- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
They have got to do something with that big "TB" screen of a sight on top of the turret in your picture of the CT-CV WEAPON SYSTEM (105mm). It is definitely not something I would want 'advertising' my position.
Lance Wiebe said:Someone remind me, because I forget. Exactly what does the MGS bring to the table that the CV_CT does not?
George Wallace said:Lance
Recessing it would be a solution, but in this case a protective 'cap' would have to be built (as the sight box is too 'small' to recess it any). It is too open, as is, to shrapnel from Arty, mortars, or even small arms fire. There is too much reflective surface there, so it has to be shielded.
Kirkhill said:How big are the 105mm "through tube missiles" and how many ready rounds can be carried in the bustle and internally? Would it make any sense to mount CKEM or Spike ER missiles on ready to fire mounts on the outside of the turret to complement the 105mm firing HEP/HESH?
DG-41 said:http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1539.pdf
DG
a_majoor said:This is a bit "back to the future", but I found a picture of a proposed "Rapid Deployment Force" (RDF) tank form the 1980s. The idea at that time was to be able to insert a force into the Perian Gulf to prevent an invading force from the USSR from establishing itself in the region. The force needed to be almost as quick to insert as an airborn assault but have enough protection, mobility and firpower to take on an enemy mechanized force such as an MRR. This dosn't sound too different from the SBCT or the FCS program, but the "bottle" for that vintage of wine was tracked light armour.
If memory serves (and please help out), this prototype was by AAI, and featured the ARES 75mm high velocity cannon. The cannon fired telescoped rounds (i.e the projectile is embedded in the charge, not stuck in front the way we are used to) in single shots or three round bursts. the two man crew was down in the front hull, and most of the mechanical components were derived from the M-113.
With today's technology, the FCS would be vastly superior to anything available in the 1980s, while mobility and protection would be much improived as well. I am not too sure about the gun, but it certainly seems like it could deal with anything less than an MBT, and the low profile would make it hard to see. An idea still worth persuing or one who's time has come and gone?
Truly one of my favorite AFVs capable of taking out a T- 72 frontally or being used to shred hinds with ! It had in that role a 90 % hit rate with a 3 round burst . It could be used a light artillery spg or as already noted as a AAA piece.
14 tonnes with out applique armour as for speed I promise you all the speeding tickets your lil heart desires! ;D
Rolls Over, Keeps On Fighting
Preston Lerner
SPINNER SPECS
CONSTRUCTION: Lightweight composite hull
WHEEL POWER: Six high-torque liquid-cooled electric hub motors
OPERATION: Controlled remotely
GROUND CLEARANCE: 14 in.
TIRES: 48-in.- diameter run-flats
PAYLOAD CAPACITY: 1.5 tons, 71 cubic ft.
WIDTH: 102 in.
HEIGHT: 54 in.
LENGTH: 16 ft.
WEIGHT: 5.2 tons
The topsy-turvy, Humvee-size Spinner -- which sports a rotatable payload bay and a remarkable inversion-recovery technique -- is the prototype for what may be the Army’s first purpose-built robotic combat vehicle. “I describe it as ‘Robot Wars’ on steroids,” says Charlie Guthrie of Boeing Unmanned Systems, which is helping Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Institute develop a prototype of the vehicle for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. “It’s big, and it’s designed to take a real pounding.”
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) are a familiar part of the military’s armory, but unmanned tanks have yet to advance much beyond the realm of science fiction. “Air is much more forgiving because there’s not much to hit,” says John Bares, director of Carnegie Mellon’s National Robotics Engineering Consortium. “But when you’re slogging through a forest at 30 mph and you make a little mistake -- Bam! You hit a tree.”
The Department of Defense’s Future Combat Systems program calls for the deployment of terrestrial robotic technology as soon as 2010. Unmanned ground combat vehicles (UGCVs) like the Spinner could be used as motorized mules to ferry materiel to the front lines, but they can also conduct everything from armed reconnaissance to medical evacuation from the battlefield without risking soldiers’ lives. “Our premise is to exploit the fact that it’s an unmanned vehicle,” Bares says. “(Most) vehicles are designed to support and protect the guys inside.”
Freed from that constraint, the Spinner’s designers created a rough-and-tumble prototype that’s meant to negotiate obstacles as tall as 3 feet and survive major upsets. Six individually powered and independently suspended wheels, built by Ireland’s Timoney Technology, maximize traction and redundancy while lessening the likelihood of high-centering (getting stuck on vertical obstacles). The aptly named Spinner also has an ingeniously designed suspension that enables it to recover from rollovers: It can reorient its wheels and payload a full 180 degrees. “It’s an invertible machine,” explains Bares. “There is no right-side-up.” (The Spinner’s designers won’t divulge how the novel suspension works because they are seeking to patent it.)
The testing program stipulates that the Spinner must be able to cover 450 kilometers without refueling during a two-week mission. To achieve the necessary fuel efficiency, designers opted for a hybrid powertrain created by Huntsville, Alabama-based PEI Electronics. Liquid-cooled electric hub motors drive each wheel. Lithium-ion batteries, in turn, are powered by a 60-kilowatt turbine.
The Spinner is slated to begin testing early this year as a radio-controlled vehicle. Later, it will be “tele-operated” via video images generated by onboard sensors, and eventually it could operate semiautonomously. But the Spinner is unlikely to become a truly self-sufficient robot anytime soon -- though its technology could lead there -- because of the limitations of today’s sensors. Rocks and trees are one thing, says Scott Fish, DARPA’s UGCV program manager, but “the ability to detect what we call negative obstacles -- trenches and cliffs, for example -- is another issue.”
Copyright © 2005 Popular Science
http://www.uqm.com/
Maj. Baker just posted this under the "Just Plain Robots...." thread.
Seems applicable to this discussion - not just for what it means for robots but also wheeled mobility
Check out the Spinner vehicle video on the top right.