Idea for future tank/apc

[Waylander]

@Feanor
We are still talking about a Stryker here. Putting several .50cal RCWS is going to be a challenge let alone everyone of them mounting more than one M2.
One could put one quad pack onto it but I fail to see the advantages compared to an autocannone with modern programmable ammo.

@Twinblade
What you envision is a weapons carrier. Apart from the fact that all these weapons will hardly fit onto a much larger platform it will still remain a small vehicle for infantry support.
You are not going to be able to perform modern armoured/mechanized operations with it.

The same way a platoon of Wiesel weapon carriers is not going to form a wedge and make an armoured assault over tank friendly terrain.

 

[kato]

Quite seriously, a real future tank - meant for mechanized warfare?

20-25 years down the line we'd still be looking at a big-gun vehicle there, presumably with a high-energy ETC gun pushing long-rod penetrators out at up to 3 km/s (with say around 25 MJ) in order to try to overcome directional active defense systems.
Optimized FCS linked into a full battle network; in combination with the possibility of terminal guidance possibly with some limited indirect fire AT capability; depending on recoil forces, elevation ranges etc with combat ranges twice the current ones. FCS might be semi-automatized along the lines of what VT1-2 had in the 70s; target and threat priority assignment by TC followed by automatic fire on target once the weapon system assumes optimal circumstances.
Defense would be layered; at the very least we're looking at short-range active defensive systems with reaction times in the dimension of 10^-5 s using blast effects for interception, possibly - depending on size of the carrier - coupled with a standoff intercept capability against such systems as artillery-borne EFP submunitions, and improved countermeasure systems - perhaps longer-persisting multispectral clouds.

Other than that it will look like... a tank.

 

[Feanor]

@Feanor
We are still talking about a Stryker here. Putting several .50cal RCWS is going to be a challenge let alone everyone of them mounting more than one M2.
One could put one quad pack onto it but I fail to see the advantages compared to an autocannone with modern programmable ammo.

Bahcha-U is a 100mm main gun, coaxial 30mm autocannon, and a coaxial 7.62 iirc PKT. Something along those lines could be mounted on a Stryker chassis. Say a 25mm bushmaster with a coaxial 7.62 (like the LAV-25) but in an unmanned turret.

 

[Waylander]

Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about mounting several multi barrel RCWS onto the same roof.
Something like your proposal is possible and might come in handy in some situations. IMHO more versatile than the MGS module.

 

[Feanor]

Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about mounting several multi barrel RCWS onto the same roof.
Something like your proposal is possible and might come in handy in some situations. IMHO more versatile than the MGS module.

Well it really would be little more then upgrading the current LAV-25 combat module (I don't know what the actual name is) to be remote-operated from inside the hull. It may warrant redesigning the turret to be smaller, given that it no longer needs to house a gunner. You could also slave a Mk-19 to the same FCS, or even a single-shot ATGM tube.

There may even be merit to two such modules on a single heavy tracked chassis, for direct fire support, similar to the early BMPT prototypes, one of which mounted two 30mm guns in independent turrets. The advantage would be better SA in a MOUT environment, where you have to deal with a 3-dimensional battlefield.

EDIT: Of course the other advantage would be more fire power. But that's sort of obvious.

 

[riksavage]

With the wide variety of potential future scenarios and terrain, from desert to mountain, and need to have a tracked vehicle which is light enough to be lifted by C17/A400, why not develop a hybrid tank/SPA. A tracked vehicle mounting a M777 155mm derived gun system capable of firing HE, APDS, Canister, illumination, smart munitions. One which can be used for indirect fire and direct fire missions. Mount the gun externally firing a CTA type ammo reducing the size of the breach mechanism and magazine..

With countries like Holland ditching MBT's and the growing number of UCAV's and unmanned ground systems on offer, there may not be the money or the will to purchase the full spectrum of specialized tracked vehicles (MLRS, Tank, SPA) in the future.

