Future Armour

[Kirkhill]

Mainer:

I think you will find that many, if not most, of the UAVs,  as opposed to the UGVs, are already working largely autonomously (as indeed are most of the fly-by-wire manned aircraft).  The pilot, either in the aircraft or on the ground doesn't so much "fly" the aircraft as instruct the computer flying the aircraft what to do next.  This can be by joystick input or from some form of auto-pilot flying a pre-programmed profile.  The pilot/controller updates the computer as the situation demands.  These computers also seem to incorporate loss of signal protocols.  That could require the UAV to continue circling until comms are re-established, moved to another location to try to re-establish comms or possibly even return to base for physical delivery of the last recorded information.

For UAVs autonomous operation, as I understand it, seems to be fairly well advanced. 

For UGVs autonomous operation is progressing but more complicated because vehicles need to avoid bumping into things and falling into holes and off cliffs.  But as A_Majoor says, even with the current state of the art there are a number of near term applications possible. 

Your point about assuming that everybody we encounter will be as lacking in resources as Zarqawi, Zawahiri, bin Laden and Associates is well taken though.

Cheers

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

There are some who believe that robots (autonomous or a link to a control station) will conduct the scouting.  The argument being that scouting is high risk, so it is better to risk a robot than a human.  I'm not sure how this fits into the contemporary operating environment, and I have my usual healthy skepticism regarding engineers.  It is still an interesting proposition. 

 

[DG-41]

I think that there is a time and place for robots - I can see, for example, a robot being dispatched from an OP to go have a look into some dead ground, or to try and sneak up on a defensive position already located by human scouts, or similar tasks.

But I have a hard time imagining robots REPLACING recce pers. They are a tool, not a panacea.

DG

 

[a_majoor]

I think that there is a time and place for robots - I can see, for example, a robot being dispatched from an OP to go have a look into some dead ground, or to try and sneak up on a defensive position already located by human scouts, or similar tasks.

But I have a hard time imagining robots REPLACING recce pers. They are a tool, not a panacea.

DG

Agree fully. Robot vehicles would make an interesting addition to an armoured troop following along as "caddies" with extra supplies (essentially convoying with the SSM), or as devices to send forward under control to "look" into high threat areas, or maybe put the surveillance suite onto a robot and deploy it out to an OP location... the possibilities of robotic help for the troops is endless, but robot designers and programmers are way behind the curve, they have to catch up to humans who have 500 million years of evolution behind us. (I don't think robots and AI have quite matched a cockroach in general intelligence just yet).

 

[DG-41]

How about one of these?

http://www.redwolfairsoft.com/redwolf/product/product_detail.jsp?prodID=19536



DG

 

[Kirkhill]

Would it come complete with "jack in the box" commander?

 

[a_majoor]

One idea which keeps coming back to me is being able to do parallel engagements.

A tank (or any other vehicle armed with a gun) can realistically engage one target at a time. Serial engagements shouldn't be much of an issue most of the time, but there are times when the ability to strike multiple targets at once would be a huge force multiplier. An old example is the HMMVW/LOSAT test bed. Each HMMVW in the platoon carried four missiles in a launch rack on the roof. Should the conditions be right, the crew commander could designate four separate targets and launch simultaneously against all four (whereas a conventional tank would have to engage each target separately). If this was a face off against an enemy tank platoon (a realistic figure even in a low-medium part of a full spectrum operation), they MUST all be destroyed as quickly as possible, not only to save the launch vehicle but also preventing the survivors of the platoon to withdraw, reorg and come back to fight again.

Now the HMMVW/LOSAT isn't the ideal combination (the vehicle having protection and moblity issues with the extra kit, and each LOSAT was like a section of telephone pole; a bit unweildy to handle in the field), but it gives a taste of the idea. This would be difficult to impliment in the advance, since the crew commander will be busy enough with one target, much less four, but in an overwatch position or firebase, this might be more manageable. Target designation can come from outside sources, and the FCS could have software filters built in to prevent the system from being overwhelmed by multiple calls for fire. Some of the ramifications would be a bit hard to work out, but a protected DFS vehicle with this capability should be a bonus when shooting in an attack, various threads in the Infantry section deal with the Australian army's rediscovery of the principle. With conventional weaponry (according to the Australians), up to 3/4 of an Infantry company must act as the fire base to assure success. Being able to hit four enemy bunkers or strongpoints withing miliseconds of each other would tear a big hole in their coverage, and make the supression of the remainder and the actual assault much easier and more likely of success.

