Future Armour

[KevinB]

I think you underestimate our ability to stretch projects out beyond any reasonable timeframe!

Correction: Canada’s entire tank inventory would be less than a half month of most countries tank production.

 

[Kirkhill]

Correction: Canada’s entire tank inventory would be less than a half month of most countries tank production.

Leclerc - 18 years for 862 - 48 per year
Challenger - 9 years for 447 - 50 per year
Ariete - 7 years for 200 - 28 per year

Obviously the Ariete is the tank for Canada.

 

[Kirkhill]

Cockerill's Eurosatory Concept.

PARIS — John Cockerill Defense — a Belgian-based company known for its guns, turrets and remote weapon stations — has rolled out a new vehicle it’s calling the world’s “first-ever ground interceptor.”

The Cockerill i-X is a lightly armored 4x4 vehicle that was designed to intercept and engage with incoming ground-based threats, much like an interceptor aircraft. While it made its initial debut in March during the World Defense Show in Riyadh, the vehicle was showcased for the first time in Europe this week during the 2022 Eurosatory international defense conference in Paris.

The current version of the Cockerill i-X — similar in size to a sport utility vehicle — is a proof-of-concept that addresses a gap in the light armored vehicle market, said Simon Haye, John Cockerill Defense’s chief marketing officer. Many small vehicles feature open-cab designs that can leave their crews vulnerable to the environment and incoming threats, he explained.

“However, they are more to deliver people to go do something. Our thought is to keep the people in the vehicle and let them do it from the vehicle with the firepower they’re carrying with them,” Haye said on the sidelines of the conference.

The 2-door vehicle’s main armament feature could be one of two options: a 25mm automatic cannon or a 30x113mm automatic cannon that both hold 120 ready rounds. Both would be paired with a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun that carries 400 ready rounds, he said.

Another version of the turret, which is still under development, will feature two to four anti-tank guided missiles coupled with a 12.7mm machine gun.

Each turret is retractable, rotates 360 degrees and tilts from 60 degrees above to ten degrees below elevation.

Able to reach speeds of 124 mph on roads and 99 mph off roads, the vehicle can quickly make long treks to intercept and neutralize incoming threats, Haye noted.

“We see this working as a team, with two or three vehicles working together with a drone or drone aircraft support for long-distance observation,” he said.

The 4-ton Cockerill i-X is made of composite carbon fiber materials manufactured by John Cockerill and powered by one of two engine options: a completely thermal engine with 800hp or a hybrid-electric engine with 750hp, he said. The vehicle seats a two-person crew of a driver and gunner.

At the same time, John Cockerill Defense is working on a VR-based operating interface for the turret that is displayed on a helmet, Haye said. When wearing the helmet, the weapons operator will have a 360-degree view of the environment surrounding the vehicle by using cameras onboard.

While the helmet is under development, current prototypes already include automatic detection and classification of threats using artificial intelligence being developed by the company, Haye said.

Next-Gen Light Armored Vehicle Makes European Debut

Next-Gen Light Armored Vehicle Makes European Debut

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[Kirkhill]

And a related development - AI cueing of RWS turrets.

“We believe that, with good equipment and a little help from machines, you can do better things as human beings,”

Remote Control Weapon Stations Get AI Companion

Remote Control Weapon Stations Get AI Companion

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Two Israeli companies are giving ground combat vehicles a situational awareness boost using artificial intelligence.

...the system combines Nir-Or’s electronic video displays and AI built specifically for defense applications by Axon-Vision.

When integrated onto an armored fighting vehicle, the EdgeRCWS is uses sensors to scan the surrounding area while AI software identifies possible targets. The system then displays the targets for warfighters inside the vehicle.

 

[Kirkhill]

4 tonne solutions for Light Cavalry or for the Infantry Weapons Company - All Chinook, and Cyclone, and Cormorant transportable.

2 or 3 to a Herc, a dozen to a C17.

Enhance with AI and Quadcopters.

 

[Kirkhill]

And for the Medium Engineers - A mine plow for their LAV-E's

U.K. Firm Debuts Mine Clearance Plow for Wheeled Vehicles

U.K. Firm Debuts Mine Clearance Plow for Wheeled Vehicles

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[Spencer100]

And for the Medium Engineers - A mine plow for their LAV-E's

View attachment 71430

U.K. Firm Debuts Mine Clearance Plow for Wheeled Vehicles

U.K. Firm Debuts Mine Clearance Plow for Wheeled Vehicles

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Not knowing anything here. What happens when the plow picks up a mine? If it goes off? Is there enough protection in the front of LAV? Does this happen? Is it a one a done type of thing? Or yup we're good keep going?