Afghanistan has proved the worth of both artillery (FOB batteries) and tanks for use in the direct fire role supporting infantry on the ground. Having a tracked vehicle which can do both, would be useful and hopefully kill two birds with one stone. Having scalable armour packages could allow for upgrading and downgradign of armour to suit the threat (RPG or main battle tank).

Alternatively you could develop a common hull and have two turret options (one SPA, one direct fire). Send the chassis and turrets to theatre and plug and play to suit the mission. Going back to Afghanistan you may require indirect support one day and direct the next. I'm sure a rig could be assembled, which would allow for the rapid removal of a turret unit. With IEDS being such an issue you are more likely to see a damaged hull than turret unit, being able to lift the undamaged turret out and insert it in an undamaged hull whilst still on the ground would be practical and reduce the supply chain burden.

 

[Waylander]

That's hardly doable. A modern SPH comes at a combat weight of tons+. And this is with little armor protection against direct fire weapons, a mediocre mobility, no stabilisation and an FCS which can't cope with fire on the move.
Give it all these things and you probably hit the 90 tons mark.

And these are only the technical problems.

Having such a vehicle for two roles brings several problems to the table. The crews need to be proficient in two roles. I highly doubt that you can make excellent tankers and gunners out of the same crew. There's also the problem of employment. When you use these tanks in the tank role they are not available for indirect fire support and vice versa.

The current vehicles are at least deployable via C-17. Sharing several components between your combat vehicles is nice and reduces the logistical strain.

But trying to shoehorn several very different roles into one common hull, especially when it needs to be a relatively light one is a disaster waiting to come true. Examples for this are the US FCS and UK FRES programs.

As you are from the UK you should know how many billions have been sunk into the development of new AFVs and how many vehicles were actually procured.

IIRC you have been an infantry guy. Do you think you would have made a good gunbunny at the same time? And do you think you could have trained for both roles sufficiently?

 

[riksavage]

That's hardly doable. A modern SPH comes at a combat weight of tons+. And this is with little armor protection against direct fire weapons, a mediocre mobility, no stabilisation and an FCS which can't cope with fire on the move.
Give it all these things and you probably hit the 90 tons mark.

And these are only the technical problems.

Having such a vehicle for two roles brings several problems to the table. The crews need to be proficient in two roles. I highly doubt that you can make excellent tankers and gunners out of the same crew. There's also the problem of employment. When you use these tanks in the tank role they are not available for indirect fire support and vice versa.

The current vehicles are at least deployable via C-17. Sharing several components between your combat vehicles is nice and reduces the logistical strain.

But trying to shoehorn several very different roles into one common hull, especially when it needs to be a relatively light one is a disaster waiting to come true. Examples for this are the US FCS and UK FRES programs.

As you are from the UK you should know how many billions have been sunk into the development of new AFVs and how many vehicles were actually procured.

IIRC you have been an infantry guy. Do you think you would have made a good gunbunny at the same time? And do you think you could have trained for both roles sufficiently?

U.S. Army Picks BAE, GD for Ground Combat Vehicle - Defense News

Interesting decision, GD and BAE being selected over Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and Rheinmetall (offering Puma).

Both BAE and GD tendered for the FRES SV and Warrior upgrade programme. It will be interesting to see if both offer up the CT40 Case Telescoped Weapon System (CTWS) cannon. I bloody hope so, becaue the knock-on financial benefits for both the UK & France will be huge if the US opt for the same. CT40 could end up being the weapon of choice for future NATO AFV's.

All the money thrown at FRES might actually produce a positive for once. Then again the UK MOD might now delay FRES SV and see what the US opt for and hope for a slice of the pie through the UK BAE/GD business.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Both BAE and GD tendered for the FRES SV and Warrior upgrade programme. It will be interesting to see if both offer up the CT40 Case Telescoped Weapon System (CTWS) cannon. I bloody hope so, becaue the knock-on financial benefits for both the UK & France will be huge if the US opt for the same. CT40 could end up being the weapon of choice for future NATO AFV's.

