Canada's tanks

[Kirkhill]

AI and ML can assist in certain areas, but we are still along way from truly autonomous combat systems.

We are.

But we are in the midst of applying AI and ML to enhance the performance of existing systems. Nobody is waiting for The Terminator.

FCS and FRES did not yield a new vehicle. They made all vehicles better.

 

[KevinB]

We are.

But we are in the midst of applying AI and ML to enhance the performance of existing systems. Nobody is waiting for The Terminator.

Sometime I swear you are

FCS and FRES did not yield a new vehicle. They made all vehicles better.

Agreed.

My point is that we are still a long way off from even a loyal ground wingman. We have remote vehicles, but not truly autonomous.
I wouldn't want to wait till that become practical, but make an open architecture in the vehicles systems to allow for that eventuality.

 

[FJAG]

Keep in mind that the MBT was never designed as a stand alone system.
The MBT needs Infantry around it in close terrain - and Infantry to dismount to seize and hold ground.
Combat Engineering Vehicles made from tank chassis (and sometimes turrets) have been around for ages as Tanks nor Infantry can get rid of obstacles.

I would argue that the MBT has its role, the H-IFV has its role, the CEV has it's (and potentially a few variants of that), and a Wrecker.
The H-IFV can have several sub variants as well, for FIST, Mortar Vehicle, AD/CUAS etc.

Frankly I would build them all off the MBT chassis if possible - which would probably end up being designed somewhat like the Merkava with the engine in front, which would make maintenance a little more awkward, but provide a lot more protection and a common combat platform for heavy forces.

If you take a look at Russian gear, much of it built on common chassis - the T72 has quite a few non MBT variants running around.

My background includes SPs and I've wondered for a long time why we don't have a heavy class of vehicles including and MBT, an IFV and an SP which all share a common chassis with a front mounted engine. The front mounted engine is essential if you want a multi-purpose module in the rear that could be any of the big three and the many specialty variants needed. Both the SP70 and the PZH 2000 is basically a 155mm SP turret built onto a reversed tank chassis using a front sprocket rather than a rear sprocket drive.

The key difference is engine power. A tank, by necessity, needs more armour plating than either an IFV or an SP (albeit maybe with today's attack drones that's no longer a valid criteria). Previously, the horsepower and fuel consumption of a tank, were not needed for either the IFV or SP which could weigh less so a standardized power plant wasn't as desirable. There's a lot of advantage though for a brigade where the major vehicle sets use the same powerplants and running gear.

On the MBT issue. I think we'll always need an MBT even if we develop cheap long range anti-armour drones UCAVs whatever. You can augment tanks with more and cheaper and lighter anti-armour systems but for some things they just can't be replaced yet - if ever.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sometime I swear you are

He'll be baaaack!

Agreed.

My point is that we are still a long way off from even a loyal ground wingman. We have remote vehicles, but not truly autonomous.
I wouldn't want to wait till that become practical, but make an open architecture in the vehicles systems to allow for that eventuality.

I think we have moved in that general direction in any case. In my view any self-regulating system, whether it is spring loaded or digital is autonomous. It becomes one less thing an operator has to worry about.

Engine temperature. Torque. Air Conditioning. Track Tensioning. Cruise Control. Gun stabilization. Slew to cue. Auto-Pilot. Return to Base. Fire and Forget Missiles. To my mind all of those are examples of autonomous systems and every generation of vehicle is accumulating more of those systems and reducing the work load on the crew. Keep in mind that the MkIV tank had a crew of 8.

The tanks had a crew of eight, including a driver, commander, two gearsmen, two gunners, and two loaders.

Now we're down to one gunner, one loader, a driver and a commander. The gearsman union is out of business. The loader is headed the same way and in some vehicles we are down to just the driver and the commander with an RWS.

I don't think it will be long until we are seeing formations of 4 inhabited vehicles with only 4 crew total. And I suspect that Optionally Manned will primarily mean Fiber Optics and Remote Controlled for a long while yet, or at best, playing follow the leader.

It doesn't really matter the size of the vehicle - the same control pad and joystick will work for any of them.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you take a look at Russian gear, much of it built on common chassis - the T72 has quite a few non MBT variants running around.