 

[a_majoor]

I have been rethinking the CV-90 as the basis of future armour, as well as looking at some of the arguments for more conventional designs posted by various "black hats" in the forum. Taking into account various factors including time into service I will suggest a family based off the German PUMA IFV.

For details of the PUMA, link here: http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=3318

As an IFV, the basic package is a well protected with the "Level A" advertised to provide all around protection vs 14.5mm AP and 30mm cannon fire across the frontal arc, and is even air transportable on a notional A-400 or a real C-17. "Level C" brings the weight to @40 tonnes (43 according to some sources) and provides all around protection vs RPGs.

The one feature which may be questionable is the "robot" turret mounted on the top deck. This provides better protection for the crew, since there are fewer openings in the hull envelope, and the turret and ammunition are separated from the crew in case of damage or catastrophic failure. (This also means a problem to do things like clear stoppages.....). For the moment, I will assume the designers have done their homework and the turret works as advertised. This could lead to a family of PUMA derivatives ranging from the base IFV, followed by a Puma 120 tank, Puma 120 mortar carrier, Puma 155 SP, Puma AA and Puma AEV, as well as a Puma bridgelayer and Puma heavy recovery vehicle. I will assume long range DF can be delivered by "smart" rounds or through tube missiles form the Puma 120, but a Puma ATGM carrier can also be developed. Having a large number of Puma varients provides a fairly big logistics baseline for supplies, spare parts, trained techs etc.

If we accept the remote control turret, the overall form for the direct and indirect fire support vehicles will be similar the the FH-77 SP gun of the Swedish Army, which has a 24 round "magazine" attached to the breech mechanism that can be discarded by remote control from the cab and refitted with a new one from a support vehicle. Of course a manned turret could be used instead.

With the level A basic protection the Puma and its variations would hover around the 30-35 tonne mark, with up armoured versions rising to the 40-45 tonne mark. I would hesitate to go further than this, simply because heavy weight vehicles start getting into difficulty in strategic, operational and tactical mobility, and the size of the logistics slice for a heavyweight combat team would also rise enormously.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I like the robotic weapon stations.  It makes no sense to put a manned weapon station outside the hull, where you must waste space and armour to provide lesser protection than you could have had by keeping the gunner in the hull, and slaving the weapon station to the gunner's station. Given the same weight of armour, you end up with more protection for the crew, and a lower center of mass.  The lower center of mass is more of an issue with wheeled AFV due to its inferior stability.

 

[evil drunken-fool]

I don't know much about armour but that puma looks like a good piece of equipment!

 

[TCBF]

"...with up armoured versions rising to the 40-45 tonne mark. I would hesitate to go further than this, simply because heavy weight vehicles start getting into difficulty in strategic, operational and tactical mobility, and the size of the logistics slice for a heavyweight combat team would also rise enormously."

- Art, I'm sold.  Let's get'em.  IN THE MEANTIME, lets take the Leopard C2 - 42.3 tonnes - and deploy it on operations, thus giving us a very similar vehicle in the same weight class with which to develop our new "Puma Team" TTPs.



(Thanks for the hand-off! )

Tom

 

[DG-41]

Is it just me, or does that Puma look a lot like a BMP-2?

DG

 

[Franko]

Alrighty....where do I pick up one of those RC Leos?

Yes...I'm serious.    ;D

I can chase the cat and get ze frau at the same time!!!
Regards

 

[plattypuss]

I'm surprised with regards to the path Rheinmetal took with respect to the training simulation system for the PUMA but I suppose this is related to economies of scale.  If the Cdn government were to purchase these in the numbers we traditional buy, the concept of simulating out of the actual vehicle itself would hurt.  We need to use the vehicles for actual training and not slaved to a sim system.  My experience in Gagetown is that Stand-alone systems are much better, especially when the VOR rate goes through the roof and you have only a small number of vehicles to compete against being used for either gunnery or tactical training.
In theory it would be useful to simulate a mission on operations prior to conducting it, however I don't know if that kind of time is realistically available.

 

[TCBF]

"I'm surprised with regards to the path Rheinmetal took with respect to the training simulation system for the PUMA but I suppose this is related to economies of scale.  If the Cdn government were to purchase these in the numbers we traditional buy, the concept of simulating out of the actual vehicle itself would hurt.  We need to use the vehicles for actual training and not slaved to a sim system.  My experience in Gagetown is that Stand-alone systems are much better, especially when the VOR rate goes through the roof and you have only a small number of vehicles to compete against being used for either gunnery or tactical training.
In theory it would be useful to simulate a mission on operations prior to conducting it, however I don't know if that kind of time is realistically available."

