New Hitech Army "Rifle"-Part II
- Thread starter Hard Ball
- Start date
- Status
We will see smaller, faster armored vehicles, likely despencing with tracks. They'll have IFF, flare and chaff, Millimeter wave radar, active defence systems like ones being developed for the new Russian tanks.
In the "tank" role you will see something like a lower, wider, faster, Panard equiped with a Railgun or short pulse FEL. For scouting, fire support, you'll see something like a six wheeled HUMVEE chasis with a gas turbine engine, active suspension and a 20mm gatling.
Counter measures and speed will take the place of heavy armor. I don't think tracks will be around in the next gen of AFVs.
With the development of ground attacking orbital weapons you won't see large formations either. No heavy divisions rolling across the desert like grand fleets.
And remember, a FEL or Railgun with suitable targeting gear can engage aircraft just as easy as it can engage AFVs.
In the "tank" role you will see something like a lower, wider, faster, Panard equiped with a Railgun or short pulse FEL. For scouting, fire support, you'll see something like a six wheeled HUMVEE chasis with a gas turbine engine, active suspension and a 20mm gatling.
Counter measures and speed will take the place of heavy armor. I don't think tracks will be around in the next gen of AFVs.
With the development of ground attacking orbital weapons you won't see large formations either. No heavy divisions rolling across the desert like grand fleets.
And remember, a FEL or Railgun with suitable targeting gear can engage aircraft just as easy as it can engage AFVs.
EchoFiveMike
New member
This has gone way OT but here it is anyway: I think that you will still see lots of armour for several reasons. Railguns, while able to take a round and throw it really fast need LOTS of power. Big vehicle, low speed. Also you still can't get around Newton. You will still have recoil that needs weight to counter. The M1A1's bounce around a bit when they fire. Armour can defeat projectiles as long as you are willing to use enough. Free-electron lasers(FEL's) that were referred to above don't have the penetration to be used against anything more solid than an aircraft or maybe trucks. Long way off technology wise also. As for railguns used as rifles. Think about this: a 25gn projectile at over 15k fps with out a lot of recoil (less than three times a 17 Rem dues to no gas generated recoil) Body armour? Have to be hard plates. If you can get accuracy than you don't have to worry about bullet drop at practical ranges (less than 1000m) Problem is still power. Solve that and you have a viable system. Semper Fi.....
The Army is reorganizing some of its brigades ino "Mobile Combat Brigades". The average number of officers and men in a reorganized brigade drops from 4,400 to 3,700 but combat power will supposedly increase as light armored combat vehicles are introduced.*
The Project Officer for one of the units being converted says there will be "lots of mortars and lots of snipers" in the new brigdes. It's encouraging to see that accurate rifle fire is still alive in this high tech age.
* The Army is currently testing approximately 30 light armored vehicles at Fort Knox. Both wheeled and tracked vehicles are being tested. Vehicles to equip the new brigades will be selected from the test program.
The Project Officer for one of the units being converted says there will be "lots of mortars and lots of snipers" in the new brigdes. It's encouraging to see that accurate rifle fire is still alive in this high tech age.
* The Army is currently testing approximately 30 light armored vehicles at Fort Knox. Both wheeled and tracked vehicles are being tested. Vehicles to equip the new brigades will be selected from the test program.
EchoFiveMike
New member
This is the same dumbs**t Army that just canceled the XM-8? When are these people going to follow through and buy the gear instead of just R&D'ing it, then canceling the program. I can't scream too loud because we in the Corps did the same thing with LAV-105. Let's just keep reinventing the wheel. As for rifles, how much do you want to bet that this OICW project blows mega bucks then gets cancelled just prior to the procurement phase? Semper Fi...
Most people don't know that the army already has fielded LAVs. The ground recon troops of the 82nd DivCav has LAV-25. On a seperate note there is a Maj here who was in on the test team when the Army was think about LAVs, many, many years ago. The Marine LAV did better than the requirements, exceeded the hours between failure requirements, was extremely low maintenance, but the track mafia said that it was too easy to confuse with BTRs and BRDMs and killed the project.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited March 08, 2000).]
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited March 08, 2000).]
Considering the Jet-Jocks can't tell the dif 'twixt a Blackhawk & a HIND, it's a wonder the FOX ever got into the force structure.
Gimme an 18-year old duck hunter, with 1 second to ID the fast-flyer as friend or foe before he presses the go-for-broke button on his electric Vulcan 20mm. That'll ensure the jet-jocks make their errors in a different sector! Don'tcha just love parochialism...
Gimme an 18-year old duck hunter, with 1 second to ID the fast-flyer as friend or foe before he presses the go-for-broke button on his electric Vulcan 20mm. That'll ensure the jet-jocks make their errors in a different sector! Don'tcha just love parochialism...
EchoFiveMike:
Ypu will be happy tp hear that the M8 is one of the vehicles currently in test at Fort Knox.
