Future Armour

[Lance Wiebe]

A built in simulator is a good idea, it allows the crews to practice while deployed, or waiting to shoot, and so on.  However, to teach basic gunners and commanders at the various schools, they will not meet the requirements.  For one thing, we are still tying up a multi-million dollar vehicle, instead of a simulator that costs 100 grand.  It doesn't matter if the vehicle is WP or WL, it is not effective use of resources.  On a daily basis in Gagetown, simulators are being taken off of vehicles going to maintenance, and replacement broken vehicles are arriving, just to be taken apart and sent away again.  Not efficient use of our training time, poor training because of interruptions, and poor use of our mechs time.  Not to mention the wear and tear on the simulators and LAVS.

The best mix would be to have the vehicles to have the capability of having built in simulators, similar to the RWS on the  Striker, and have stand alone simulators at the Schools and home bases of the Units (for there own refresher training and basic training).

 

[a_majoor]

Over in the Equipment thread, the MMEV issue came back to life with a post from "Rocket Man". The implication that I got out of his post was the MMEV project is still on and still based on the LAV III hull. One implication I read into his post was the idea that the MMEV is now being seen more as an anti-aircraft platform with secondary overwatch functions. This was mostly due to the requirement for the vehicle to mount a surveillance suite capable of tracking aircraft to 35km away.

The other thing I took from his post was there is a more realistic appraisal of the sort of environment it will be operating in, since he seemed concerned about self defense capabilities. He may be associated with the project somehow, the last line of his post reads:

The project team is all ears, guys... where should they go?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/16987/post-377620.html#msg377620

As usual, I have a few thoughts, so I will start with this:

1. The turret should be derived from the Wegmann type turret to achieve a low profile and maximize crew protection and have a similar layout to the Blazer SPAAG/missile combination. While the 25mm Gatling gun is good from one logistics standpoint (i.e. shares ammunition with the Coyote and LAV III), the rate of fire induces a lot of others. We are also implying overwatch capabilities so go big on the gun, maybe the 35mm Skyranger cannon firing AHEAD ammunition and a coaxial C-6.

2. Starstreak makes an excellent choice for the missile in both the AA and DF roles, it is a very fast supersonic missile so should deliver considerable KE to the target. Starstreak probably won't kill a tank, but could certainly disrupt the FCS, and cause considerable damage to lesser targets beyond the range of the 35mm cannon.

3. Interchangeable pods, so if the situation is clear (i.e. Afghanistan, where there is little or no air threat), then the Starstreaks can be swapped out for a nice extended range missile like Spike LR (4000m range) or Spike ER (8000m range). Of course there should be an option for "Pod A" to carry one missile type and "Pod B" to carry the other if the situation is a bit confused.

4. Phased array antenna to reduce the amount of mechanical "bits" required. I would not be so set on the 35km+ range for the radar, it probably makes more sense to go with a compact radar/FCS system and cue the weapon with off board sensors. You will need to do this with NLOS attacks on ground targets anyway, we will just need to devote enough bandwidth to accept input from ASCC assets as well. Besides, the ground environment is hard on electronics, so uncooled TI systems and fairly simple radar sets will probably last longer and work more reliably for the soldiers using them.

The end result here is most defiantly a SPAAG/missile launcher with a secondary ability to perform overwatch. The gun allows it to deal with close targets, while the Starstreak can be "snap shot" at distant targets, covering the distance at over three times the speed of sound. This doesn't help with NLOS targets, but that's what guns and mortars are for.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I read the MMEV post myself and have been thinking about it, off and on.  While I like your ideas for the radar, and lack the knowledge to speak about the missile choices, I do feel the need to comment on the gun system.  My grandfather was a tanker in WWII, and acquired in the intervening years a fair number of friends who practiced the trade on the other side.  I was discussing the neat AAA tank the Russians had added to their Air Defence teams when one of Granddads German friends interjected.  He had crewed a flack panzer in the war, and was quick to point out that big rapidly firing cannons eat ammunition at an insane rate, and that in war you do not get to reammunition between engagements unless ammunition makes it to the front, and if your flack panzer is out of ammunition it is because the enemy is flying over your supply lines!
    In a LAVIII hull, we have limited space, with missile and sensor suites even less than usual, and the 35mm gun and ammunition's greater size would further limit the amount of ammo carried.
    A tank may have the space to carry lots of everything, a LAV does not.  I'd rather have a 25mm with more ammunition than a more effective 35mm that I can't afford to use.  Our logistics chain is more likely to be able to quickly resupply me the commonly used 25mm than a single use munition like the 35mm that is only required for specialized units. I'd rather have a tool that can do the job, and is guaranteed to be in my toolbox, than the best possible tool, that may, or may not be in the toolbox when I need it.
   

