Mini Abrams...

[Waylander]

From AGRA:

FCS is designing vehicles and systems now and for an initial in service date of 2015ish. Not going to get anything into service quicker than that…

And key technologies are being demonstrated, like the autonomous driving systems and multi-platform sensor fusion. Auto trackers able to do the job of a gunner after target designation by the commander are commonplace and in service in a wide range of applications. Even automatic target identification and prosecution software is common.

Yeah, with how much cost overrun and introduction delay?
Till now the FCS program produced the NLOS-C which is, apart from its weight, everything but not revolutionary. In the end it is not even on par capability wise with the rest of the modern SPHs.

As I said. I thought we are talking about available technology. Could you please give me a source for the demonstration of auotnomous driving systems under combat conditions?
I expect that automatic target identification/gunnering is doin some nice advances but there is still the question of how the TC is going to designate the targets without having to put a lot of concentration onto a hefty magnification.

FCS is ambitious because it is not conventional. It is the first combat vehicle designed from the ground up with a hybrid powerplant. Electrical transmission provides huge weight and volume savings. The C-130 requirement was dropped because it was nonsense – the problem is not so much designing a tank to fit inside a C-130 but to be able to get any practical military benefit by operational deployment in a C-130. Now if we had C-130 sized VTOLs that would be different.

They dropped the C-130 requirement because they don't get all the nice stuff and protection into one tiny chassis.
If they would be able to develop it they wouldn't have changed the C-130 requirement.
To say now that they dropped the C-130 requirement just because the C-130 idea is nonsense and not because the "we can build such a small ubertank"-idea is nonsense is a little dubious...

Not at all. Its 27 tonnes because that’s loads of armour and capability for an FCS sized vehicle. You can still strip it down to a 18 tonne configuration for loading into a C-130. But its really meaningless stuff.

Strip it down to 18 tonnes? By removing the turret and tires/tracks or what?

The FCS will be much better protected than the M1. M1 will remain in service until 2050 because the US will not be buying FCS at a rate fast enough to replace them before this date. Gone are the days of Lima turning out 1,000 M1 tanks a year.

It will?
In 2010 we will introduce the Puma. By 2015 the US hopes to introduce the FCS.
Right now the Puma needs more than 40 tons to get a really got protection for an IFV but it is still far away from MBT protection.
And the US wants to achieve more than current MBT protection with a 27 tons platform just 5 years later?
Even with weight saving of a hybrid powerplant design I just don't believe that this is possible.
And active/passive protection system are not an argument because they are or will also be fielded by todays systems or more conventional systems of the future.

Well it’s the only way to do it from a design process. Improved lighter weight technology will also reduce weight.

But reducing interior volume was the very successful idea behind Sven Berge’s Strv 103 ‘S-Tank’. By removing the turret and fixing the gun inside the hull they achieved a tank with the same armour thickness, fire power, etc as a Centurion at only 40 tonnes compared to 55 tonnes. Said tank could also be fully operated (moved and gun aimed and fired) in an emergency by only one person. Operational testing by an independent third party – the British Army in the early 1970s – found that removing the turret made no appreciable loss of efficiency in all combat scenarios, including offensive operations.

You should also mention that crew efficiency of the S-Tank was by no means on par with a real tank with more crewmen.

 

[Pusser01]

Could the M8 Armoured Gun System that the US army cancelled in the late
90's be a contender for this idea? If I recall it had a 105mm gun and 3 person crew. Does anyone know why it was cancelled, was it due to price or changing capability requirements?
Cheers

 

[eckherl]

There is no way that we will be able to offer better protection levels of a M1A2 or A3 in a vehicle that weighs 27 tons, not when getting into slugging matches with other heavies.

 

[eckherl]

Could the M8 Armoured Gun System that the US army cancelled in the late
90's be a contender for this idea? If I recall it had a 105mm gun and 3 person crew. Does anyone know why it was cancelled, was it due to price or changing capability requirements?
Cheers

Program was scrapped due to cost of vehicle and armor protection levels, when we were ready to roll it out for the 82nd Airborne it was already obsolete by todays standards.

 

[AGRA]

There is no way that we will be able to offer better protection levels of a M1A2 or A3 in a vehicle that weighs 27 tons, not when getting into slugging matches with other heavies.

The Quik Kill APS will just shoot down the enemy tanks KE slugs before they even hit the FCS. Sounds like good protection to me... Ohh yes and with 20-40 or even more shots available thats plenty to survive in any tactical situation.

 

[AGRA]

Till now the FCS program produced the NLOS-C which is, apart from its weight, everything but not revolutionary. In the end it is not even on par capability wise with the rest of the modern SPHs.

FCS hasn’t actually produced NLOS-C yet, it has produced NLOS-LS but. Sure NLOS-C is nothing special as an artillery system (though firing nothing but Excaliburs it is better than any in service PzH2000) however that is because it is Rumsfeld’s bastard love child. If XM2001 Crusader had entered service the US Army would have by far the world’s best 155mm SPH. But Rummy cancelled the 155mm L56 XM2001 and mandated the 155mm L38 NLOS-C in its place.

As I said. I thought we are talking about available technology. Could you please give me a source for the demonstration of auotnomous driving systems under combat conditions?