My background includes SPs and I've wondered for a long time why we don't have a heavy class of vehicles including and MBT, an IFV and an SP which all share a common chassis with a front mounted engine. The front mounted engine is essential if you want a multi-purpose module in the rear that could be any of the big three and the many specialty variants needed. Both the SP70 and the PZH 2000 is basically a 155mm SP turret built onto a reversed tank chassis using a front sprocket rather than a rear sprocket drive.

The key difference is engine power. A tank, by necessity, needs more armour plating than either an IFV or an SP (albeit maybe with today's attack drones that's no longer a valid criteria). Previously, the horsepower and fuel consumption of a tank, were not needed for either the IFV or SP which could weigh less so a standardized power plant wasn't as desirable. There's a lot of advantage though for a brigade where the major vehicle sets use the same powerplants and running gear.

On the MBT issue. I think we'll always need an MBT even if we develop cheap long range anti-armour drones UCAVs whatever. You can augment tanks with more and cheaper and lighter anti-armour systems but for some things they just can't be replaced yet - if ever.

The Poles are headed in your direction.

The AHS Krab (Polish for crab) is a 155 mm NATO-compatible self-propelled tracked gun-howitzer designed in Poland by Huta Stalowa Wola (HSW), by combining the South Korean K9 Thunder chassis with a Sweden BAE Systems AS-90M Braveheart turret with French Nexter Systems 52-calibre long gun and Polish WB Electronics' Topaz artillery fire control system.

 

[suffolkowner]

He'll be baaaack!



I think we have moved in that general direction in any case. In my view any self-regulating system, whether it is spring loaded or digital is autonomous. It becomes one less thing an operator has to worry about.

Engine temperature. Torque. Air Conditioning. Track Tensioning. Cruise Control. Gun stabilization. Slew to cue. Auto-Pilot. Return to Base. Fire and Forget Missiles. To my mind all of those are examples of autonomous systems and every generation of vehicle is accumulating more of those systems and reducing the work load on the crew. Keep in mind that the MkIV tank had a crew of 8.




Now we're down to one gunner, one loader, a driver and a commander. The gearsman union is out of business. The loader is headed the same way and in some vehicles we are down to just the driver and the commander with an RWS.

I don't think it will be long until we are seeing formations of 4 inhabited vehicles with only 4 crew total. And I suspect that Optionally Manned will primarily mean Fiber Optics and Remote Controlled for a long while yet, or at best, playing follow the leader.

View attachment 79631

It doesn't really matter the size of the vehicle - the same control pad and joystick will work for any of them.

if you are controlling it the key is the communication method, distance and security. You could remote control a tank but is the link reliable?

 

[KevinB]

if you are controlling it the key is the communication method, distance and security. You could remote control a tank but is the link reliable?

There are a number of ways to do that securely. For OS discussion there are both wireless and tethered means of doing that.

 

[suffolkowner]

There are a number of ways to do that securely. For OS discussion there are both wireless and tethered means of doing that.

the security i wouldnt know about but we ran wired and wireless equipment decades ago. Guys would see how much track they could expose over the edge while sitting in an exact replica of the cab a mile away watching it on tv. Wired was a pain in the ass though (non dozer operation obviously)

 

[Kirkhill]

There are a number of ways to do that securely. For OS discussion there are both wireless and tethered means of doing that.

TOW's wires will get you out to the 5 km area. Fibre Optics have been successfully applied out to 60 km.

Polyphem Fibre-Optic-Guided Missile System - Army Technology

The Polyphem fibre-optic-guided missile. Recommended White Papers Whitepaper Lemur Remote Weapon Station Training for Vehicle Crews Whitepaper CV90/35 Infantry Fighting…

www.army-technology.com

 

[KevinB]

TOW's wires will get you out to the 5 km area. Fibre Optics have been successfully applied out to 60 km.

Polyphem Fibre-Optic-Guided Missile System - Army Technology

The Polyphem fibre-optic-guided missile. Recommended White Papers Whitepaper Lemur Remote Weapon Station Training for Vehicle Crews Whitepaper CV90/35 Infantry Fighting…

www.army-technology.com

Tethered is obviously the longest secure range. But tethered systems are subject to damage and breakage in combat areas.