 

[a_majoor]

Fair enough critique about the cannon (although a 25mm Gatling gun would also have insane resupply issues).

Given the MMEV is touted as an overwatch vehicle, I would suggest there is a need for a longer reach, but if we dial the requirement back to local self defense, then a 25mm chain gun will certainly do the job.  A look at Starstreak is very impressive, it is light weight, very fast (Mach 3.5) and can also be shoulder fired, making the MMEV crew potentially capable of dismounting and pegging targets away from the vehicle if neded. Range against ground targets is @ 6000m, although that kind of shot is rather rare. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak and http://www.thales-airdefence.com/ficheSTARSTREAKHVM.htm

Just as an aside, here is a picture of the actual Skyranger gun turret mounted on a LAV

edit to include picture

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

The starstreak looks like a nice missile system.  Not a tank killer, but that's not the role of the MMEV, but the TUA.  A good air defence weapon with the ability to destroy IFV or infantry positions from a long range.  I hope they can get a proximity fuse for the submunitions in the near future, that would enhance its utility.
    Given the increasing use of flares and automated countermeasures in modern aircraft and helicopters, I like the Starstreaks guidance package.  The price tag makes it clear that this system, unlike our sacred ADATS, can actually be fired enough to give our gunners the skill to make the system work.  We will also have the ability to get more, and upgrade existing systems as advances become available, which our orphaned ADATS can't.
    Regarding the 25mm cannon, it will also have a huge ammunition requirement, but since our LAV fleet carry 25mm, we will have sufficient munitions already available in any formation the MMEV would be attached to, and our troops do get the chance to fire the 25mm. 35mm would be an orphan system, like the ADATS, and the question about how much ammunition would be bought, would be deployed, what types of munitions would be procurred, and what (if any) training allotment would be.  In the CF, high ammunition costs tend to give us systems our troops never get to live fire until they are in theater and under fire.  I would rather see a system the troops could actually get good at before it drops in the pot.  Anyone fire an Eryx lately?

 

[Kirkhill]

Why does one vehicle have to be equipped with sensor, launchers for its primary weapon and a heavy secondary weapon like the 25/35 mm system? 

Following on from what Blackshirt and I were suggesting:

Treat this system as an artillery system
Deploy to supply area coverage and away from the primary threat, possibly firing from defended locales (collocate with infantry or cavalry)
Deploy along with troop/battery sensors, C&C and resupply elements.

Supply the launchers with missiles that can engage the selected threats (armour and air) out beyond their direct fire range (5 km for ground vehicles?  What is it for air? 8 km for Hellfire types,  32 km for Brimstone?  >60 km for Precision Guided Glider Bombs?  >300km for PG Missiles? or is it just to knock down UAVs operating in close proximity?)  Supply sensors that can detect the threat at a suitable range to allow reaction time (What type of reaction time do you want - seconds for the missiles to automatically engage the threat or minutes to allow operators to appreciate the nature of the threat and make a decision on engagement and to allow time for other forces to take cover?).

As to defence of the vehicles wouldn't it be possible to rely on mounting light weapons on the launchers and sensor platforms that are going to be heavily burdened with hardware and supply the C&C elements with LAVIIIs with the existing 25mm turret in the Command configuration?

Is it likely that these systems are going to be swanning around the field on their own? 

As an artillery system I like the notion of just putting a pedestal based yoke on the back of a low-rise/flat-bed LAV with a 3 place crew pod at the front (dr/cc/op).  Capabilities to launch ADATS/Starstreak/70mm missiles in its primary air defence role creating a bubble of 8-10 km around the vehicle, with a secondary capacity to launch 70mm/Hellfire-Brimstone missiles in the indirect/N-LOS role with ranges out to 9 km for the Hellfire-Brimstone missiles in ground-launch mode and 8-14 km for the 70mm.  Even if they can't get the Precision Guidance working on the APKWS then the 70mm would still be a useful addition to the support arsenal - and it is already in the system for use on the CF-18s.