Well the systems haven’t been deployed – yet – but look at the ‘desert challenge’ and now ‘urban challenge’ UGV trials. Autonomous driving systems outperforming humans in tough driving and navigation conditions.

They dropped the C-130 requirement because they don't get all the nice stuff and protection into one tiny chassis.
If they would be able to develop it they wouldn't have changed the C-130 requirement.
To say now that they dropped the C-130 requirement just because the C-130 idea is nonsense and not because the "we can build such a small ubertank"-idea is nonsense is a little dubious...

Again, the C-130 hasn’t been dropped. But they have added a modular level of armour protection, just like Puma. The reason they went for more armour is because they released the need wasn’t there. Dude I know the FCS PMs and have spoken to them about this, continue to consider any information I have gleaned from them dubious as long as it contradicts your personal view of the world.

Strip it down to 18 tonnes? By removing the turret and tires/tracks or what?

Modular armour suites and so on tht simply bolt from the exterior. Also like most airlift loads without onboard ammunition, fuel, crew, stores and passengers.

In 2010 we will introduce the Puma. By 2015 the US hopes to introduce the FCS.
Right now the Puma needs more than 40 tons to get a really got protection for an IFV but it is still far away from MBT protection.
And the US wants to achieve more than current MBT protection with a 27 tons platform just 5 years later?
Even with weight saving of a hybrid powerplant design I just don't believe that this is possible.

Believe away it’s your life. But the FCS MGV is a much smaller vehicle than Puma. Puma has a big 30 litre engine, FCS only a 5 litre engine.

And active/passive protection system are not an argument because they are or will also be fielded by todays systems or more conventional systems of the future.

Really, that’s nice of the world to play fair for the benefit of you. But FCS MGVs are being designed to enter service with Quick Kill. What APS does Puma have? What Hard Kill APS systems do threat vehicles have? None.

You should also mention that crew efficiency of the S-Tank was by no means on par with a real tank with more crewmen.

The Brits didn’t seem to think so. Of course one may have found fault with the Swedish conscript crews of S-Tanks with only 6 months service compared to West German crews with a professional tank commander. As for keeping the vehicle maintained the problem with the S-Tank was that its hydraulic drive and suspension system required a lot more maintenance than conventional tanks. The solution to vehicle maintenance is just to provide additional resources to non-crew maintenance. If you reduce your tank crews from 4 to 2 then that should make available about 100 additional men in a battalion/regiment for service as dedicated repairers or ‘pit stop’ like FRAP crews.

Certainly the combat experience of Australian armour crews is such that after one battle the crews need to be replaced for rest and recuperation anyway. Keeping tank crews in a tank 24-7 for the duration of a campaign is hugely wasteful of the tanks fighting potential. Like saying to a fighter pilot that he is the only one allowed to fly a plane and between missions he and only he has to rearm, refuel and repair it.

 

[Waylander]

FCS hasn’t actually produced NLOS-C yet, it has produced NLOS-LS but. Sure NLOS-C is nothing special as an artillery system (though firing nothing but Excaliburs it is better than any in service PzH2000) however that is because it is Rumsfeld’s bastard love child. If XM2001 Crusader had entered service the US Army would have by far the world’s best 155mm SPH. But Rummy cancelled the 155mm L56 XM2001 and mandated the 155mm L38 NLOS-C in its place.

First I put show this article from DefenseNews.com:

U.S. Army To Buy 18 NLOS Cannons Separately From FCS
Posted 12/10/07 17:27
By KRIS OSBORN

The U.S. Army will buy its first 18 Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) Cannons for $505.2 million (in 2003 dollars) in a separate effort from the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program that developed the 27-ton hybrid electric armored vehicles.

The move, which was directed by Defense Acquisition Undersecretary John Young in a Dec. 1 memo, is intended to free money for other FCS acquisitions and to meet a congressional requirement to deploy the NLOS weapon by 2010.

“It approves a separate acquisition strategy for the cannon, which is still managed out of the FCS office,” FCS spokesman Paul Meheny said.
Defense News obtained a copy of the memo.

The DoD Appropriations Acts of 2005, 2006 and 2007 mandate that the NLOS-C be deployed by 2010.

The first practical effect of the move will come in 2009, when the first large-scale production decisions are made for FCS technologies.

“NLOS-C SpI program decisions do not constitute production decisions for FCS or for any part of the FCS program,” Young’s memo said.

Here they defenitely talk about NLOS-C. Not to talk about the hefty price...

The NLOS-C is going to just fire Excalibur rounds? Do you have a source for that?
BTW, I wouldn't call something which only fires Excalibur rounds better than current modern SPHs.
Can you imagine the look of a FAO ordering a ToT slavo, some blinding fire, or surpression fire or a massive strike onto larger groups of enemies.
And the only thing they offer to him consists of a low number of expensive Excalibur rounds?
And an Excalibur round fired from a PzH2000 is going tom perform better than fired from NLOS-C

Well the systems haven’t been deployed – yet – but look at the ‘desert challenge’ and now ‘urban challenge’ UGV trials. Autonomous driving systems outperforming humans in tough driving and navigation conditions.