- This day and age, the SIMULATIONS should be built right into the FCS.  Just lift the yellow and black striped cover and flick the toggle from "LIFE" to "SIM" and do your shoots in the LAV 3 lashed in the hold of the new tramp steamers we are buying...

Tom

 

[plattypuss]

TCBF

Acknowledge your point, but ask the Infantry/Armour School how they feel about slaving a vehicle to a simulation system when there is a shortage of vehicles out in the trg area due to high VORs.  Now that we will have a "Marine-like" corps the simulation within the FCS will prove useful to that small organisation but the majority of IT, for which the demand keeps increasing as CF expansion occurs, will result in greater demand being placed on the small vehicle fleet that the two schools struggle to manage now, maintaining a balance between gunnery and tactical training.  The only benefit to the system as described is that set-up and tear down times should be minimal.  Hopefully the systems can be tied into a central server to conduct combined training.  A simulation system within the FCS is not ideal when you want to reinforce the practical and tactical lessons to - soon to be - crew commanders in a field setting.  Ideally a purchase would come with both the built in and stand-alone systems.

 

[TCBF]

Sure it would.  Then, when you bust a field veh, it gets towed back and acts as a sim veh while WL or WP.

Just flick the switch.  Our sims (other than Leo C2) need a veh anyhow.

 

[a_majoor]

TCBF, you are getting what I am trying to say here, but don't forget the internal layout of a PUMA or derivative vehicle gives it much more survivability than a Leopard C2 of similar weight. A "PUMA C2" with the remote weapons mount would probably be about equal to an early version of the M1 in terms of survivability (assuming the level "C" kit is added). I actually like the idea that you could deploy a much lighter version with the level "C" kit removed. Maybe this could be the basis for a "Cavalry" version (where is 2Bravo whan you need him?).

The idea of using the vehicle in the hanger (or on a transport) as a simulator is interesting, one thing which many other simulators lack is a certain amount of fidelity. One example I can think of is the M1 simulation system in Ft Knox, where the driver is in a "pod" which is in a totally separate room from the rest of the crew. Certainly if we don't purchase enough vehicle sets we will run into the problem plattypuss is warning us of, but on the other hand, we need to be really careful how simulation is done, otherwise we could actually be teaching and reinforcing bad habits because of the limitations of simulators (and we will be spending more time in the simulator than on the actual equipment set).

WRT simulating missions, the M-1 training set up in Ft Knox is replicated in Germany and Korea, and there are similar Bradley set ups as well. I was told the entire system can be hooked up for battalion level simulations with all the systems wired together. I can imagine rolling combat teams into hangers in Petawawa, Valcartier and Edmonton, signing onto a server in Wainwright and doing the same thing at Battlegroup level for us (someday......)

 

[TCBF]

Why roll into a hanger?  You could be on the pad at Range 16, then, after supper, 1 and 2 troop do troop battle runs, 3 and 4 do sim runs on a trace electronically parallelling the shootin' troops, but while stationary behind the pad - no templating issues.  The actual shoots and sim shoots are fed into the server and plugged into a Div Ex which includes sim players from Pet, Val, Gagetown and Kingston, and live fire Militia traces in Meaford, Aldershot, Shilo and Dundurn. 

When it is there turn, the sim troops leapfrog on the trace, flick the switch, and go live.

Build it in - train anywhere - dry trace London to Tillsonburg - CC is doing his thing, gunner does sim shoots built into the trace.

Tom

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Why roll into a hanger?  You could be on the pad at Range 16, then, after supper, 1 and 2 troop do troop battle runs, 3 and 4 do sim runs on a trace electronically parallelling the shootin' troops, but while stationary behind the pad - no templating issues.  The actual shoots and sim shoots are fed into the server and plugged into a Div Ex which includes sim players from Pet, Val, Gagetown and Kingston, and live fire Militia traces in Meaford, Aldershot, Shilo and Dundurn. 

When it is there turn, the sim troops leapfrog on the trace, flick the switch, and go live.

Build it in - train anywhere - dry trace London to Tillsonburg - CC is doing his thing, gunner does sim shoots built into the trace.

Tom

    This is actually more useful for us than for the big boys down south.    It allows vehicle crews to take part in combined arms exercises where they can work their sim shoots while their infantry dismounts carries out their own simulated assaults.  Roll in, drop troops, hook up net, carry out simulated movement and support fire in conjunction with infantry exercise scenario.  Combined arms training actually combined.