As to longer ranged systems like the HIMARS/GMRLS/ATACMS (30 to 300 km) or possibly even the Netfires LAM/PAM (40 to 200 km), their range and launchers would seem to make them incompatible with the ADATS type of system and should probably be looked at as a separate project.

As far as the MGS/DFSV is concerned I think that if a_majoor's LAV CV-CT were combined with Blackshirts LAVIII-25 with CKEM or Spike LR/ER that would greatly enhance the survivability and effect that a medium cavalry force could bring to an engagement.

 

[a_majoor]

If I understand RocketMan's requirements correctly, the main thing MMEV brings to the table isn't the weapons system at all but the 35km 3D surveillance capability. I don't know enough about the topic to say if this is realistic or not, but I'll nod and say it is possible for a compact phased array unit to do so.

Since it is carrying a sensor capable of such coverage, it really seems to be an AD system, and for reference, the Blazer turret mounting Mistral does carry a radar set (see picture). Swapping the Mistral for the Starstreak extends the range and provides the secondary ability to engage ground targets to @6000m, a practical range in the real world and "close enough" to the presumptive range of the MMEV. Since people like to sneak up on you (regardless of your plans or doctrine) and expending a missile costing tens of thousands of dollars on someone with an RPG or Toyota Land Cruiser "Technical" is a bit much unless they happen to be 6000m away and threatening someone else, a self defence weapon like a chain gun makes a lot of sense in my mind.

The self defence weapon protects the MMEV on the move, and provides protection to the firebase area if it is co-located with other assets like Kirkhill suggests (most of which have no inherent self defence capabilities).

Also, looking at the low end of a Full Spectrum environment, it seems reasonable to suppose a troop, fire team or even an individual vehicle could be providing overwatch to convoys or patrols, so from a tactical point of view, being a bit self contained makes sense. A LAV sized MMEV with outlined like I suggest could carry several hundred rounds of 25mm and 8-12 Starstreaks (maybe more) depending on the layout.

I would separate the NLOS system entirely from the MMEV, and make that the TOW replacement project, with the LAV ATGM firing Hellfire, Brimstone or some sort of FOG-M (Spike LR, Spike ER or EFOG-M). Instead of one unwieldy program unlikely to succeed, we now have two programs largely based on MOTS technologies which can be fielded quickly and at a relatively low cost. Indeed, Kirkhill's LAV Technical would be a good launch platform for both the AA and NLOS weapons, we would have to accept that local self defence is now down to a machine gun or AGL on an OWS.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

I have always been wary of the MMEV designs proposed loadout.  I would rather see the AD and AT platforms kept separate.  Using Starstreak for AD (with 25mm sidecar) on a LAV chassis for AD and upgrading our LAVTUA to Spike or some similar NLOS missile will give us two workable systems with enough loadout to be strategically useful.  I have never been happy with the ADATS system because it is too expensive to use, too seldom deployed, and too expensive to expend in live fire training.  Having an MMEV that carries too few of everything to be useful, becomes too expensive to risk in theater, too hard to supply, and leaves its task force hanging in the wind for AD, AT, and mobile artillery if it suffers a casualty or vehicle fault.  Putting all of your (too few) eggs in one thinly armoured basket is a recipe for disaster.  Separating AD and AT functions is a more strategically sound decision. 
    For the MMEV concept to work, the chassis would have to be a MBT with the greater armour and hull capacity, which the CF has rejected in favour of the wheeled LAV.  Instead of one unworkable MMEV, use the LAV fleet to produce AT and AD platforms to complement the IFV and recon platforms that are already in service.  A multimission effect team that works, is affordable and adaptable, rather than a MMEV that is both unworkable and unaffordable.

 

[Armymatters]

Continuing on from my last post.  If you want to see a real neat Missile for the MMEV... check out the Bodenseewerk Gerätetechnik (BGT) new generation VSHORAD (NG leFla) light surface-to-air missile.  Now that's a cool system - I'd love to see if it turns out as impressive as they claim.

Looks like a scaled down variant of the German IRIS-T Sidewinder replacement missile... of which we used to participate in the development of...

 

[a_majoor]

The MMEV as currently described is a rather curious beast, since although described as part of a "network centric" battlefield, it attempts to combine the attributes of everyone in one platform.

Kirkill is offering the best "clean sheet of paper" approach, separate sensor and dedicated shooter platforms all networked together, but I'm afraid there is too much sunk cost in existing systems (and a shortage of troops to man the sensor, shooter and FCS vehicles being contemplated).