Outperforming?
I have seen that on TV and nothing there outperformed a human driver let alone showe dthe capability to perform effective combat driving with an AFV in a battle situation.

Modular armour suites and so on tht simply bolt from the exterior. Also like most airlift loads without onboard ammunition, fuel, crew, stores and passengers.

Ok this point goes to you. But it compromises the idea of the FCS vehicles rolling out of the plane and being ready for combat within 30 minutes.

Really, that’s nice of the world to play fair for the benefit of you. But FCS MGVs are being designed to enter service with Quick Kill. What APS does Puma have? What Hard Kill APS systems do threat vehicles have? None.

Russians and Chinese vehicle designers already have active and passive systems in place and are (as well as the europeans and Israelis) very active in developing new ones.
In Germany alone AWiSS and ADS are nearing final development and MUSS passive protection system is already on Puma with room and wiring for active protection systems.
As for threat vehicles. There are not many more suplliers than Russia, China, Europe and Israel for vehicles and vehicle systems and all of them offer or are close to offer active protection systems to customers.

And hoping that a (tumbling) modern KE penetrator with a blunted nose or cracked back is going to be stopped by IFV like armor is also a nice hope. Even a damaged KE (Especially the self sharpening ones) has a lot of energy left.

The Brits didn’t seem to think so. Of course one may have found fault with the Swedish conscript crews of S-Tanks with only 6 months service compared to West German crews with a professional tank commander. As for keeping the vehicle maintained the problem with the S-Tank was that its hydraulic drive and suspension system required a lot more maintenance than conventional tanks. The solution to vehicle maintenance is just to provide additional resources to non-crew maintenance. If you reduce your tank crews from 4 to 2 then that should make available about 100 additional men in a battalion/regiment for service as dedicated repairers or ‘pit stop’ like FRAP crews.

Certainly the combat experience of Australian armour crews is such that after one battle the crews need to be replaced for rest and recuperation anyway. Keeping tank crews in a tank 24-7 for the duration of a campaign is hugely wasteful of the tanks fighting potential. Like saying to a fighter pilot that he is the only one allowed to fly a plane and between missions he and only he has to rearm, refuel and repair it.

The S-tank is a great tank hunter with a low silouette and the ability to shoot and get the hell out of there but lacks target aquisition and effectiveness in a highly mobile environment like the one MBTs and IFVs are engaged in.

As for the advantages of less cre members.
Great. Producing a smaller vehicle which allows more rapid deployment by the current fleet of C-17s and C-5s just to add a burden to the air transport by adding a lot of extra repair/maintenance/service crews and their equipment...

And hoping for the ability to exchange crews after some time is also more wishfull thinking than anything else. Even the most modern examples (OIF) showed that a crew has to fight and live in/around their vehicles for a long time.
For sure combat effectiveness rises if crews are exchanged as often as possible the problem is just that it may not be possible very often in anything else than small engagements.

 

[eckherl]

The Quik Kill APS will just shoot down the enemy tanks KE slugs before they even hit the FCS. Sounds like good protection to me... Ohh yes and with 20-40 or even more shots available thats plenty to survive in any tactical situation.

APS system is not even perfected yet to a level to be used in a high intensity combat scenario as of yet but yes, when they do have it perfected it will be one heck of a achievement.

 

[AGRA]

First I put show this article from DefenseNews.com:
Here they defenitely talk about NLOS-C. Not to talk about the hefty price...

This is a low rate initial production order for NLOS-C, all LRIP orders are very high priced, cost decreases as production volumes increase. The way the FCS program works is a spiral development of various systems. Once they are ready for production over the next 10 years they will be ordered at different times. However the spend is going in now on the development of the various systems.

http://www.army.mil/fcs/

The NLOS-C is going to just fire Excalibur rounds? Do you have a source for that?

FAMAG

BTW, I wouldn't call something which only fires Excalibur rounds better than current modern SPHs.
Can you imagine the look of a FAO ordering a ToT slavo, some blinding fire, or surpression fire or a massive strike onto larger groups of enemies.
And the only thing they offer to him consists of a low number of expensive Excalibur rounds?
And an Excalibur round fired from a PzH2000 is going tom perform better than fired from NLOS-C

Excalibur can fire all those missions. Of course where dispersion is not an issue due to a need for mass fires then it can just fire conventional ammo. But don’t get me wrong a L56 or even L52 system would be much better than NLOS-C’s L38. But you’re not going to see that much of a difference in artillery performance. Since the longer barrels just give you added range the high use of Excalibur in NLOS-C provides much better performance at long range through a L38 barrel than conventional ammunition through a L52. Sure PzH2000 can fire Excalibur but is the German Army planning on acquiring any of it? All things are not equal.

Outperforming?
I have seen that on TV and nothing there outperformed a human driver let alone showe dthe capability to perform effective combat driving with an AFV in a battle situation.

FCS MGVs (and UGVs) will use the General Dynamics Robitic Systems (GDRS) Autonomous Navigation System (ANS). This is funded with US $237M until March 2013. It has been extensively tested and proven to date, including Demo III that reached TRL 6 tests in rolling, arid environments, vegetated terrains, and urban terrains.

The clock is ticking… Plus remember a software driven driving system (nice pun, ehh) does not get tired, does not scared and operates at optimal performance until the power is switched off.