There was never anything wrong with the M8. Several prototypes were cpmpleted and tested. The M8 was getting ready to go into production when the Clinton administration canceled it on the grounds that we couldn't afford it. Since it mounts a full power 105mm tank gun its prospects for being selected for production are pretty good.
I was never sure why the Marine Corps cancelled the 195mm version of the LAV.
[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited March 08, 2000).]
Ypu will be happy tp hear that the M8 is one of the vehicles currently in test at Fort Knox.
There was never anything wrong with the M8. Several prototypes were cpmpleted and tested. The M8 was getting ready to go into production when the Clinton administration canceled it on the grounds that we couldn't afford it. Since it mounts a full power 105mm tank gun its prospects for being selected for production are pretty good.
I was never sure why the Marine Corps cancelled the 195mm version of the LAV.
[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited March 08, 2000).]
Jeff White
New member
STLRN - I was at Ft Benning in ANCOC about the time the Army was testing the LAVs in 86. It wasn't that they were too close in resemblence to BTRs, they were deleted from the MTOE of the light divisions because they pushed the number of C141 sorties that it took to deploy the division up above 400.
The light division was supposed to be deployable with it's combat load of all classes of supply in 400 C141 sorties or less. The LAV-25 armored battalion that was to be in the division base (to replace the tank battalion in a conventional Infantry division base) was just too big. Once again we are designing our forces around the Air Force's and Navy's refusal to procure enough transport to move them from point to point. It seems to me that the solution would have been to buy enough C141s to deploy a light division that was robust enough to sustain itself in a fight instead of acting like a speed bump.
BTW at that time Marine NCOs were attending the Bradley Master Gunners Course because of the similarity in the turrets of the LAV and the Bradley. Taking the LAV really would have made sense for the Army, as the could have manned them with 11M MOS's and had career paths through the mech units.
Jeff
The light division was supposed to be deployable with it's combat load of all classes of supply in 400 C141 sorties or less. The LAV-25 armored battalion that was to be in the division base (to replace the tank battalion in a conventional Infantry division base) was just too big. Once again we are designing our forces around the Air Force's and Navy's refusal to procure enough transport to move them from point to point. It seems to me that the solution would have been to buy enough C141s to deploy a light division that was robust enough to sustain itself in a fight instead of acting like a speed bump.
BTW at that time Marine NCOs were attending the Bradley Master Gunners Course because of the similarity in the turrets of the LAV and the Bradley. Taking the LAV really would have made sense for the Army, as the could have manned them with 11M MOS's and had career paths through the mech units.
Jeff
JW:
I'm sure the 500 ship lift requirement was a big part of the failure to adopt the LAV. But I wouldn't discount the power of the tank mafia in the armor branch, and they would use any excuse not to adopt a wheeled vehicle.
The LAV is very easy to confuse with the BTR, the Air Force A-10 pilots killed several LAV in the gulf because the thought they were Iraqi vehicles and caused the Marine Corps largest causilites in the war. Just like the M109 looks a lot like a 2S3 and some Marine F/A-18 attacked a Marine battery from 5/11 as they where coming off a raid.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited March 09, 2000).]
I'm sure the 500 ship lift requirement was a big part of the failure to adopt the LAV. But I wouldn't discount the power of the tank mafia in the armor branch, and they would use any excuse not to adopt a wheeled vehicle.
The LAV is very easy to confuse with the BTR, the Air Force A-10 pilots killed several LAV in the gulf because the thought they were Iraqi vehicles and caused the Marine Corps largest causilites in the war. Just like the M109 looks a lot like a 2S3 and some Marine F/A-18 attacked a Marine battery from 5/11 as they where coming off a raid.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
[This message has been edited by STLRN (edited March 09, 2000).]
Somw additional information on the current Arny light armored vehicles testing program.
The Army is currently testing 35 different LAV at Fort Knox. These include five mobile gun systems, 16 infantry vehicles, two anti-tank vehicles, one ambulance, two mortar vehicles ,six reconnaissance vehicles, one combat engineer vehicle and two command and control vehicles.
Current plans call for each brigade to be issued 380 to 527 armored vehicles depending on the types of vehicles selected.
The Army hopes to have the first brigade equipped by March 2001. Additional brigades will be fully equipped at six month intervals. So far the conversion of five existing infantry brigades has been authorized.
The Army is currently testing 35 different LAV at Fort Knox. These include five mobile gun systems, 16 infantry vehicles, two anti-tank vehicles, one ambulance, two mortar vehicles ,six reconnaissance vehicles, one combat engineer vehicle and two command and control vehicles.
Current plans call for each brigade to be issued 380 to 527 armored vehicles depending on the types of vehicles selected.
