Air-Mechanized Fighting Vehicle

[Abraham Gubler]

i am really trying not to sound disrespectful, but do any of you have an imagination..... i mean really how do u come up with innovative tech? You think outside the box.

Firstly this is not a science fiction forum. And even so you have in no way presented your so-called design as something relying on technology development generally associated with science fiction. You are also not the first person to conceive of a flying tank.

Further what you are trying to seriously propose does not rely on a reasonable assumption of technology development like lighter materials, more efficient engines, faster computers or even a strong breakthrough like a far more compact power source. It relies on a fundamental breaking of the laws of physics! This is science fiction.

You mentioned the Wright Brothers as if they just went into their backyard and made an aircraft fly. The physical principals of flight were well understood when they were working on their Flyer. They did not invent the wing or lift. They were just the first people to build something light enough, with enough lift and thrust to actually fly.

Now others who are nicer to strangers and their crackpot ideas and more polite than I have offered words of encouragement. Let me echo them with some qualification. You deserve credit for thinking about these things and having the guts to offer your ideas publicly. But if you actually want to learn something from this process I suggest you actually study a little bit about flight. Don't just assume your thing can fly.

Now this is your choice. You can continue your current path and draw pictures of stuff that is just a product of your imagination. The pictures might even look nice, but that's all they will be. Or you can take that imagination and apply it to the world we live in. Learn a little about flight and about engineering. And maybe after a bit more of this learning you can apply your imagination to actually building something real. Your choice.

 

[gardnerdesign]

First id like to address the people who despite suggesting that I read, apperntly cannot read themselves..... please quote me were i said flying tank.

Second take these vehicles all of wich are under 7 tons:
The Ukrainian DOZOR-B APC(6.3 ton combat weight)
The Komatsu LAV(4.5 ton+ combat weight)
The South african RG32 scout(4.45 ton+ combat weight)
The Turkish Oktokar Cobra (6.2 ton combat weight)
and any of a large pool of low weight armour vehicles

Take one of the vehicles and replace there armor with E-Glass armor, which only reduces their weights by 20% but every little bit helps. Add carbon-fiber peices to the outside to increase aerodynamics and two folding small wings(like the ones on helicopters) with weapons mounts. Get rid of the driving controls and add a computer and the necessary electronics for unmanned flight and unmanned ground navigation and you basicly have what i'm talking about, or at least the first half of what it.

Now to keep it simple for you skeptics i,m going to talk about helicopters all though there are more flight systems than just heli-borne that would work.

since i know all of you consider things scifi if it dosn't exist ( i personally think scifi is something i wont see or couldnt have existed in my life time) ill start with the Kamov KH-27 (because Kamov has the most experience with coaxial rotor technology as well as actually having produced several production vehicles with this technology):
* Crew: 1-3, plus 2-3 specialists
* Length: 11.30 m (37 ft 1 in)
* Rotor diameter: 15.80 m (51 ft 10 in)
* Height: 5.50 m (18 ft 1 in)
* Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
* Loaded weight: 11,000 kg (24,200 lb)
* Useful load: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,400 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Isotov turboshaft engines, 1,660 kW (2,225 shp) each

Now delete everything but the fuel tanks and the engine and attach it to the roof of one of our modified LAV's and you have an extremely rough vary possible vehicle. see deleting the weight of all the cabin, landing gear and supporting mechanics of the helicopter you save more weight you than have an air/vehicle that fall inside the maximum take off weight of the KH-27.

the speed and range on the ground will be reduced do to the added weight of the flight systems and extra fuel but besides that it is a workable idea please keep in mind that such an adhoc vehicle would be difficult to actually make work, but on paper the numbers look promising. personally i would use the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane If it could be converted to a coaxial helicopter( its blades are too long and coming up with a tail mechanism would be inneficiant).