Ok this point goes to you. But it compromises the idea of the FCS vehicles rolling out of the plane and being ready for combat within 30 minutes.

This isn’t a debate. This is no different to the condition most vehicles are transported in. Of course the idea that vehicles roll off the back of a plane and into combat has a lot more to do with airports and so on, which is why its complete nonsense and seems to have died away as a serious argument in professional defence halls by now.

Russians and Chinese vehicle designers already have active and passive systems in place and are (as well as the europeans and Israelis) very active in developing new ones. In Germany alone AWiSS and ADS are nearing final development and MUSS passive protection system is already on Puma with room and wiring for active protection systems.
As for threat vehicles. There are not many more suplliers than Russia, China, Europe and Israel for vehicles and vehicle systems and all of them offer or are close to offer active protection systems to customers.

I said Hard Kill APS, which counts out the Russians and Chinese who have just produced crappy single shot area kill systems, that are good for a single TOW missile and that’s about it. Even the Israeli and German systems lack that broad response capability of Quick Kill. They are very much tailored to stopping a handful of ATGM type threats. Quick Kill can do everything from point blank RPGs (as close as they can be fired to arm the warhead fuse) to barrages of KE penetrators, from all angles of attack. The only limitation is how big a magazine you carry, since these are rather small packages (size of a 76mm smoke grenade launcher) and are vertically launched quite a large arsenal can be carried in the turret bustle or other spots.

And hoping that a (tumbling) modern KE penetrator with a blunted nose or cracked back is going to be stopped by IFV like armor is also a nice hope. Even a damaged KE (Especially the self sharpening ones) has a lot of energy left.

Quick Kill will put the KE penetrator into the ground well away from the target MGV.

The S-tank is a great tank hunter with a low silouette and the ability to shoot and get the hell out of there but lacks target aquisition and effectiveness in a highly mobile environment like the one MBTs and IFVs are engaged in.

It was the first tank in service with a hunter-killer commander-gunner sighting arrangement… For its time, the 1960s and 70s it was a very effective tank in both defensive and offensive scenarios. This was proved in exercises with NATO operated by the British Army. Apply opinions elsewhere please in the face of hard evidence to the contary.

As for the advantages of less cre members.
Great. Producing a smaller vehicle which allows more rapid deployment by the current fleet of C-17s and C-5s just to add a burden to the air transport by adding a lot of extra repair/maintenance/service crews and their equipment...

Who cares, its got nothing to do with C-17s and C-5s. Smaller vehicles means one thing – lighter weight. This means smaller engines, less fuel consumables, more bridge crossing, less cost, etc, etc.

Then of course with a vehicle like FCS MGV MCS with a two man crew is that bad? We are not talking about operating a Leopard II or M1 with two men. It’s a different tank. Track maintenance? It has a single piece rubber band track… Transmission maintenance? Its all-electric… Engine maintenance? 5L constant speed vs 30-40L turbo charged… The exterior surface area is even less so less time is needed to clean it.

Is any of this getting through? This is not YOUR tank, it’s a totally different beast…

And hoping for the ability to exchange crews after some time is also more wishfull thinking than anything else. Even the most modern examples (OIF) showed that a crew has to fight and live in/around their vehicles for a long time.
For sure combat effectiveness rises if crews are exchanged as often as possible the problem is just that it may not be possible very often in anything else than small engagements.

OIF tank crews had plenty of time to change crews if they were available. The idea is you spend 12-24 hours in the tank and then exchange. Its not exchanges every 2-4 hours.

 

[AGRA]

APS system is not even perfected yet to a level to be used in a high intensity combat scenario as of yet but yes, when they do have it perfected it will be one heck of a achievement.

Yes they have. For the kind of modern computer controlled hard kill APS systems high intensity combat is simply a matter of having larger magazines. The Russian Dzord type APS of course are useless for anything other than the first ATGM fired at them. But the likes of Quick Kill will have no problems dealing with barrages of large number of simultaneous attacks.

 

[eckherl]

Yes they have. For the kind of modern computer controlled hard kill APS systems high intensity combat is simply a matter of having larger magazines. The Russian Dzord type APS of course are useless for anything other than the first ATGM fired at them. But the likes of Quick Kill will have no problems dealing with barrages of large number of simultaneous attacks.

And you are now making the statement that it is perfected to a point that it will lock in and counter multiple KE projectiles all at once and give you a high success rate of countering them or are you thinking more in terms of ATGMs.

 

[Waylander]

This is a low rate initial production order for NLOS-C, all LRIP orders are very high priced, cost decreases as production volumes increase. The way the FCS program works is a spiral development of various systems. Once they are ready for production over the next 10 years they will be ordered at different times. However the spend is going in now on the development of the various systems.

http://www.army.mil/fcs/

The problem is not the price of pre-series vehicles but that they don't fund them out of the FCS budget because of the ever increasing need of money of the FCS program.

Excalibur can fire all those missions. Of course where dispersion is not an issue due to a need for mass fires then it can just fire conventional ammo. But don’t get me wrong a L56 or even L52 system would be much better than NLOS-C’s L38. But you’re not going to see that much of a difference in artillery performance. Since the longer barrels just give you added range the high use of Excalibur in NLOS-C provides much better performance at long range through a L38 barrel than conventional ammunition through a L52. Sure PzH2000 can fire Excalibur but is the German Army planning on acquiring any of it? All things are not equal.