Some tethered Mine clearance systems have cables damaged from blast, let alone terrain, obstacles, and incoming fire issues. The longer the cable the more exposure to it.

One feature I saw proposed and demonstrated was a little ‘toy’ tank that could self launch from the host vehicle that if a wireless connection was lost that it would drag a tether from the vehicle back to the release point so the user/controller could then plug in for remote work.

For breaching systems, 1-2km is probably sufficient for range away from the control group (which could be forward of the assault force anyway).

 

[ueo]

TOW's wires will get you out to the 5 km area. Fibre Optics have been successfully applied out to 60 km.

Polyphem Fibre-Optic-Guided Missile System - Army Technology

The Polyphem fibre-optic-guided missile. Recommended White Papers Whitepaper Lemur Remote Weapon Station Training for Vehicle Crews Whitepaper CV90/35 Infantry Fighting…

www.army-technology.com

Until the run through an arty/mor shoot, then snip, snip!

 

[Kirkhill]

Until the run through an arty/mor shoot, then snip, snip!

Plans b and c? RF and Laser?

 

[Kirkhill]

Until the run through an arty/mor shoot, then snip, snip!

Plans b and c? RF and Laser?

Plan a?
Launch a tethered drone from the vehicle an re-lay the line.

No need for Jimmy to get out of her trench.

Drone tethers typically provide up to a few hundred metres of operational altitude, with the limiting factor being the ability of the drone to support the weight of the tether. Drone tethers may be made of aramid or other lightweight synthetic materials to provide strength, with copper or plated copper for power conduction and optical fibre for data and communications. The system may be based on the ground or on a vehicle.

Tethered Drone Systems | Tethered UAV, UAS, Quadcopters & Stations

Tethered Drone manufacturers & suppliers of Drone Tether Systems for UAV, Quadcopters, UAS & ground stations plus military tethered drones

www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com

 

[IKnowNothing]

Cross posting from Ukraine

It does seem like a lot to deploy 15 tanks
82 Leo2's
42-8=36 2A4's
20 2A4M's
20 2A6M's

What is the modernization/refit the 2A6M's are going for? schedule? Is there a future for the Leo2? Seems like right now there is a long wait for new/rebuilt to 2A7/2A8

I wonder if having Abrams might solve a parts problem as with the Leo2's no one seems to want to put the parts order in big enough, we shouldnt have that problem with the US

I agree. But that seems to be the issue with a specialized fleet and the 3 makes 1 ratio of MRP- we don't "need" more than 19.
I might be wrong, but
A- I think that a lot of the parts issues come from the obsolescent fire control/turret drive systems on the A4's and A6M's
B- I think that (from what I've read) the A4M CAN's are world class modern tanks, effective separated from A7+'s only by the gun length and gunners sight location creating a notch in the turret armour- the classification "A4M CAN" is misleading as they're a 1.5-2 variants ahead of the A4's

I note that in the 80s we were able to drop personal who were trained on the Cougar into Abrams with just a day or so on simulators. It was generally felt by the Americans that given a couple of weeks there was no reason that the troops could handle pretty much anything thrown at them.
And by the way the troops were reservists bused down from Toronto to Fort Knox.
We've been here before indeed.

The above makes me wonder if the solution is to decouple the equipment needs from the manning, kind of like the C1's in 4CMBG. Once the A6M's have been brought to modern standard, do the same with a number of the training A4's. Make that number whatever is required to field 2 squadrons plus spares + schools of fully functional, deployable, modern MBT's. 50-55 total, so call it 15 more A4's upgraded? Take the two squadrons plus spares away from the regiments and put them and a cohort of maintainers in Europe. Put all 3 RCAC regiments in M10's or LAV-700-105's, for OOTW/depth/training, and crosstrain into the MBT's on a rotational basis for eFP.

 

[Maxman1]

Or we can nut up and buy 240 Abrams, and a smaller number of M10 Bookers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Or we can nut up and buy 240 Abrams, and a smaller number of M10 Bookers.