Sorry I really don't know. I get the plow part its digging with a fork in sand.

 

[Kirkhill]

Not knowing anything here. What happens when the plow picks up a mine? If it goes off? Is there enough protection in the front of LAV? Does this happen? Is it a one a done type of thing? Or yup we're good keep going?

Sorry I really don't know. I get the plow part its digging with a fork in sand.

Me neither.

 

[Kirkhill]

A neat little article in the economist

Does the tank have a future?

The war in Ukraine has exposed the vehicle’s vulnerabilities. They can be overcome

www.economist.com

Does the tank have a future?​

The war in Ukraine has exposed the vehicle’s vulnerabilities. They can be overcome​

Armies on the attack need ways to move their troops forward. They also need to shield those soldiers as they advance. Most importantly, they need firepower to punch through defences that stand in their way, ideally causing havoc in the enemy’s rear. The tank combines these three capabilities in a single device. For that reason, every significant army makes use of them. There are 60,000 or so around the world.
...
The battles of the last three months have underlined two potent threats to armoured vehicles. One is the anti-tank guided missile (atgm). Its destructive potential has been clear since the Yom Kippur war of 1973, when Egypt’s Soviet-made Sagger atgms smashed Israeli tanks. A memo written by the American army after the war assessed that the Sagger, if not disrupted, had a 60% chance of achieving a “kill” against an m60 tank from as far as two miles out.
...
The second threat is armed drones, which offer a cheap and simple way of attacking from the air. In recent years Turkish-made tb2s, which are slightly smaller than a Cessna light aircraft, have destroyed large amounts of armour in Libya, Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh—and now Ukraine—using laser-guided bombs. Ukraine is also using alternatives that range from the basic (quadcopters armed with Soviet-era anti-tank grenades) to the more advanced.
...
It would be wrong, however, to write the tank’s obituary based on its performance in the war,...
...
Modern armed forces prize the idea of combined-arms warfare,... Ben Barry, a former commander of a British armoured infantry battalion, now at the iiss, a think-tank, has called it “a lethal version of scissors, paper, stone”.
...
Dave Johnson of rand, an American think-tank, has observed that in the American and Israeli armies, it became common practice after the Yom Kippur war to aim artillery at locations where soldiers with atgms might be hiding. ... “One of the major lessons is that you cannot have armour bumbling along without fire support, or its own eyes and ears well ahead through a reconnaissance screen,” concludes General Dhanoa.
...
One reason for the initial failure of the Russian advance on Kyiv was that artillery support was stuck to the rear of congested columns—a function of poor planning. As Wilf Owen, editor of Military Strategy Magazine and an expert on armoured warfare, puts it, “If the Russian army had done any competent training at all, you would not have seen anything like this level of losses.”
...
In the long race between the tank and its foes, anti-tank forces appear to have the upper hand. But vulnerability is not the same as obsolescence. Armies need something that can move quickly, break through enemy lines, lead the way for infantry and destroy the other side’s armoured vehicles. If the tank does not do these jobs, something else must. That alternative will, in turn, become prey to the same technologies and tactics. “If people want to say the tank is dead, then every armoured fighting vehicle is dead for the same reasons,” says Mr Owen. “Because if tanks aren't there to kill with an atgm, you will use atgms to kill whatever vehicle is there.”
But tanks are increasingly expensive. They are beginning to approach the heady sums spent on modern fighter jets. A high-end one can cost as much as $20m, says Mr Owen. An f-35a, a cutting-edge warplane, is around $80m, though estimates vary. One reason for this inflation is the growing expense of tacking on ever more armour to protect the tank. aps will compound that problem. On top of that, operating a heavy-tracked vehicle can cost up to $500 a kilometre, Mr Owen notes. A large fleet requires lots of dedicated support, from bridging equipment to fuel trucks.
Some countries will keep piling on armour, resulting in more ponderous but tougher tanks capable of absorbing bigger blows. But many more are likely to opt for lighter and cheaper vehicles—more vulnerable to Javelins and Switchblades, perhaps, but affordable in larger numbers. And much as sixth-generation warplanes are likely to become motherships for drone swarms, tanks might become hubs for autonomous ground vehicles that can scout ahead and perform other tasks. Tanks will not die out; they will evolve instead.

I would suggest the analogy would be the impact of the machine gun on the horsed cavalry and the infantry. Both had to adapt their tools and their tactics - and the machine gun stayed.

But...

