Think Defense took a break from talking about shipping containers (just kidding...sort of...) and has an excellent piece on a composite armored vehicle project that's definitely worth a read.
Check it out here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
This is a concept whose time has come. But will the funding ?
ReplyDeleteDo the Brits and the Americans still have these prototyps mothballed stored for future reference? And if yes, then what period/event/development have they selected to re-open this project?
Think about it....a Marine Corps that does nto rust. That will put a smile on Sol.
The British vehicle is in Boddington tank museum and is trotted out for public displays every year.
DeleteThe two principle armaments would be a 50mm autocannon, based on the British CT40 and a 105mm CT system based on the XM35. The scout gun would use conventional hopper feed while the main tube would employ horizontal carousel magazines feeding a revolver cylinder similar to that on the T58 with a roof mounted ejector breach in a general Stug configured hull.
ReplyDeleteThis 'modern day S-tank' would clearly be unsuitable for a fighting either a maneuver or a FIBUA battle except...
That it fires CLGP with a 60` guidance window at it's maximum 12km range.
Only idiots fight other tanks on the same horizon line.
Only fools send out single walking patrols without an implicit topcover capability to rapid deliver fires from the tank back inside the FOB gates.
Only morons clutch up massed formation armor in a world of modern missile systems where the face of battle is chaos but the /weapon systems/ are still functional to a remote command unit which can call down the lightning from multiple (unengaged, remote) units in mutual support while the embattled one fights to get clear.
Armor design is still entirely too stuck in the King Tiger and M113 ages. What a change in perspective would let us do is diversify the number of missions that a single hull can do as a function of economies of scale and universal force performance across a range of Air Mech and Sea Landed formations.
Cost and deployment factors are the drivers. We can afford a more costly tank because we cannot deliver a heavier one to theater with existing air/sea lift (in time to preempt a major theater war like ODS). What we have to learn to do is accept _smaller formations_ with massively resized engagement envelopes that can deliver the pain out to 6-8nm like a field gun. With the accuracy of a Hellfire. And the penetrability (to threat APS) of a supersonic missile.
These are achievable goals in a 20-25 ton hull which costs 15-20 million each.
My FCS II looks more or less like that, though it sits the two crew spaces aft, behind a universal armament well, to put more stuff between threats and driver/commander.
ReplyDeleteNote how broad the tank is, contributing to it's appearance of size. It will never fit on a C-130 but is okay for A400M or C-17.
In my version (conventional aluminum hull) the side panels are in fact part of a spaced armor, 'double hull' layout for two diesel electric generators, one on each side. Added NERA appliques can be slung on the external sidewall but the general function is to isolate power and fuel away from the internal volume inside an easy to reach automotive bay just over the electric drives which in turn frees up an -enormous- internal volume for multiple weapons systems and a configured payload bay for either dismounts, a VLS pallet or command and control module.
All fuel is forward with three 'walls' of glacis and ballistically shaped turret well front and turret well aft to provide maximum protection to the crew who sit in individually environment and electronics controlled cabs which are literally rolled up the rear ramp and bolted to the floor (ease of manufacturing to multiple class type equipment standards and upgrade being a key element of design).
The one thing which a metal tank cannot get away from is radiometric massing. It typically shines like a beacon to MMW. It's possible that an S-glass equivalent might be a little less troublesome that way which is important when you consider the number of munitions which are likely to use some form of IIR/MMW combined seeker in the coming century.
To help deal with this, I envisioned the (baseline IFV) as having an 'export turret' to which a bustle rack 'VDAS' or Vehicle Defensive Aids Suite was attached. This subturret included an MMW 'skywatch' sensor, MASS/ROSY styled multi-ejector CMS suite, vertical launch cell buckets of Quick Kill and an M230 in a folding, stealth-cover RWS mount.
The basic vehicle would be exported with an AMAP-ADS style 'crown' around it's upper peripheral hull rim, suitable for ATR and some ATGW type threats. But for sophisticated (top attack and diver) systems the U.S./NATO versions would have VDAS to provide for a layered approach to destroying threats at some considerable standoff around the vehicle.
Having personally worked on composite armor for turrets i can tell you ,there are valid reasons why we do no t see it used more on heavy armor. 1st flamability/toxicity when burned ,cost even tough base material might be cheap fabrication costs $$ ,tracking hidden damage and difficulty of repairing the damage. There are other issues but these are the main ones.
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting at this point is that there's a vehicle that has been employed by an asian country which might have been influenced by them. It has same level of protection and even using the composite of glass fiber and ceramics.
ReplyDeleteMost composite armours like Chobham and Dorchester are mixtures of plastic, metal and ceramics. The uniqueness of this concept is the percentage of plastic, not the fact that it is a mix.
DeleteYes I do know what composite armours are but not every one of them uses glass fiber and even the "30% weight reduction" is also one of its sales slogans, so I'm guessing the glass fiber reinforced ceramics was somehow considered as a taste of the developers all over the world in those days.
Delete