S-64:
* Crew: 2 (pilot, co-pilot), plus room for one rear-facing observer
* Capacity: up to 5 total persons
* Payload: 20,000 lb (9,072 kg)
* Length: 70 ft 3 in (21.41 m (fuselage))
* Rotor diameter: 72 ft 0 in (21.95 m)
* Height: 18 ft 7 in (5.67 m)
* Disc area: 4070 ft² (378.1 m²)
* Empty weight: 19,234 lb (8,724 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 42,000 lb (19,050 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney JFTD12-4A (T73-P-1) turboshaft engines, 4,500 shp (3,555 kW) each

and i would pare it with a PUMA LAV (8.2 tons combat weight), and replace the armor with E-Glass armor..... If you can integrate a helicopters flight systems( engines, rotors and fuel)onto a LAV and stay within the Maximum take off weight of the origonal helicopter than you have a land/air vehicle. please tell me yet another reason why you think this wouldn't work?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

and i would pare it with a PUMA LAV (8.2 tons combat weight), and replace the armor with E-Glass armor..... If you can integrate a helicopters flight systems( engines, rotors and fuel)onto a LAV and stay within the Maximum take off weight of the origonal helicopter than you have a land/air vehicle. please tell me yet another reason why you think this wouldn't work?

Ok I withdraw everything I said about encouraging you to a path towards reality. Clearly you are a first class fool. You'll find good company in these forums... But I won't waste my time with you...

 

[Feanor]

Abraham since you clearly understand engineering please disprove him instead of just making fun of him. I know his idea is unrealistic, but don't have the knowledge to explain it. You seem to. So please do me (and everyone else) the favor.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham since you clearly understand engineering please disprove him instead of just making fun of him. I know his idea is unrealistic, but don't have the knowledge to explain it. You seem to. So please do me (and everyone else) the favor.

I've done it in this thread three times already. Why bother with a forth?

 

[gardnerdesign]

Actualy Abe.... you started with a well put together coherent argument about why this wouldnt work and after being informed that you were critiqueing an idea that i never wrote about (still waiting for you to quote me on a flying tank btw), your post slowly devolved into a critique of me, who you no nothing about ..... it almost seems like everytime i made it clearer what i was talking about you had to make it less clear why it wouldnt work (wich law of physics prohibits an air/land vehicle?)..... as to calling me a fool.. well im not going to get my self kicked of this forum over a hater like you but buddy im prolly more than half your age and from half your socio- economical background (most people try to encourage people like me and help us get on course not put us down) , could run circles around u in a verbal debate.... and if the word fool was ever said to my face ...well.....old man you wouldnt say it again (sorry everyone else for the hostility if you read this thread I'm perfectly civil and actually attemping to make an argument .... i was even enjoying the critiques until they stopped being about the idea and were focused on me)

 

[Feanor]

I've done it in this thread three times already. Why bother with a forth?

I.e. no powerful enough helicopter engine exists to lift the Puma into the air?

 

[OPSSG]

I.e. no powerful enough helicopter engine exists to lift the Puma into the air?

Why bother making 'it' a road bound armoured personnel carrier? Armed and armoured helicopters exist too in the real world, unless you are thinking of Gundams or 501st Legion (see photos of the guys suiting up in their armour) type of technology.

Sorry, couldn't resist the attempt at the joke... Hehe.

 

[kato]

Let's try it with constructive criticism instead?

Now, the proposal seems to be to pretty much take a light armoured vehicle hull, and modify it to be able to hook a helicopter drivetrain through the roof, with a coaxial rotor above.

Criticisms for "helicopter mode":

• Any AFV hull would make a horrible airframe, aerodynamics-wise. Yes, even if we give it a lightweight "front cap".
• Hooking up the helicopter drivetrain and engines on the vehicle would essentially take up the entire cargo compartment, leaving no room for any infantry to carry.
• The high weight of the vehicle system, and their weight distribution would likely make the helicopter extremely sluggish in flight. As in every single movement of the helo would need to be closely watched, similar to a heavyweight cargo helo.
• The crew of the cargo vehicle would have next to zero situational awareness from within the vehicle; a very bad thing for flying, especially with a sluggish thing like that - to the point of this being a terminally critical point for such a design.
• The vastly different shape of the vehicle - compared to an aerodynamic cabin - would have to be closely evaluated with regard to rotor downwash and lift. The positioning of the drivetrain - above the center of gravity! - would likely interfere with other systems mounted in this position, such as - often - the only weapon systems such a vehicle would carry.