It is fine to compare Excalibur with plain normal HEs fired from a PzH2000.
But maybe one should also consider the other ammo fired from a PzH2000 like SMArt or extended range.

And it is not just range where a NLOS-C lacks. It is also rate of fire, onboard ammo and survivability in the face of counterfire.

And still I say one cannot really count ammo as an example of individual performance.
Or do you think the US would deny it's export if, for example, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany would ask for it?

FCS MGVs (and UGVs) will use the General Dynamics Robitic Systems (GDRS) Autonomous Navigation System (ANS). This is funded with US $237M until March 2013. It has been extensively tested and proven to date, including Demo III that reached TRL 6 tests in rolling, arid environments, vegetated terrains, and urban terrains.

The clock is ticking… Plus remember a software driven driving system (nice pun, ehh) does not get tired, does not scared and operates at optimal performance until the power is switched off.

Ok, than we wait till 2013 if this program goes well.
Are all the sensors required for it going to survive an artillery barrage?

This isn’t a debate. This is no different to the condition most vehicles are transported in. Of course the idea that vehicles roll off the back of a plane and into combat has a lot more to do with airports and so on, which is why its complete nonsense and seems to have died away as a serious argument in professional defence halls by now.

For sure it is nonsense. I never argumented for it.
Nevertheless this was also advertised as an advantage of the FCS systems.

I said Hard Kill APS, which counts out the Russians and Chinese who have just produced crappy single shot area kill systems, that are good for a single TOW missile and that’s about it. Even the Israeli and German systems lack that broad response capability of Quick Kill. They are very much tailored to stopping a handful of ATGM type threats. Quick Kill can do everything from point blank RPGs (as close as they can be fired to arm the warhead fuse) to barrages of KE penetrators, from all angles of attack. The only limitation is how big a magazine you carry, since these are rather small packages (size of a 76mm smoke grenade launcher) and are vertically launched quite a large arsenal can be carried in the turret bustle or other spots.

At least Iron Fist as well as ADS say that they also perform against KE threats.
And why should the explosion of Quick Kill be better suited for defeating a KE than any other of the new APS?

Quick Kill will put the KE penetrator into the ground well away from the target MGV.

I've seen a test video of Quick Kill. Well away is not what In would call it...

Who cares, its got nothing to do with C-17s and C-5s. Smaller vehicles means one thing – lighter weight. This means smaller engines, less fuel consumables, more bridge crossing, less cost, etc, etc.

Then of course with a vehicle like FCS MGV MCS with a two man crew is that bad? We are not talking about operating a Leopard II or M1 with two men. It’s a different tank. Track maintenance? It has a single piece rubber band track… Transmission maintenance? Its all-electric… Engine maintenance? 5L constant speed vs 30-40L turbo charged… The exterior surface area is even less so less time is needed to clean it.

Is any of this getting through? This is not YOUR tank, it’s a totally different beast…

Fine, you totally avoided adressing the points I made.
YOU said that you just add a lot of extra service personal. This is a burden for any air deployment as well as the actual combat vehicles and you cannot just erase them out of the question.

As for rubber tracks. They are available and advertised for a long time now. Maybe there is a reason why nobody is using them on combat vehicles so far...

It is not as if engine maintenace is the biggest part of tank maintenance. If the engine is broken during combat you just exchange the whole powerpack which is possible within 20min.

For sure a smaller vehicle usually needs less maintenance but the advantages are not going to be that big like you make them.

BTW, there is no need to shout or getting rude just because somebody has a different opinion than you...

OIF tank crews had plenty of time to change crews if they were available. The idea is you spend 12-24 hours in the tank and then exchange. Its not exchanges every 2-4 hours.

On the run to Bagdad? During the battle of Falluja? Not really. During small scale firefights for sure.

 

[AGRA]

And you are now making the statement that it is perfected to a point that it will lock in and counter multiple KE projectiles all at once and give you a high success rate of countering them or are you thinking more in terms of ATGMs.

Quick Kill is about as similar to the Dzord APS as a Napoleni era smooth bore, muzzle loading cannon is to the M777. They are both active protection systems and that is where the similarity ends. Yes Quick Kill will defeat multiple KE projectiles all at once.

 

[AGRA]

The problem is not the price of pre-series vehicles but that they don't fund them out of the FCS budget because of the ever increasing need of money of the FCS program.

FCS budget is for development. The US always approves funding in different stages…

It is fine to compare Excalibur with plain normal HEs fired from a PzH2000.
But maybe one should also consider the other ammo fired from a PzH2000 like SMArt or extended range.

SMART is a dedicated anti-tank weapon, of the type that the US actually developed a long time ago but never ordered into production. Also exnteded range base bleed or rocket assisted conventional shells may fly further but dispersion is so high at long ranges 100s of shells are needed to ensure destruction or suppression of a particular point target that 3 Excaliburs can achieve (because they have such low dispersion).

And it is not just range where a NLOS-C lacks. It is also rate of fire, onboard ammo and survivability in the face of counterfire.

