially improved protection. Aluminum can also be supplemented with ceramic armor, which is a necessary now with shaped charges.
DeleteThere are simply tradeoffs. Aluminum and light weight gives it amphibious capability, which is critical for pacific operations, but modularity gives it the ability to increase protection.
"we need to dispense with the idea that they will be arriving by C130/A400. It's either arriving by rail, RO/RO ship or C17"
Thats the mentality the US military is taking and it is as wrong as two boys fucking. But whether I like it or not, that is the way its going to be.
But there is a value to an air droppable combat vehicle and the US army still hasn't fucking figured it out, while it is floundering with new concepts for fighting vehicles for airborne infantry. And that is not even counting the giant gap left behind with the forced retirement of the sheridan.
Wheels versus tracks?
DeleteThe debate has really always been the balance in the basic features of armoured warfare: Firepower/Protection/Mobility.
Protection has reached the theoretical maximum in tanks in the 65-70 ton monsters, like the M1, Challanger, Leopard and the IVF Heavy, like the Namer. Modern Anti tank weapons like the Kornet or the RPG 29 are capable of penetrating even these, so the age of the Active Anti Missile System has arrived and it has performed well in the last Gaza conflict. Armourede vehicles without it were damaged or destroyed (like the M113 with aluminium armor only).
Firepower is pretty standard with 120mm smoothbore or rifled guns and 125mm Soviet/Chinese guns, all of which can take out most tank at considerable ranges. Missiles are also very effective, but slow in repeat fire and not as many can be carried as tank rounds.
Mobility. This is the the next great development to take place. Firstly, wheels or tracks? Wheels offer greater Strategic mobility and lower logistic tail and cheaper acquisition costs. Tracks offer greater mobility in difficult terrain and more resistant to enemy fire.
However, you throw a track and you are stuck. With wheels you get pretty good performance in difficult terrain with the latest developments in suspension and power per weight. If you loose a tyre or wheel you are still good to go with 6x6 or 8x8 design.
Cost/numbers procured. We must not forget the lessons of WW2, in which the cheap and numerous T34 and Sherman 4 tanks far outnumbered the better armoured and armed German tanks and in this they prevailed over the German Army. Like somebody once said (Stalin?) that quantity has a quality of its own .
We must also keep in mind the importance of the mission (of the unit) in the greater scheme of things and how they further the winning of the war. The mission over the potential losses in manpower or armoured vehicles.
One last point to mention - and this was tried and proved its worth in the Gaza war: Internet battlefield communication and close cooperation between the armour, infantry, engineers, artillery, air support and intelligence and UAVs. This interaction between the forces will save units/manpower, and prove effective in applying force against the enemy.
Fast maneuver with active protection suits and heavy firepower, and at the same time affordable vehicles in greater numbers will be decisive in future wars
Excellent points.
DeleteI believe there should be tracked AND wheeled vehicles in the fleets of the US Army and Marine corps.
"Armourede vehicles without it were damaged or destroyed (like the M113 with aluminium armor only)."
In defense of the m113, the RPG29 is a bad motherfucker.
Guaranteed they can melt a Bradley, Puma, and CV90 or any other IFV. I think active protection systems, however they evolve, will be the paradigm changer and are absolutely necessary. The Israelis think so. We (Americans) dont, or at least, it appears so on account of us dragging our fucking feet on such things since 2007.
The fact stands that projectiles will evolve and HAVE evolved considerably. The trend towards increasing the armor on armored personnel carriers and IFVs is ultimately an evolutionary dead end. Its time to change the dialectic.
n0truescotsman
Deleteone of the sentences you said above-
We (Americans) dont, or at least, it appears so on account of us dragging our fucking feet on such things since 2007.
Is the US lagging in developing or deploying Active Protection Systems for ground vehicles ?
n0Truescotsman
DeleteYou are advocating the modernisation of the M113, but that vehicle is not suitable for the task that is demanded of it today or the purpose it was designed for. It was designed as a "Battle Taxi" , to transport troops to the front while protecting them from artillery fire en-route. It was NOT designed as an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, so it has no place being in the frontline in range of antitank veapons. The M113 that was destroyed in Gaza, with the deaths of 8 soldiers inside, was hit by the venerable RPG7.