If a tank becomes a mothership for drone swarms, (and I disagree with the notion of them becoming motherships for autonomous ground vehicles just because the mothership is limited to the ground), if it retains cross-country mobility and protection, but its firepower is realized through the swarm and not through an on-board cannon, is it still a tank?

 

[KevinB]

Cockerill's Eurosatory Concept.


View attachment 71425

Next-Gen Light Armored Vehicle Makes European Debut

Next-Gen Light Armored Vehicle Makes European Debut

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Honestly that looks like the JLTV's retarded half brother.

 

[Kirkhill]

Honestly that looks like the JLTV's retarded half brother.

Unlike the JLTV it fits inside Chinooks.

Tell me. Which one looks right to you?



I wouldn't buy European running gear but you Yanks can't design for s**t!

 

[KevinB]

Unlike the JLTV it fits inside Chinooks.

Tell me. Which one looks right to you?

View attachment 71442View attachment 71443

I wouldn't buy European running gear but you Yanks can't design for s**t!

If I wanted a vehicle to go in a Hook it would not be a fairly bulky light armored platform.
I’m of the opinion the JLTV is another ‘last war’ item.
I think it’s inferior to the Hummer in many ways for most roles.

All of the ‘armored’ trucks suffer from the fact they are nearly impossible to fight from and don’t have enough armor to protect crew from any real direct attack.

We learned a lot of valuable lesson from GWOT - but we also took aboard a lot of poor concepts on risk assessment and risk management.

 

[FJAG]

Unlike the JLTV it fits inside Chinooks.

Tell me. Which one looks right to you?

View attachment 71442View attachment 71443

I wouldn't buy European running gear but you Yanks can't design for s**t!

I've been a fan of the VBL for a long time. Then again I loved the Ferret.

Don't like the Wiesel and I don't know why because I'm a fan of a Wiesel-sized tracked light vehicle for many purposes.

I think we've all become very IED sensitive and we seem to be growing light vehicles mine resistance at a rate that will pretty soon have everyone driving around in nothing but Namer-class vehicles.

 

[Kirkhill]

I've been a fan of the VBL for a long time. Then again I loved the Ferret.

Don't like the Wiesel and I don't know why because I'm a fan of a Wiesel-sized tracked light vehicle for many purposes.

I think we've all become very IED sensitive and we seem to be growing light vehicles mine resistance at a rate that will pretty soon have everyone driving around in nothing but Namer-class vehicles.

It is not the vehicles that I am fixated on so much as noting the variety of weapons that can be accommodated on vehicles in the 4 tonne range. That range allows the vehicles to be transported under Cyclones and Cormorants as well as by Chinook, Buffalo, Herc and C17. And possibly within the Osprey.

I am looking for vehicles that can accompany infantry in close country when deployed by air, and that will add weapons that are beyond the manportable capabilities of the leg infantry.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

and power the radios, thermals and other electronics

 

[Kirkhill]

If a tank becomes a mothership for drone swarms, (and I disagree with the notion of them becoming motherships for autonomous ground vehicles just because the mothership is limited to the ground), if it retains cross-country mobility and protection, but its firepower is realized through the swarm and not through an on-board cannon, is it still a tank?

Abrams stowed kills

Main armament	M1: 105 mm L/52 M68A1rifled gun (55 rounds) M1A1: 120 mm L/44 M256A1smoothbore gun (40 rounds) M1A2: 120 mm L/44 M256A1 smoothbore gun (42 rounds)

We have become accustomed to the image on the left, a Russian tank in Ukraine after it has flipped its lid.
We might be less familiar with the Turkish Leopard 2A4 in Syria after a similar incident.

numerous Leopard 2s (Edit: A4s) had been destroyed in intense fighting over ISIS-held Al-Bab—a fight that Turkish military leaders described as a “trauma,” according to Der Spiegel. A document published online listed ISIS as apparently having destroyed ten of the supposedly invincible Leopard 2s; five reportedly by antitank missiles, two by mines or IEDs, one to rocket or mortar fire, and the others to more ambiguous causes.

Germany’s Leopard 2 Tank in Syria Was Beaten Badly in Battle. Why?

Here's what happened.

nationalinterest.org

So I am going to stipulate that there are tactical considerations here.

Undoubtedly, the manner in which the Turkish Army employed the German tanks likely contributed to the losses. Rather than using them in a combined arms force alongside mutually supporting infantry, they were deployed to the rear as long-range fire-support weapons while Turkish-allied Syrian militias stiffened with Turkish special forces led the assaults. Isolated on exposed firing positions without adequate nearby infantry to form a good defensive perimeter, the Turkish Leopards were vulnerable to ambushes. The same poor tactics have led to the loss of numerous Saudi Abrams tanks in Yemen, as you can see in this video.