Quick and dirty is the way to go; the MMEV and Coyote provide the primary surveillance capabilities, and the shooting is done by LAV IIIs, artillery, TOW or successor systems, MGS(?) etc. Given the MMEV's surveillance system lends itself to AD, then making the platform an AD system makes sense.

WRT Starstreak, I see Rocketman's point about it being less than desirable in the DF role, and we certainly don't have the money to ask Thales for a "Maplestreak" just to make me happy (darn), but the principle should remain the same. Attacking a target 6000m away in 5 seconds or so is simply a fantastic capability, maybe there is another candidate (don't know too much about the German missile being presented). Whatever is considered, it must be compact enough to carry a useful vehicle load. The Starstreak Armoured Vehicle mount on the Alvis Stormer (a small APC) carries 8+12 Starstreak missiles, and the Starstreak Lightweight Vehicle (LWV) mount carries 6 ready rounds and however many the vehicle can store.

As a BTW, the idea of Starstreak being used as a MANPADS makes it even more versatile, not only the MMEV can use it mounted or dismounted (dismounted to cover blind spots or achieve surprise), but AD troops mounted on utility vehicles or Bison's can be scattered about the AOR and net into the MMEV to cue their weapons. While the pilot deploys his countermeasures against the MMEV at point "A", young Bombardier Bloggins is lining his shot up unobserved at point "B". (This assumes the bandwidth problem is reliably solved). If an appropriate "Maplestreak" can be found or developed, then the AD troop becomes the DF troop, with a small forest of antennas connecting the utility vehicle to the MMEV, Coyote, combat team and command nets. This is a potential way to fill the battlespace with DF capability that is difficult for the enemy to detect, while the longer range NLOS systems can start with the TOW replacement, thickened up with smart mortars and long range smart artillery. (the number of potential "spotters" is greatly increased by the DF troops, perhaps the control unit can be tweaked to act as a laser rangefinder/designator when calling in NLOS fire).

Now how this relates to "Future Armour", we have outlined a potential system which is network centric and provides DF and IF capabilities across the battlespace without a huge investment in time or money. If manning and cost is really an issue, the DF troops on utility vehicles or Bison's can be a Reserve capability (yes, I know....) to be attached to battlegroups as needed.

 

[Enzo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

What I like about this concept is that it is a passive system, could be adapted for LAVs and appears to be well suited to MOUT. Armour isn't my field though, so I'm just going by the concepts presented within and on a recent demonstration video I saw that brought this to my attention, I'm trying to find a copy of the video online.

This is a dated story and the only link I could come up with so far. I'm curious about this technology and if it has a future with armour? I did a cursory search and I unless I missed it, I don't think it's been mentioned (if so, pardon). As this particular link is so dated, the technology may have already been disproven, if so, did something better come along or were the technicalities too difficult to overcome?

 

[Kirkhill]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/38169.0.html

It has actually been mentioned before but it is still an interesting topic.  You might be further interested that the Brits placed a contract for four demonstrator systems this year for the FRES project.  See the windsofchange link contained above.

Cheers. 

 

[Enzo]

Kirk - I must be on crack, I totally spaced when I did a search prior to posting. Tried again and clear as mud...  : I gotta stop sniffing the catnip.

I checked out the link, going to be interesting to see where the winner of the next technology comes from.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

    The armour system sounds like an engineering nightmare for early production QC, but with serious potential.  One worry, how does it perform if the penetration plasma is not conductive?  I mean copper is the standard now, but if the system will only defend against the better conductors, it won't be long before there is a new standard for manpack anti tank grenades.

 

[Kirkhill]

The other one that has come up in the past Mike, is how this stuff would hold up to HESH.  Still - if it takes some of the bad guy's options off the table it can't be all bad.

Enzo - don't feel bad.  I knew what I was looking for and it took a bit of time.  Cheers.

 

[GAP]

How about just making it disappear?  This was in development in 2002, based on the cuttlefish....seen any disappearing tanks lately
Cuttlefish gives clue for tank camouflage
By Sean Rayment
(Filed: 03/02/2002)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=DDKEBS55TNFEJQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2002/02/03/ncam03.xml
IT has survived for aeons in the world's oceans, evading predators with its unique ability virtually to disappear. Now the gift of camouflage bestowed on the cuttlefish could help British tanks to survive for longer on the battlefield.