Criticisms for "ground mode":

• Where would you put the rotors when on the ground? Even folded up, the rotors would present a huge hindrance (note that we're talking rotors of 5-6 m length minimum protruding from the center of the vehicle).
• The helo drivetrain - on the roof - would present a huge signature problem for the vehicles silhouette. Apart from likely making the vehicle too high to fit standard street dimensions, the exposed drivetrain makes an easy to spot and destroy target.
• The weight of the drivetrain, rotos, engines, fuel would likely be well beyond payload limit of such a light vehicle; the carriage - wheels, running gear, whatever - would need to be redesigned, increasing weight.

I would also add one point: You mention S-64 flight systems with a Puma LAV hull beneath. Both helo and vehicle crew would be far safer if you just take the S-64, and sling the same 8.4 ton LAV beneath. Apart from the fact that once the LAV is on the ground in an operation, the same S-64 can be used to sling another LAV somewhere else.

 

[Falstaff]

Why bother making 'it' a road bound armoured personnel carrier? Armed and armoured helicopters exist too in the real world, unless you are thinking of Gundams or 501st Legion (see photos of the guys suiting up in their armour) type of technology.

Sorry, couldn't resist the attempt at the joke... Hehe.

You're far ahead of our time

Apart from that part I think that's a valid question you posed.

 

[Falstaff]

Take one of the vehicles and replace there armor with E-Glass armor, which only reduces their weights by 20% but every little bit helps. Add carbon-fiber peices to the outside to increase aerodynamics and two folding small wings(like the ones on helicopters) with weapons mounts. Get rid of the driving controls and add a computer and the necessary electronics for unmanned flight and unmanned ground navigation and you basicly have what i'm talking about, or at least the first half of what it.

Well then. The point I was trying to make before was that small wings won't do. If you're planning 8-12 tons, you'll need wings that create enough lift to actually make the thing fly or glide with a reasonable glide ratio. These will be rather large, esp. since (as I understand it) the vehicle will need extreme STOL capabilities in order to be useful. Where will these wings go when in "ground vehicle mode"? That has nothing to do with lack of imagination, that's just physics. Small folding wings just won't make the thing fly or glide.

I'd like to know what kind of propulsion you were thinking about?

Physics again: Any flying object that big and heavy needs propulsion power, a lot of it, even more if it is supposed to have V/STOL capabilities. The most weight/space efficient powerplant is and will be a turbine engine. Even with projected progress in terms of efficiency and power you'll need some space for it and lots of fuel in your vehicle to fly from one point to another (I understand that this capability is part of your concept), far more than a driving vhicle does.

I would also add one point: You mention S-64 flight systems with a Puma LAV hull beneath. Both helo and vehicle crew would be far safer if you just take the S-64, and sling the same 8.4 ton LAV beneath. Apart from the fact that once the LAV is on the ground in an operation, the same S-64 can be used to sling another LAV somewhere else.

Another valid question IMO that needs to be anwered before bothering to design a hybrid air/land vehicle.

Regarding the coaxial rotor principle you seem to prefer I'll have to add that these rotors are very complicated and have a bulky and heavy gearbox.

 

[Marc 1]

Actualy Abe.... you started with a well put together coherent argument about why this wouldnt work and after being informed that you were critiqueing an idea that i never wrote about (still waiting for you to quote me on a flying tank btw), your post slowly devolved into a critique of me, who you no nothing about ..... it almost seems like everytime i made it clearer what i was talking about you had to make it less clear why it wouldnt work (wich law of physics prohibits an air/land vehicle?)..... as to calling me a fool.. well im not going to get my self kicked of this forum over a hater like you but buddy im prolly more than half your age and from half your socio- economical background (most people try to encourage people like me and help us get on course not put us down) , could run circles around u in a verbal debate.... and if the word fool was ever said to my face ...well.....old man you wouldnt say it again (sorry everyone else for the hostility if you read this thread I'm perfectly civil and actually attemping to make an argument .... i was even enjoying the critiques until they stopped being about the idea and were focused on me)

OK, I'm no where near as tech savvy as Abraham Gubler but I'll add my 5 cents. The weight class rotors/transmission you'd need would be CH-47 Chinook sized. Take your 8 tonne vehicle, add at least 7 tonnes of engines and transmissions to raise its empty weight to around 15 tonnes. The CH-4D has a MTOW of 22 tonnes, but because you are going co-axial that may reduce to say 20 tonnes. That gives you a possible 5 tonnes to allow for the fitment of fairings etc, and fuel. The Chook has a fuel load of 3,600 ish litres (3.3 tonnes?) which doesn't leave much for anything else, and a fairly small range - that would be no doubt further reduced due to the aircraft having the aerodynamics of a brick. And we haven't yet begun to address the issues of integrating the engines and transmissions.