By contrast, more modern Leopard 2s have seen quite a bit of action in Afghanistan combating Taliban insurgents in the service of the Canadian 2A6Ms (with enhanced protection against mines and even floating “safety seats”) and Danish 2A5s. Though a few were damaged by mines, all were put back into service, though a Danish Leopard 2 crew member was mortally injured by an IED attack in 2008. In return, the tanks were praised by field commanders for their mobility and providing accurate and timely fire support during major combat operations in southern Afghanistan.

But I want to focus on the design elements related to ammunition stowage.

First of all any vehicle has a limited amount of space, volume. That limits the ammunition, or stowed kills, that it can carry. The tendency is to jam ammunition into any available space to maximize the number of stowed kills and the amount of time required between reloads when the tank becomes ineffective, vulnerable and must be withdrawn to rearm and refuel.

This generally has meant that ammunition has been buried deep in the hull, in the most protected part of the tank, where the crew is. The problem is that if that compartment is penetrated, even by a relatively low power weapon like the 84mm Carl Gustaf, and the ammunition in the hull is detonated then there is a "catastrophic failure". The Abrams overcomes this by stowing its rounds in the turret bustle with blast doors and blow out panels to protect the crew.

But all of this need to carry ammunition, to protect ammunition, requires volume which makes a bigger target, requires mass which makes a less mobile vehicle, requires a bigger engine to move the mass which requires, again, more protection and more mass
and a bigger engine, and bigger engines require more diesel/JP. Those in turn require more fuel trucks, bladder farms and pipelines.

The Abrams M1A2 stows 42 rounds in its bustle. Once the enemy is served with those 42 rounds the tank withdraws and rearms.

What if the Abrams, instead, were supplied with a swarm of 42 Loitering Munitions circling over head?

The crew is separated from the risk of deflagration of ammunition.
The role of the onboard loader is eliminated (although somebody still has to put those Loitering Munitions in the air)
A smaller crew and less stowage means a smaller, more nimble, more fuel efficient vehicle with potentially better protection.
And the Swarm can be continually replenished from the rear as targets are served in the front.

The "tank" no longer has to withdraw to rearm because it was never "armed" in the first place.
In fact it has less in common with a tank than it does a Forward Air Controller with a dedicated Combat Air Patrol.

 

[Dana381]

So what does the tank actually do? Won't they get a similar effect operating the loitering munitions from a FOB?

 

[Kirkhill]

So what does the tank actually do? Won't they get a similar effect operating the loitering munitions from a FOB?

It evolves from a mobile pill box to a mobile OP?

 

[GR66]

It evolves from a mobile pill box to a mobile OP?

So something like an M1131 Fire Support Vehicle in a tank chassis? Why would you put a weapon that is designed to be launched beyond line of sight of the enemy on a heavily armoured vehicle that is designed to expose itself within line of site of the enemy? Either a waste of armour (at the expense of weight and speed) for a N-LOS weapon carrier or needlessly exposing your N-LOS weapons to direct fire.

Keep your direct fire weapons on your most heavily protected vehicles and let your less-protected vehicles carry the N-LOS weapons.

 

[Kirkhill]

So something like an M1131 Fire Support Vehicle in a tank chassis? Why would you put a weapon that is designed to be launched beyond line of sight of the enemy on a heavily armoured vehicle that is designed to expose itself within line of site of the enemy? Either a waste of armour (at the expense of weight and speed) for a N-LOS weapon carrier or needlessly exposing your N-LOS weapons to direct fire.

Keep your direct fire weapons on your most heavily protected vehicles and let your less-protected vehicles carry the N-LOS weapons.

My thinking is not to put the BLOS weapons on the "tank" at all. Or any heavy weapons for that matter. My proposition is that two operators in a heavily armoured mobile box are operating within the same range of the enemy as the current gun tanks but instead of having their rounds on board they have them in the air on call.

A good tank crew can launch something like 6 rounds a minute? I believe? So they have about 7 minutes of combat load on board if operating in a target rich environment? Pure supposition on my part.

What I am suggesting is that the Loitering Munitions loiter over head of the operators with a few loitering within a few seconds of the suspected targets. As those get used up then they, the cab rank, the magazine, gets replenished from BLOS.

Your tank's onboard weapons could then focus on C-RAM.

Edit - and yes - something very much like the M1131 on a tank chassis.