Future Armour

[a_majoor]

Cool idea, but this is really a shrunken version of the Starstreak SAM system (minus the rocket booster).

Tank munitions that seek out their targets have been in the on again/off again mode for years; the former USSR and Israel have through tube ATGM's, and the United States has had experimental programs like STAFF and TERM, with 120mm munitions that had some ability to go after a target.

Of course, if the tank commander had one of these self seeking guns on his roof, he could use individual rounds to nail those annoying people with RPG's and other anti tank weapons, rather than a machine gun or main tank round...

 

[a_majoor]

Found an interesting article about the new Korean K-2 tank. Somewhat smaller and lighter than an M-1, it incorporates all the bells and whistles including a very advanced fire control system and 15 RPM autoloader which gives the tank some ability to take on enemy helicopters, as well as a host of sensor and protective systems. In every respect it is the latest and perhaps ultimate evolution of the Gen 3.5 tank (and also apparently the most expensive tank in history).

For our purposes, the ammunition is interesting. The self seeking round developed by the Koreans should be adaptable to be fired from any NATO 120mm smoothbore cannon, and the range and ability to be fired as an indirect munition gives tanks a much greater reach than before. This is similar in intent to 1980 era programs like STAFF and TERM, although I think the actual application is different:

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/k2_black_panther_mbt.htm

The 120-mm gun can fire variety of munitions, notably the KSTAM (Korean Smart Top-Attack Munition) rounds. These are smart target activated fire and forget projectiles, but shouldn't be confused with anti-tank guided missiles. The KSTAM has it's own guidance system, aided by four stabilizing fins. At the final stage a parachute will deploy to slow it's fall and accurately engage target. Such principle is broadly similar to mortar-launched anti-tank munitions. Furthermore the K-2 tank can fire KSTAM munitions from behind the cover. The KSTAM has a maximum effective range in 8 kilometers.

 

[Kirkhill]

So they are firing a Strix from a Leo 2 cannon?

 

[a_majoor]

It seems the principle is similar.

Long range tank munitions would allow even light vehicles like the CV19120 to become much more dangerous, and based on the impression I got from the article (and evidently the same idea occured to you), tanks with this sort of munition could become long range bunker busters so long as someone could provide the target coordinates to the crew commander. The net effect would be that even tanks operating in depth or on the flanks would now be in the fight, so long as they were within 8km of the action and assigned to whoever was in the fight.

There is a bit of irony in this as well; a Korean K-2 has most of the attributes of the MMEV program (a protected platform able to engage LOS/NLOS and some air targets), but it isn't a replacement for a tank; it is a tank. A great deal of R&D work on the FCS and comms for the Leopard 2, and adoption of advanced ammunition and an autoloader would give Canada the MMEV.

 

[Kirkhill]

I believe that would put the tank back into the role of the 18 pdrs of the Fd Artillery: viz direct fired artillery designed to operate in conjunction with the infantry on the front lines - I point out that the old 18 pdrs (and for that matter the 13 and 25 pdrs) were equipped with gun-shields of sufficient armour to deflect rifle caliber bullets and the odd bit of gravel.  The 18 pdrs had comparable trajectories and range to a tank mounted 120mm.

 

[ArmyRick]

Between the K21 IFV and the K2 MBT, the South Koreans are making some impressive AFVs.

On that note, does anybody know what type of missile system the K21 uses for anti-armour?

 

[GnyHwy]

It certainly looks impressive on paper, but as some have said, it is like our MMEV, which failed; and it has a tank gun on it as well.  One of the reasons the MMEV likely failed is because of it Frankenstein like qualities.  It takes months, maybe years of training time for a crew, several different areas of expertise both in soldiers and maintainers, and it is likely a monster to keep fully operational.

The be all end all vehicle concept doesn't make sense to me;  it will cost a ton of money, and the resources required to feed the beast will likely be very complex.

I am extremely skeptical. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry GnyHwy but I must have misunderstood Thuc's posting then.

I understood the proposal as being the addition of a new round to the magazine of the MBT.  The vehicle, as I understood it, is still a tank with a cannon capable of firing all available 120 mm tank rounds, as well as a variety of machine gun rounds.  The new capability is generated just by adding an additional round to the bustle and modifying the sighting system. 

Unlike the MMEV which attempted to make a wheel-borne Apache AH-64 out of a LAV this is still a tank.
I don't see this situation as being any different to adding Excaliburs to the ammunition stocks of the M109s/M777s.

Or am I, as usual, missing something?

 

[GnyHwy]

I was speaking about all the bells and whistles that it had. 