Problems as I see them:

1. It would make a very poor helicopter (bulky/unwieldy) with bugger all situational awareness as Kato has pointed out.

2. The co-axial rotor system needs plenty of clearance between the 2 sets of rotors. If you take a geezer at the Kamov designs the top rotor would be a good 1.5 to 2 meters above the vehicle. Even with folded and telescoped rotor blades that will preclude the vehicle being able to use the traditional hull down/turret down cover positions. Unless you can engineer some method of retracting a transmission/rotor shaft that transmits 7,500hp. That will be complex and extremely heavy.

3. The cost of one of these devices would be horrendous, and the timeframe it will take to develop you would expect to be protracted. All for a requirement that has yet to be written and for a need that is yet to be established.

Kato has by far the smartest idea, sling load these vehicles (or design them for internal carriage in a CH-47) deliver them to the battlefield and let them do their own autonomous thing.

The technologies that would require a quantam leap in development for this to work: far more lightweight armour, or some form of a system that intercepts threats, so no armour would be needed. Advances in powerplants and transmissions to make them smaller and more efficient. Darpa continue to conduct challenges that have the best minds in robotics and programming navigate a vehicle autonomously from point A to Point B. I believe the vehicles can do it now, but its still a slow and clunky drive compared to a human. And that's without integrating anything to do with tactics/engaging the enemy/IFF etc. This technology is far to immature.

There are very few truly successful hybrid vehicles - the Osprey is one, the EFV might be another and they have taken tens of years/billions of dollars (and many deaths in the case of the V-22) before they were sorted, and they are nowhere near as ambitious a project as what you are proposing. Since the 1930's inventors have been trying to invent a car that can fly. The few that have made it from the drawing board have been so heavily compromised in the air, on the road or both that the idea hasn't caught on. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but even if it can be done I suspect the vehicle would suffer because of the compromises inherent in its design. The complexity and therefore the reliability would suffer too.

At the moment, possibly dreamland, even if it can be done a horribly compromised expensive answer to a question no one asked. Abe is right.

 

[gardnerdesign]

No abes still wrong but your right .... the puma wouldnt fly ... but what abouth the other vehicles i mentioned...? Surely you must realize i know that know adhoc frankinstien vehicle wouldnt fly ... my point was simply that if you could get the numbers close enough than with some R&D, a purpose built vehicle could be built ... You're also right that a helicopter based hybrid would not have much utility and would be a waste of money .... i was just trying to think of the simplest most down to earth way i could explain the idea working....people seem to dislike when i talk about more futuristic concepts.

 

[Feanor]

The problem with more futuristic concepts is that they're too speculative. I.e. there is no criteria for a critical evaluation of futuristic concepts that are too far into the future. Just out of curiosity, what advantage would your vehicle have over say a Mi-35M?

 

[Marc 1]

No abes still wrong but your right

Not sure how that can be given we've both been arguing the same points. Remain objective, don't make it personal.

... the puma wouldnt fly ... but what abouth the other vehicles i mentioned...?

The OCV? Again a concept without a purpose. You state that it's an offensive/defensive station. Which is it? What warheads are the missiles armed with? What are the anticipated targets - is it an anti ICBM system a-la-star wars? Or is this more a station to provide precision strike? Is it in a geosynchronous orbit or will you need a fleet of then orbiting to provide coverage (fleet = huge cost)?

This station has 2 x 40mm canon for point defence - against what? What are the targeting systems used? Is this to be like a CIWS - if so why 40mm? Despite stating that the 3D thrusters will provide a force to counterbalance the recoil - that's going to need masses of rocket fuel, and due to the way the forces are developed (40mm instantaneous, massive force over a very short time period, rocket, lesser continuous thrust over a much longer period) I don't believe it to be viable. Have you considered recoiless weapons or lasers? The list of questions I might ask (and I don't work in defence or any technical capacity) is as long as my arm. [/quote]

Surely you must realize i know that know adhoc frankinstien vehicle wouldnt fly ...