 

[a_majoor]

How about just making it disappear?  This was in development in 2002, based on the cuttlefish....seen any disappearing tanks lately

I did see a heavily modified Coyote. All the external stowage was removed, a huge heat exchanger replaced or covered up the muffler, and the entire vehicle was covered in a camouflage netting which was specially treated to absorb/ disperse thermal energy and also common wavelengths of ground radar. This was an attempt to use signature management on an existing vehicle, and was claimed to reduce thermal, visual and radar signatures quite effectively when the vehicle was buttoned up and stationary, and even while moving (The netting covered the wheels like a skirt, although this was not mentioned, there appeared to be some sort of hook arrangement that would allow the crew to lift the skirt off the ground while in motion and still cover about 3/4 of the wheels).

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe this'll bring this thread back to the fore - appropriate if you are actually going to use tanks.  It's one for Arthur.

Raytheon's Mid Range Munition Projectile Scores a Direct Hit Against Moving T-72 Tank
 
 
(Source: Raytheon Company; issued Sept. 25, 2006)
 
 
 
TUCSON, Ariz. --- Raytheon Company successfully conducted the first beyond line of sight mission with a test firing of its Mid Range Munition Chemical Energy (MRM-CE) guided projectile with digital semi active laser sensor. The projectile, fired from an Abrams M1A2 SEP (system enhancement program) tank, scored an extended-range, guided direct hit. 

The test firing at the U.S. Army's Yuma, Ariz., Proving Grounds demonstrated the laser-guided seeker's ability to successfully target, acquire and track a moving tank and guide the munition to intercept at a distance of 5.4 miles (8.7 km). 

"The round hit within inches of the aim point demonstrating 100 percent mission success. The MRM-CE 'One Team' concept uniting the Army's Picatinny Arsenal, General Dynamics Ordnance Tactical Systems and Raytheon is at the core of our success," said Rick Williams, Raytheon Missile Systems' MRM program manager. 

The Raytheon MRM-CE projectile is designed to provide the Army with lethal, one-shot capability as it continues its transformation to lighter, more deployable combat forces. The MRM-CE, which will autonomously attack battlefield targets at beyond line of sight ranges, with or without external laser target designation, is a key component of the Army's Future Combat Systems vehicles. 

"The MRM-CE continues to perform consistently and accurately and is ready to enter system development and demonstration," said Ken Pedersen, Raytheon Missile Systems' vice president of Advanced Programs. 

The MRM-CE program is jointly developed and managed by Army Research and Development Command and the Project Manager -- Maneuver Ammunition Systems at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J. 


BACKGROUND NOTES: 

The Mid Range Munitions (MRM) guided projectile program is a key element of the U.S. Army FCS vehicles to dominate future battlefields at extended ranges in support of the lighter interim and objective forces now being equipped and deployed. 

The Raytheon MRM-CE leverages seeker technologies derived from the FCS Spiral 1 Non-Line of Sight, Precision Attack Missile and guidance-lethality derived from the combat proven Javelin missile. MRM-CE is designed to defeat contemporary threats ranging from heavy armor to bunkers and fortifications. 

Raytheon is also the prime contractor for the U.S. Army's Excalibur 155 mm projectile and the U.S. Navy's ERGM (Extended Range Guided Munition). 


Raytheon Company, with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader in defense and government electronics, space, information technology, technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide. 

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34

 

[a_majoor]

Maybe this'll bring this thread back to the fore - appropriate if you are actually going to use tanks.  It's one for Arthur.

It's just like Christmas around here!

These sorts of smart munitions actually extend more than tanks (which for obvious reasons are the preferred firing platforms), any sort of AFV armed with a cannon can use this. Cavalry AFV's and light/medium tanks like the CV 90120 would be able to reach out that much farther as well. On the offensive the commander can shape the battlespace with fire (especially since AFV's that would have been out of play without these sorts of munitions can add effective fire). This also sounds like the ideal way to rejuvinate fleets of older AFV's, like *ahem* Leopard 1's and M-60 varients.

My one question is how well the seeker would work in high clutter environments, and can it be placed on an HE munition and programmed to airburst over an identified enemy position? This would have been a very welcome addition during the recent operations in Afghanistan.

 

[a_majoor]

Some further information in the Equipment board: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51152/post-453364/boardseen.html#new