The top attack munition is good, but does bring some complications that tankers don't usually deal with.  Getting precision coordinates, which is not easy, even for guys who have the right kit, and are the most practiced at it; ensuring the airpace is clear or solving the problem when it is not clear; and lastly, this all has to happen quick enough that the target remains stationary.

In all fairness, this does make sense for the South Koreans.  It is likely that most of the North Korean armour is stationary, either because it's broken, or because it's out of fuel.

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree that a tank is a tank first and foremost. Instead of making it all too crazy, what about expanding on the ammo package available for 120mm? The biggest features on the tank is protection, mobility and armament. By "value adding" on to the armament, we get a more capable system IMO.

As far as I know, these are the current/former/conceptual 120mm ammo
-APFSDS
-HEAT
-HEAT MP
-HE
-Canister
-Guided Missile (I beleive GDLS was working on it)
-Former ideas like STAFF

Any other ideas and concepts people see for this weapon system? I would also beleive indirect fires is still the realm of the arty and lets leave it at that.

Direct fire Support LOS and BLOS = Tanks
Fire Support, NLOS and Long Range = Arty

 

[George Wallace]

Is Indirect Fire a thing of the past and the Gun Clino now a relic of 1980"s?

Tanks still have a (limited) capability of Indirect Fire.  The use of a missile system would also mean that Line of Sight may no longer be necessary.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I agree that a tank is a tank first and foremost. Instead of making it all too crazy, what about expanding on the ammo package available for 120mm? The biggest features on the tank is protection, mobility and armament. By "value adding" on to the armament, we get a more capable system IMO.

As far as I know, these are the current/former/conceptual 120mm ammo
-APFSDS
-HEAT
-HEAT MP
-HE
-Canister
-Guided Missile (I beleive GDLS was working on it)
-Former ideas like STAFF

Any other ideas and concepts people see for this weapon system? I would also beleive indirect fires is still the realm of the arty and lets leave it at that.

Direct fire Support LOS and BLOS = Tanks
Fire Support, NLOS and Long Range = Arty

"Direct fire support" is a tactical task and not really a role. A tank is much more than a "direct fire support vehicle." In addition, while tanks can engage targets with BLOS (assuming they are available) they would be doing so indirectly, as the crew would not be able to see the target. An observer would have to do that. It might look like a doctrinal quibble, but it is important. Why do you give NLOS to the Artillery and BLOS to the tanks? How and why do you differentiate?

If I had a sqn of M1s or Leo 2s all on their own on the battlefield then having a round that I could fire 8 km indirectly under the control of an observer and kill an opposing weapon system could be a good thing. If I am part of a combined arms team, however, then I would just as soon have the supporting artillery have such a munition. They have the training and C2 to make that happen, letting me focus on being a manouevre arm. This is not branch parochialism, but rather letting people focus on a narrower band of expertise so they can dominate that area.

NLOS/BLOS weapons were part of the voodoo magic that was going to make the FCS workable.  On the other hand, we have systems that actually work and have been tested in battle, and I am not surprised that much of the gee-whiz stuff of 2002 has fizzled.  Research should continue, but I wouldn't retire the M1s and Bradleys firing old-school munitions just yet.

 

[ArmyRick]

Thats why you guys are the experts ;D Truth is most of my armour experiences is running behind tanks  and watching you guys do your magic as a grunt on the ground.

I only make guesses and assumptions based on what I have seen first hand or read about in books/internet. Or talking to old tankers in the mess.

 

[a_majoor]

The K2 is a tank all right, but the digital fire control system and KSTAM munitions give it an additional capability.

The way I understand the system, when someone in the combat team gives a contact report, the grid is input into the FCS (either automatically or manually by the crew commander or gunner). If there is a call for fire to supress a bunker or dug in tank, the firing tank's computer can calculate the appropriate angle and the tank fires the smart round in the direction of the target. The round should be close enough to pick up the target and make its attack without any further intervention from the tank's crew. (How well this will work against a moving target like an enemy tank platoon can only be guessed at).

The advantage I see here is the artillery or mortars can maintain their fire in depth and provide the volume of fire, while the tanks can either engage LOS hard targets in direct mode or drop rounds on the target in the indirect mode. Lining up troops (or platoons) of tanks for use as artillery the way it was done in the 1950's is not being contemplated here, rather the tank can still be in the fight even if it is not in LOS of the target (which given the Korean terrain is probably a lot of the time). The tank is a mobile fire support platform.