Then please don't get so defensive when someone points out that it cannot fly. It also begs the question why put it up as a viable concept in the first place.

people seem to dislike when i talk about more futuristic concepts.

There are other sites that specialise in conceptual weapons - this and other concepts may have been better suited to those.

Gardnerdesign, I applaud your spunk and your imagination, but I don't think you have a handle on what this forum is about. Suggestion stick around a while - read and learn, don't stick your head above the metaphorical parapet for a bit (or as you realise you may get it shot off).

 

[OPSSG]

@gardnerdesign, I believe enough forum members have gently put forth that your ideas lie in the realm of imagination, unrestrained by laws of physics (as most of your fellow forum participants currently understand) and other technical or tactical considerations. Please try to support your imagination with some 'facts' and some reputable 'links', if any.

Surely you must realize i know that know adhoc frankinstien vehicle wouldnt fly ...

Then please don't get so defensive when someone points out that it cannot fly. It also begs the question why put it up as a viable concept in the first place.

Various 'imaginative' people have brought forth their ideas in a number of online military forums over the years. One of the most famous is 'Mr Mike Sparks' (aka Sparky, aka Carol Murphy, aka Sam Damon Jr. and aka Sealight007) and his 'so-called' petition to rename the M113 as the 'M113 Gavin'. He has inspired some unique Gavin concepts and even a web page that mocks his ideas (link provided).

As you can see from the link provided - to be called a Sparky or to have a person's 'imaginative' ideas mocked as 'Gavin inspired concepts' is not a good persona to have in online forums.

people seem to dislike when i talk about more futuristic concepts.

There are other sites that specialise in conceptual weapons - this and other concepts may have been better suited to those.

Gardnerdesign, I applaud your spunk and your imagination, but I don't think you have a handle on what this forum is about. Suggestion stick around a while - read and learn, don't stick your head above the metaphorical parapet for a bit (or as you realise you may get it shot off).

Forgive your fellow forum participant (i.e me) for not automatically assuming that your ideas will work. If you insist on pushing your ideas, I believe the onus is on you to present your rebuttal argument with 'facts' and reputable 'links' to support your ideas.

While most of us want to encourage a diverse range of view points, there is a difference between an informed discussion and an uninformed one. I believe we will no longer be in the informed discussion zone, if we continue down the current path of this thread.

 

[imscary2]

I was all excited. I thought you were talking about parachuting tanks. What the light tank the 82nd used to use the M35?

But you don't have a design at all you have an idea, followed as previous poster mentioned a wishlist

it just got silly

 

[the road runner]

Various 'imaginative' people have brought forth their ideas in a number of online military forums over the years. One of the most famous is 'Mr Mike Sparks' (aka Sparky, aka Carol Murphy, aka Sam Damon Jr. and aka Sealight007) and his 'so-called' petition to rename the M113 as the 'M113 Gavin'. He has inspired some unique Gavin concepts and even a web page that mocks his ideas (link provided).

OPSSG.....i wasted a whole afternoon reading about the Gavin...........
I do try to be polite on this forum......but, this Guy is an idiot/oxygen thief.

If you would like to read about my wasted time on the Gavin article........and replies by Defence Analysts,then check out the link on M113

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/australian-m113s-5188-17/

Why would you not use a Blackhawk or NH-90 spectra with a 120 mm smothebore gun with a force shield?

or even better you could put a Abrams MBT with a few rotors attached to make the flying tank.......wonder what Bae or lockheed martin would charge for a force Shield......????

Sory could not resist:

 

[OPSSG]

Sorry could not resist:

No problem, perfectly understand your feelings about wasting your time reading Sparky's ideas.

BTW, as I see it, there are two main types of idiots:

(1) those that know they are behaving like idiots (by virtue of their idiotic statements on the forum); and
(2) those that don't know they are behaving like idiots.​

It's those people in category (2), who don't know that they are idiots that are the hardest to deal with. Trying to correct a category (2) person (or interact with them) is like arguing with a baboon -- a totally counter productive exercise.

 

[Feanor]

The first aren't idiots. They're trolls. The second are genuine idiots.