Nuts are so "UnCanadian" Haven't you been paying attention to your betters?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Or we can nut up and buy 240 Abrams, and a smaller number of M10 Bookers.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Cross posting from Ukraine

I agree. But that seems to be the issue with a specialized fleet and the 3 makes 1 ratio of MRP- we don't "need" more than 19.
I might be wrong, but
A- I think that a lot of the parts issues come from the obsolescent fire control/turret drive systems on the A4's and A6M's
B- I think that (from what I've read) the A4M CAN's are world class modern tanks, effective separated from A7+'s only by the gun length and gunners sight location creating a notch in the turret armour- the classification "A4M CAN" is misleading as they're a 1.5-2 variants ahead of the A4's

The above makes me wonder if the solution is to decouple the equipment needs from the manning, kind of like the C1's in 4CMBG. Once the A6M's have been brought to modern standard, do the same with a number of the training A4's. Make that number whatever is required to field 2 squadrons plus spares + schools of fully functional, deployable, modern MBT's. 50-55 total, so call it 15 more A4's upgraded? Take the two squadrons plus spares away from the regiments and put them and a cohort of maintainers in Europe. Put all 3 RCAC regiments in M10's or LAV-700-105's, for OOTW/depth/training, and crosstrain into the MBT's on a rotational basis for eFP.

I am a little skeptical of claims that Canadian ARes guys who trained on Cougars "dropped into M1s" after a day on simulators. I was ARes Armour in the 90s, and while we did go to Fort Knox to use their M1 simulators that is a far cry from just getting onto M1s. in the field. That is how you hurt people and wreck equipment. Later, I was in a Leopard Squadron where we did cross-train on M1s but that is a much more similar beast and we had workup.

We can practice tactics on vehicle other than tanks, but that only gets you so far. I'd love to have more tanks, Leopard 2s are great but so are M1s. I think we need to flip the script and have six squadrons of tanks. Getting "M10s," though, adds little. They will likely cost as much as M1s and take parts/maintenance time etc. Nothing is free.

For the foreseeable future we will cycle through our tank commitment in Latvia, training crews, Troops and Squadrons in Canada before sending them over. Its better than just grinding through endless exercises in Canada.

 

[IKnowNothing]

I am a little skeptical of claims that Canadian ARes guys who trained on Cougars "dropped into M1s" after a day on simulators. I was ARes Armour in the 90s, and while we did go to Fort Knox to use their M1 simulators that is a far cry from just getting onto M1s. in the field. That is how you hurt people and wreck equipment. Later, I was in a Leopard Squadron where we did cross-train on M1s but that is a much more similar beast and we had workup.

Granted, that poster's comment was hyperbole. That being said, ResF crews jumping from obsolete wheeled cougars into M1's is one thing, RegF crews operating in state of the art tanks and crosstraining into other tanks before deployment is another thing.

We can practice tactics on vehicle other than tanks, but that only gets you so far. I'd love to have more tanks, Leopard 2s are great but so are M1s. I think we need to flip the script and have six squadrons of tanks. Getting "M10s," though, adds little. They will likely cost as much as M1s and take parts/maintenance time etc. Nothing is free.

M10s are tanks. US crews are the same trades as their Abrams counterparts, going through the same training. I'll challenge the idea that they would add little. Every M10 squadron would be a deployable subunit its own right, without touching the NATO tasked MBT holdings, with reduced infrastructure requirements, and greater strategic mobility. But no, not without cost. No COA to recapitalize the RCAC will be cheap. But By expanding the number of crews, troops, and squadrons trained on tanks, and properly planning for their conversion pre-deployment, you expand the size of what we can sustain with a 3 stage MRP and 1 in 6 rotational deployment for an MBT committment, while having something other to contribute than TAPV's and yet more 25mm LAVs to non NATO missions

For the foreseeable future we will cycle through our tank commitment in Latvia, training crews, Troops and Squadrons in Canada before sending them over. Its better than just grinding through endless exercises in Canada.

I dont want to minimize that. But with all due respect, as a semi-informed taxpayer, a half squadron of deployed tanks from a 3 regiment RCAC does not seem like efficient use of taxpayer funds, and it seems like at this juncture the primary role of the RCAC is surviving to a point beyond the "forseeable future" when aforementioned recapitalization comes.

 

[KevinB]

Like @TangoTwoBravo I see no need for the M10 (including down here FWIW).

I’d like to see 12 CA Tank Squadrons of M1A3 (Abrams X), with a total of 400 tanks (allowing for training, pre deployment, and additional warstock numbers)