As a result the Israeli Army has withdrawn it from frontline service. It still serves as a load carrier with protection against splinters or light weapons fire, as an ambulance, communication carrier, and additional support roles, but not as infantry carrier.
The infantry is in APS protected heavy Namer IFVs.
APS is also being developed for the Stryker and lighter, unarmoured vehicles as well by Rafael and another system by Elbit, with reduced prices of around $150,000 per unit, making APS an affordable and necessary part of future military vehicles.
"You are advocating the modernisation of the M113, but that vehicle is not suitable for the task that is demanded of it today or the purpose it was designed for."
DeleteFirst and foremost, can everybody stop sticking their fucking tongue in my mouth? thank you.
That is not what i said. I said a modernized version of the M113 is already available and has been for some time, no need to reinvent the wheel. The M113A4 is ONE example and hardly exclusive.
Furthermore, the 113 is perfectly intended as a battle taxi and is no worse, in fact, than humvees or strykers for ferrying infantry throughout battlefields, or in the least bit, operating in a counter insurgency environment. It can be agreed that bradleys and strykers fared poorly and MRAPs are ideal for the job. Entirely different than, say, a war in the pacific, where the 113, or a vehicle like it, would be perfect.
"frontline in range of antitank veapons."
As opposed to what exactly? the bradley? or the Stryker? both fare poorly against modern RPGs and anti-tank guided missiles. That is a bullshit argument because you need a 60 ton tank chassis to stop modern Kornet-type ATGM. There is no getting around it. You need mobility, active protection systems, in addition to your armor, not just the later.
You also speak of APS. APS can be applied to the M113A4 alongside ceramic applique armor. imagine that.
"As a result the Israeli Army has withdrawn it from frontline service."
The 113 was never intended for front line service to begin with, so again, thats another straw man. Even though it has found itself in rather precarious situations.
Of course they're using the Namer. It is the only thing capable of providing armor protection against modern ATGMs and RPGs and large IEDs. anything less will get easily defeated.
It depends on what you are fighting: a war in the pacific or counter insurgency in a urban area.
There is a valid purpose for a armored box looking battle taxi, 8x8, and dynamic infantry fighting vehicle. The problem is that the army wants one vehicle to do everything when such a thing is an impossibility. I wish people would realize this.
I believe in cost effective platforms centered around their intended purpose, not multipurpose drag racing cement trucks.
Looking at all the posts here, this Scout SV has opened up a whole new can of worms here apart from Solomon's original point. The fact that some of the most popular posts on this blog happen due Land Vehicles over any other military platform save the F-35 (for obvious reasons) means that even in this age of alleged "air superiority" or "Pivot to the Pacific" or "SF Raids", "Hearts and Minds" etc. it is still the massive ground formations and their most Ubiquitous weapons that have most people writing and posting here.
ReplyDeleteOn this particular post people can be categorized into 2 camps. After going on an overdrive of thinking for the past couple of hours I still cant make up my mind over which camp has the better argument and how I sould base my own arguments. Its soo darn difficult. I mean, even our Ancestors...the chaps who fought WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Cold war, aran-israeli conflucts, south african bushwars, Indo-Pak conflicts etc. couldnt decide or couldnt come up with a "winning argunemt" for either of the 2 camps. They just chose their side of the argument on the back of what their civil-military industrial complex could provide and stuck to it.........to the very present day where we, the modern generation are continuing with the same argument.
My Grandfather couldnt decide what was better....the 50 ton plus Chieftan or the T-55. My father and I both cant decide between the T-90 or the Arjun Mk2 arguing as if both tanks were standing in our garage just waiting to be taken out for a spin.
But yes, Solomon is right. You must have the ability to carry a basic Infantry Fire Team with their full gear in one vehicle without seperating them. Every other "capability" of the vehicle as regards its firepower, extra protection (as opposed to reasonable protection) etc. is useless if it cannot do it most basic task of being a battlefield taxi of convenience.
ReplyDelete@Sarabvir: aren't you talking about APC's, maybe heavier ones?
ReplyDelete@all:
My only question is: assuming that there is a real need to drop troops into hotspot, and this is a very limited and specialized role for IDV (besides the fire suport hability), is it really making sense to spend MORE, per unit, in a 30-40 ton IFV than in a MBT?
Also, would they select any new IFV before decide about the new MBT (due logistic implies), if both will be suposedly playing side by side?