Garbege. NLOS-C has a similar ROF to PzH2000 carriers 40 rounds and has far higher counterfire protection thanks to APS.

And still I say one cannot really count ammo as an example of individual performance.
Or do you think the US would deny it's export if, for example, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany would ask for it?

Sure but are they planning on acquiring it? Are they planning on using it as the basis of the unit of fire? No, no and no. So until they do its NLOS-C with Excal vs PzH2000 with HE-BB. Even Australia that is looking at buying both PzH2000 and Excal only has an onboard unit of fire load of Excals per PzH2000 of 3 per vehicle, not 30 or 60.

Ok, than we wait till 2013 if this program goes well.
Are all the sensors required for it going to survive an artillery barrage?

Well is the Puma going to be in servie before 2013? Its about the soonest date for any new vehile. As to surviving battle damage the ANS sensors will be the same as any other tank sensor, be it conventional periscope based vision blocks or the rear view camera on the Leopard 2A5. IN many ways modern camera technology makes such sensor systems more resilient (smaller), cheaper and easier to replace than legacy vision blocks.

At least Iron Fist as well as ADS say that they also perform against KE threats.
And why should the explosion of Quick Kill be better suited for defeating a KE than any other of the new APS?

Because Quick Kill is a top attack EFP. Its just like playing a game of billiards. The EFP slug from Quick Kill hits the incoming KE penetrator from above deflecting it into the ground. APS effectors like the shotgun blast of Trophy or the Claymore area fragment blast of Dzord will have little effect on a KE penetrator.

I've seen a test video of Quick Kill. Well away is not what In would call it...

Through seething teeth: That’s because that video was of the minimum range test to show it could defeat a RPG launched at point blank range! The very nature of the HK device, vertical launch and rocket powered enables it to engage as far out as the detection and tracking system can determine a threat.

 

[Distiller]

About that 3-crew vs 2-crew and automation potential: I guess more realistic than 2-crew is 0-crew. An autonomous tank. Managed by a human crew in a command-IFV. But as long as you put humans in a tank, there is no way to drop to a 2-crew arrangement. And for the FCS - let's wait and see.

 

[Waylander]

SMART is a dedicated anti-tank weapon, of the type that the US actually developed a long time ago but never ordered into production. Also exnteded range base bleed or rocket assisted conventional shells may fly further but dispersion is so high at long ranges 100s of shells are needed to ensure destruction or suppression of a particular point target that 3 Excaliburs can achieve (because they have such low dispersion).

CEP for PzH2000 with HE-BB is 40m IIRC vs 10m of Excalibur. For sure Excalibur is better when it comes to 1 shot precision fire.
The thing is that this is just one part of fire missions and not even a really big one.

Garbege. NLOS-C has a similar ROF to PzH2000 carriers 40 rounds and has far higher counterfire protection thanks to APS.

PzH2000 carries 60 rounds and has a higher rate of fire (2 rounds more than NLOS-C per minute).

PzH2000 features better armor (against shrapnel) as well as ERA against top attack. As for a fire mission. Does NLOS-C beats the 30sec of a PzH2000?

Sure but are they planning on acquiring it? Are they planning on using it as the basis of the unit of fire? No, no and no. So until they do its NLOS-C with Excal vs PzH2000 with HE-BB. Even Australia that is looking at buying both PzH2000 and Excal only has an onboard unit of fire load of Excals per PzH2000 of 3 per vehicle, not 30 or 60.

First you deny the possibilty of PzH2000 users having the ability to aquire Excalibur if needed, than you give Australia as an example of a country which may have both.
The next thing is that you admit that there isn't a need for many Excalibur rounds on a vehicle and on the other hand you try to make NLOS-C the superior platform because of Excalibur.
Doesn't sound right...

Well is the Puma going to be in servie before 2013? Its about the soonest date for any new vehile. As to surviving battle damage the ANS sensors will be the same as any other tank sensor, be it conventional periscope based vision blocks or the rear view camera on the Leopard 2A5. IN many ways modern camera technology makes such sensor systems more resilient (smaller), cheaper and easier to replace than legacy vision blocks.

Jup, it should (If there are no further delays) enter service in 2010.
And a driver can still drive with one or two vision blocks being destroyed. Even totally blind as long as there is at least one crewmember seeing enough to guide him.
And easier to replace? I take the broken vision block and put the new one in in under a minute. Under armor protection.

As you said loosing your cameras and sensors is as easy as loosing current vision systems.
And that's exactly why relying on them could give you some headache.

A current tank with its FCS down, GPS and TC periscope broken as well as some lost vision blocks and maybe one lost crewmember is still able to fight with reasonable success.
Is a FCS vehicle also able to do this?

Because Quick Kill is a top attack EFP. Its just like playing a game of billiards. The EFP slug from Quick Kill hits the incoming KE penetrator from above deflecting it into the ground. APS effectors like the shotgun blast of Trophy or the Claymore area fragment blast of Dzord will have little effect on a KE penetrator.

I am not fully sure about Iron Fist but at least ADS and AWiSS are also using directed charges and not shotgun/claymore like systems.