The Army hopes to have the first brigade equipped by March 2001. Additional brigades will be fully equipped at six month intervals. So far the conversion of five existing infantry brigades has been authorized.
in case ya thought the LAV was down the hall to the right: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/lav.htm
dZ
dZ
Medium Armored Vehicle (MAV)
Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV)
In October 1999 the Army leadership announced a vision of the future. US forces must be lighter, more lethal and less dependent on logistic tails to rapidly deploy
from multiple dispersed locations worldwide. Agile, highly capable forces that can react quickly to emerging crises may be able to prevent crises from escalating into
war. US forces must be sufficiently versatile to sustain a high operating tempo and defeat an opponent with minimum losses. They must then quickly reposition,
refocus, and execute subsequent missions against an adversary employing asymmetric means, including chemical/ biological warfare and information operations. An
immediate upgrade of current forces is required in order to provide an interim capability to meet this requirement.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Army budget request included decisions to restructure or "divest" a number of programs in order to provide some of the resources to
support its transformation to achieve the ambitious deployment goals outlined in the October 1999 Army Vision. The restructured programs are the Crusader
and the Future Scout and Cavalry System. The "divestitures" include Heliborne Prophet (Air), MLRS Smart Tactical Rocket (MSTAR), Stinger Block II,
Command and Control Vehicle (C2V), Grizzly, Wolverine, and the Army Tactical Missile System Block IIA. Funding for these programs was reallocated to fund
the Army Vision transformation strategy.
The Army Vision includes a Brigade structure and organization which is crucial to the Army’s strategic responsiveness goals of deploying, from the CONUS base
to global theater of operation, one (1) Brigade within 96 hours, one (1) Division within 120 hours and five (5) Divisions within thirty (30) days. The air transportable
Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) is intended to be capable of deployment to anywhere on the globe in a combat ready configuration. The range of tasks to be
accomplished by the IBCT requires a family of vehicles that are air transportable, capable of immediate employment upon arrival in the area of operations, and have
the greatest degree of commonality possible. Force effectiveness is achieved by an organization built around mounted and dismounted infantry enabled by a family
of internetted platforms and situational understanding.
Maintaining and sustaining war-fighting capability is paramount for the Family of Vehicles and throughout the Brigade structure. To meet this interim requirement
the Army provided funding in the FY01 budget to field an Medium/Interim Armored Vehicle as a common baseline capability for a mounted Brigade Combat Team
(BCT) which will function as a full-spectrum combat force. Several families of medium based platforms exist or are under development throughout the world that,
with slight modification, could meet the initial MAV/IAV requirement. One or more of these family options, with appropriate technical insertions, is expected to meet
the interim requirement.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mav.htm
Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV)
In October 1999 the Army leadership announced a vision of the future. US forces must be lighter, more lethal and less dependent on logistic tails to rapidly deploy
from multiple dispersed locations worldwide. Agile, highly capable forces that can react quickly to emerging crises may be able to prevent crises from escalating into
war. US forces must be sufficiently versatile to sustain a high operating tempo and defeat an opponent with minimum losses. They must then quickly reposition,
refocus, and execute subsequent missions against an adversary employing asymmetric means, including chemical/ biological warfare and information operations. An
immediate upgrade of current forces is required in order to provide an interim capability to meet this requirement.
The Fiscal Year 2001 Army budget request included decisions to restructure or "divest" a number of programs in order to provide some of the resources to
support its transformation to achieve the ambitious deployment goals outlined in the October 1999 Army Vision. The restructured programs are the Crusader
and the Future Scout and Cavalry System. The "divestitures" include Heliborne Prophet (Air), MLRS Smart Tactical Rocket (MSTAR), Stinger Block II,
Command and Control Vehicle (C2V), Grizzly, Wolverine, and the Army Tactical Missile System Block IIA. Funding for these programs was reallocated to fund
the Army Vision transformation strategy.
The Army Vision includes a Brigade structure and organization which is crucial to the Army’s strategic responsiveness goals of deploying, from the CONUS base
to global theater of operation, one (1) Brigade within 96 hours, one (1) Division within 120 hours and five (5) Divisions within thirty (30) days. The air transportable
Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) is intended to be capable of deployment to anywhere on the globe in a combat ready configuration. The range of tasks to be
accomplished by the IBCT requires a family of vehicles that are air transportable, capable of immediate employment upon arrival in the area of operations, and have
the greatest degree of commonality possible. Force effectiveness is achieved by an organization built around mounted and dismounted infantry enabled by a family
of internetted platforms and situational understanding.
Maintaining and sustaining war-fighting capability is paramount for the Family of Vehicles and throughout the Brigade structure. To meet this interim requirement
the Army provided funding in the FY01 budget to field an Medium/Interim Armored Vehicle as a common baseline capability for a mounted Brigade Combat Team
(BCT) which will function as a full-spectrum combat force. Several families of medium based platforms exist or are under development throughout the world that,
with slight modification, could meet the initial MAV/IAV requirement. One or more of these family options, with appropriate technical insertions, is expected to meet
the interim requirement.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mav.htm
- Status