 

[a_majoor]

Some more retro future armour. This is an illustration of B Gen (ret) Richard Simkin's modular AFV concept of the 1980's. The chassis, drive train and suspension are all common, while the crew sit three abreast behind the engine. The small piece is an "interface module" for the electronics (back in the '80's, Simkin evidently did not anticipate the microcomputer revolution), while the two "pods" represent an IVF and AFV version (the AFV mounting the larger gun and having the rear space devoted to the magazine). Other pods can be imagined for various uses, from CP to Amb to recovery vehicle.

From what I can remember from the book(s), Simkin argued for vehicles in the MCL 30 ton class, so we have either a large IFV or a light tank depending on the pod you mount:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Looks like the Stormer series.

 

[a_majoor]

Given the time frame, that is probably the inspiration for the idea. The idea exists in the real world with the Boxer wheeled AFV, which has configurable modules that can be installed in the back, although an actual "tank" or "DFSV" module isn't part of the package (the Italian Centurio tank destroyer, which mounts a 105mm cannon in a turret is a model of what such a vehicle option might look like). APC, IFV, Mortar carriers and even a SPAAG version are offered.

More scaled down (and probably more affordable) versions of the idea are "drop in" turrets; the Patria AMV can be ordered with the BMP-3 turret, and the LAV-iii can be equipped with a 105mm CV-CT turret as a drop in replacement for the Delco 25mm turret (according to the company rep at AUSA 2006. I think the crew comparment in the rear would have to be replaced with additional ammunition stowage to really make use of this option). Even the CV-90 is designed around the concept, you can order many different turret options on the basic hull, the Swedish army has both a 40mm IFV turret and a 40mm SPAAG turret version, for example.

This is a much more flexible version of modularity; going the other way you can use basic automotive components to create familes of vehicle (like the  CVR(T) and Stormer family in the UK, or the plethora of vehicles based on the M-113 automotive components), which provides logistical commonality but won't allow an "easy" swap out to go from one version to another.

 

[GnyHwy]

Thuc,

Given what you just said, and given the possibility of the CCV being cancelled, what would you propose for a compliment to the LAV UP project? 

 

[a_majoor]

Thuc,

Given what you just said, and given the possibility of the CCV being cancelled, what would you propose for a compliment to the LAV UP project? 

Well, as Generalissimo of the Armed Forces, I would certainly like to standardize on just a few common chassis. If we agree that a wheeled platform is the 80% solution, and are willing to accept the risk associated with not going for tracked carriers...

1. LAV-H as the "common" baseline chassis for this generation
2. Bigger gun, but probably go for an RWS to lower the CG and overall weight. Less weight = lower ground pressure, which makes for somewhat better cross country performance. This also increases interior room by getting rid of the turret basket. 30-35mm cannon
3. Now we have more room in the back, the Armoured Recce and Infantry recce can use versions of the LAV-H; with a surveillance suite in the back for some versions, or accomodations for dismounted recce teams (fewer troops, more consumables). An NBC recce version is also needed.
4. More basic vehicles for Engineer section carriers, Armoured Assault troops and so on. Certainly enough basic vehicles to equip all the Infantry regiments minimum

On to specialty vehicles:

1. CV-CT "Drop in turret" with 105mm cannon for fire support version. This is biased towards direct fire, but the CV-CT has a 42o elevation angle for IF  fire.
2. 81 or 120mm gun/mortar in turret mount. This is biased towards indirect fire. A comparative analysis would be needed to see which of the two options is more critical (I am personally leaning towards a gun/mortar, but there might be a better argument for the DF version)
3. A SPAAG. Canada has virtually no anti air capabilities, yet armed helicopters, UAV's and UCAVs are proliferating around the world. The Blazer turret was qualified on the LAV-25 chassis, and can presumably be fitted to a LAV-H. There is more room in a LAV-H vs a LAV 25, so there is more room for reloads or an aux generator to run the electronics while static.
4. Engineer support vehicle, with a 'dozer blade and other engineering tools
5. Recovery vehicle

The other possibility is the Piranha V mounting a 30mm cannon in an improved turret. This is an actual contender for the CCV, but I'm not too keen since it is (yet again) not fully compatable with the LAV-III. It would be much better/more effective in the long run to regun all the LAV's and get 118 new LAV-III or LAV-H (so they are all the same standard) as the "minimum" solution

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With the tanks, I don't see the need for a fire-support vehicle, I do agree a AD capablity will be needed against mostly UAV's and attack helicopters.

Still want a tracked CCV fleet, complete with  armed recovery and engineering vehicles. Since I am dreaming lets throw in a few bridging assests as well. A modern lightly armoured/armed M548 type vehicle to support the tanks and CCV's are needed as well. I like what the Germans are looking at in this regards as a replacement for the M113.