Through seething teeth: That’s because that video was of the minimum range test to show it could defeat a RPG launched at point blank range! The very nature of the HK device, vertical launch and rocket powered enables it to engage as far out as the detection and tracking system can determine a threat.

Thanks for the explanation. As I said before there is no need to get angry. I do not intend to provoke or offend you and so far I enjoy this discussion.

So how far away is it going to be able to intercept a modern fast KE (With more than 1700m/s)?
Should be further away than an ATGM due to the higher speed.
If it is far enough I am surely impressed.

 

[Vindex]

39 vs 52

It is fine to compare Excalibur with plain normal HEs fired from a PzH2000.
But maybe one should also consider the other ammo fired from a PzH2000 like SMArt or extended range.

And it is not just range where a NLOS-C lacks. It is also rate of fire, onboard ammo and survivability in the face of counterfire.

And still I say one cannot really count ammo as an example of individual performance.
Or do you think the US would deny it's export if, for example, the Netherlands, Italy or Germany would ask for it?

I think one can hardly underestimate the advantage provided the longer barrel of the PZH and it's kind. Exalibur's block I ought to achieve roughly 40km out of an 39cal barrel while it gets at least 50km out of an 52cal one. If we assume a firing field of 120% this means that the longer barrel covers with the same degree of accuracy a roughly 950 km^2 larger area. Or 2616 km^2 vs 1 674 km^2 - this a huge gap in performance. If the wole area around the piece of artillery has to be considered, quite likely in an mission like Afghanistan than the PZH can cover a staggering 7 850 km^2 of ground.

Given the fluid and spreadout nature of nature of modern warfare it means that ambushed units who might get instant artillery support by an PZH can not expect the same when their army is supported by th NLOS-C. The FCS pays thus a heavy price for being light and with a smaller logistic footprint.

What the US-Army lacks is IMHO a truck-mounted long artillery piece like the Ceasar, the Atmos or - better - the Archer. While not as well protected as the NLOS-C the first two cost far less and are even equally light and easy to maintain but come with longer range...

BTW hello to all
Vindex

 

[AGRA]

CEP for PzH2000 with HE-BB is 40m IIRC vs 10m of Excalibur. For sure Excalibur is better when it comes to 1 shot precision fire.
The thing is that this is just one part of fire missions and not even a really big one.

40m CEP for 155mm HE-BB is only at close ranges (~10km) at maximum range (~40km) it is around 250m. Though CEP is not good measure for conventional artillery rounds as the dispersion pattern is not circular but oval with different extremes in dispersion for range and bearing. Excalibur thanks to its GPS guidance maintains a CEP of uner 10m from minimum to maximum range. It also has other advantages like very small angle of fall for near vertical approach to the target maximizing its splinter effect.

High accuracy is not just better for one shot precision fire. At a range of 40km a NLOS-C unit with its L38 barrel firing Exaliburs will be able to saturate any frontage required instantaneously with a single mission. A PzH2000 unit with HE-BB will have to fire multiple missions to ensure target saturation and with a frontage of at least fire mission regiment thanks to dispersion. This means much longer time to achieve a pattern, which means less effect as the enemy can still maneuver through the fire zone, many more rounds fired and with only an option of firing a very large frontage not the smaller frontage required by the target (meaning higher chance of collateral damage).

First you deny the possibilty of PzH2000 users having the ability to aquire Excalibur if needed, than you give Australia as an example of a country which may have both.
The next thing is that you admit that there isn't a need for many Excalibur rounds on a vehicle and on the other hand you try to make NLOS-C the superior platform because of Excalibur.
Doesn't sound right...

I never denied that PzH2000 could have Excalibur just sated that none of its users are planning on using it in the same way the Americans are with NLOS-C. Maybe defencetalk.com is the domain of fantasists but I insist on framing any discussions here in reality. As for Australia’s example note that we are planning on only equipping each SPH, be it PzH2000 or K9, with only three rounds of Excalibur per onboard unit of fire. Where it will be used as a single shot precision munition not as the standard artillery round. This may not seem like much of a difference to people without any artillery experience but it is a huge gap.

And a driver can still drive with one or two vision blocks being destroyed. Even totally blind as long as there is at least one crewmember seeing enough to guide him.
And easier to replace? I take the broken vision block and put the new one in in under a minute. Under armor protection.

So can FCS which has six forward facing vision blocks and behind each are two operators each able to drive the tank. Of course neither needs to drive it because the ANS will drive them. Its sensors are even smaller apertures than the vision blocks, redundant and very hard to knock out.

A current tank with its FCS down, GPS and TC periscope broken as well as some lost vision blocks and maybe one lost crewmember is still able to fight with reasonable success.
Is a FCS vehicle also able to do this?

No less than the Puma IFV. By using a remote turret the FCS MGVs do take on the risk of not having a manual back up system to turret FCS loss. But this loss is worth it for the various advantages gained.

I am not fully sure about Iron Fist but at least ADS and AWiSS are also using directed charges and not shotgun/claymore like systems.

Sure but are still at a major disadvantage compared to Quick Kill as they relay on head to head attacks on the incoming threat. Head to head against a KE penetrator is a nightmare scenario as you’re not going to do much but scratch it unless you can summon up a lot of kinetic energy in your hard kill (HK) device, which is highly unlikely. Quick Kill because of its vertical launch attacks from above so has the advantage of Newtonian physics on its side!

[/QUOTE]So how far away is it going to be able to intercept a modern fast KE (With more than 1700m/s)?
Should be further away than an ATGM due to the higher speed.
If it is far enough I am surely impressed.[/QUOTE]

The modern western HK APS systems use phased array radars supported by FCS computers to detect and track the incoming warhead. The only limit on the range that incomings can be detected and tracked is how powerful the radars are. Radars are available that could detect and track any incoming from its launch (4-8km). The time required to plot the course of the incoming, calculate an intercept solution and fire the HK device is almost instantaneous. Now if Quick Kill can defeat an RPG-7 fired at point blank range it can complete the countermeasure cycle in under 1/10th of a second. As for the maximum engagement range of Quick Kill APS, it doesn’t have to be that far away from the vehicle to achieve countermeasure of an APFSDS/LOSAT threat. 10-20m should be more than enough.

 

[AGRA]

I think one can hardly underestimate the advantage provided the longer barrel of the PZH and it's kind. Exalibur's block I ought to achieve roughly 40km out of an 39cal barrel while it gets at least 50km out of an 52cal one. If we assume a firing field of 120% this means that the longer barrel covers with the same degree of accuracy a roughly 950 km^2 larger area. Or 2616 km^2 vs 1 674 km^2 - this a huge gap in performance. If the wole area around the piece of artillery has to be considered, quite likely in an mission like Afghanistan than the PZH can cover a staggering 7 850 km^2 of ground.

Except the PzH2000s don’t have the Block II Excaliburs to do that, Block I Excalibur which is in service does not have the range capacity you quote. Dutch PzH2000s are firing 3 round MRSI missions in the Ghan out to around 20km maximum range. To cover wider areas they simply drive their “Green Monsters” out further. Anyone crazy enough to challenge their maneuver will get a couple of direct fire 155s for their troubles… They are very, very effective even limited to 1,256 km2 (all Afghan artillery work is to a full 6400 mils…)

Ideally the US Field Artillery would be introducing the M2001 Crusader into service now with L56 barrel… But NLOS-C even with its L38 barrel will still be more capable than other SP155s thanks to its use of more capable munitions.

Given the fluid and spreadout nature of nature of modern warfare it means that ambushed units who might get instant artillery support by an PZH can not expect the same when their army is supported by th NLOS-C. The FCS pays thus a heavy price for being light and with a smaller logistic footprint.

If so they deserve it. Artillery is not some static, limited beast no matter what range your gun system is, be it 10km range L5 pack howitzers or 150km range AGS DD(X) you move them to be able to support your combat forces. If they leave the cover of artillery fire then they can get overrun for being so stupid.

What the US-Army lacks is IMHO a truck-mounted long artillery piece like the Ceasar, the Atmos or - better - the Archer. While not as well protected as the NLOS-C the first two cost far less and are even equally light and easy to maintain but come with longer range...

Except for when the enemy is shooting back at you. That’s when you pay for your gun-on-a-truck cost cutting… Also the NLOS-c only needs a crew of two, the Caesar types need crews of 6-7. As for easy to maintain, well that’s debatable for the vehicle system, the FCS MGV hybrid, band track vehicle will be very easy to maintain even compared to a 10 tonne truck.

 

[Vindex]

Hen and egg

Ideally the US Field Artillery would be introducing the M2001 Crusader into service now with L56 barrel… But NLOS-C even with its L38 barrel will still be more capable than other SP155s thanks to its use of more capable munitions.

Excalibur seems to be right now the best blend of range and consistent accuracy, and has made perhaps greater strides than similar projects. Guided artillery munitions are a great challange but one which has been already tackled by other countries. Rheinmetall was able to overcome many of the fundamental problems of such a projectile by developing the SMart which has of course a different aim to fit NATO's purpose back than.

Still I'm convinced that this package ( NLOS-C and Excalibur) will loose a great deal of terrain and will be overtaken by other combinations.

If so they deserve it. Artillery is not some static, limited beast no matter what range your gun system is, be it 10km range L5 pack howitzers or 150km range AGS DD(X) you move them to be able to support your combat forces. If they leave the cover of artillery fire then they can get overrun for being so stupid.

Yes, stupid the may well be. But stupidity has a larger margin of safety when the arm of the artillery reaches longer.

Except for when the enemy is shooting back at you. That’s when you pay for your gun-on-a-truck cost cutting… Also the NLOS-c only needs a crew of two, the Caesar types need crews of 6-7. As for easy to maintain, well that’s debatable for the vehicle system, the FCS MGV hybrid, band track vehicle will be very easy to maintain even compared to a 10 tonne truck.

Of course a simple gun-on-a-truck is outmatched when the enemy can detect your artillery and shoot back in earnest. I personally like them because there are lot of places and bridges in the world where their light weight allows them to go. Their carrier can be chosen to fit the truck mainstay of a force. It is currently a good deal lighter than the NLOS-C (16.1t/18.5t) vs (22t-24/?t).
They are perfectly suited to deal with insurgents and smaller operation and to give strong artillery support after the enemies main abilities of hitting back have been crippled.

In the end we will see how good the NLOS-C really becomes.