The US Spec for the GCV requires a 30x173mm Bushmaster gun. So it is very unlikely they will change midstream for a 40mm CTA gun. Even if they did there would be little benefit to the UK & France in this. The USA owns the IP for CTA technology so the UK & France have to pay a license fee to the US for the ammo. No doubt they gun design would just be licensed to a US company. The end result: 50/50.

 

[riksavage]

The US Spec for the GCV requires a 30x173mm Bushmaster gun. So it is very unlikely they will change midstream for a 40mm CTA gun. Even if they did there would be little benefit to the UK & France in this. The USA owns the IP for CTA technology so the UK & France have to pay a license fee to the US for the ammo. No doubt they gun design would just be licensed to a US company. The end result: 50/50.

I was hoping the CTA would be considered because of the long term potential price reductions on ammo for signed up users. Plus it increases the likelihood of other NATO countries opting for the same as standard. If nothing else work done by both GD & BAE in integrating the 40mm into a manned turret should hopefully count for something, I would like to see how it compares to the 30x173mm (destructive power, range, breach footprint in the turret, stowabiltiy of ammo etc.).

I wonder whether the US decision to not go with Puma was influenced by their preference for a manned over an unmanned turret for AFV's?

 

[Waylander]

This article Defense News Mobile says that every team may get a 450 million development contract.

With their Lance turret the KMW/Rheinmetall/Boeing team could easily offer a manned turret for their bid if the US Army prefers a manned solution.

 

[riksavage]

This article Defense News Mobile says that every team may get a 450 million development contract.

With their Lance turret the KMW/Rheinmetall/Boeing team could easily offer a manned turret for their bid if the US Army prefers a manned solution.

I would of thought the Puma was the obvious front runner because R&D costs would be lower, the vehicles already in production and like you say it can be fitted with a manned turret. With current belt tightening the US can't afford any financial blowouts so why not go with something already proven, which can then be localized.

Rheinmetall Landsysteme are building the turret for FRES SV and I'm sure (should the US ever consider CT40) the same could be adapted for the Puma chassis.

 

[My2Cents]

With the wide variety of potential future scenarios and terrain, from desert to mountain, and need to have a tracked vehicle which is light enough to be lifted by C17/A400, why not develop a hybrid tank/SPA. A tracked vehicle mounting a M777 155mm derived gun system capable of firing HE, APDS, Canister, illumination, smart munitions. One which can be used for indirect fire and direct fire missions. Mount the gun externally firing a CTA type ammo reducing the size of the breach mechanism and magazine.

Why not go the other way and modify the mount for the 120mm tank gun for greater elevation to permit long range indirect fire? Sure, it will not have the punch of a 155mm, but is that really necessary given the performance improvement from precision guided munitions, even for area bombardment? :type

Also, you might want to think about a split turret instead of an external mount. An external mount creates all kinds of problems with mounting sensors, antennas, secondary weaponry, and external storage. Take a look at where those are on a tank, every one of them is on the turret roof or the bustle!

 

[Berkut]

I think a dual purpose smaller Rail gun system would suit your IFV quite well.
especially as I am guessing you will be powering the beasty withsome type of high output electrical system.
Also the rail gun would be so much more brutal against aerial attack. I hope the air con unit does not fail for the guys inside. Rail gun runs hot man!!!

 

[My2Cents]

I think a dual purpose smaller Rail gun system would suit your IFV quite well.
especially as I am guessing you will be powering the beasty withsome type of high output electrical system.
Also the rail gun would be so much more brutal against aerial attack. I hope the air con unit does not fail for the guys inside. Rail gun runs hot man!!!

It depends on what you assume the opposing force will be, but a Cold War classic mechanized army does not seem likely anymore.

Rail guns are very effective as anti-armor weapons, and can be moderately effective against structures using appropriate ammunition. The velocity does give rail guns a longer effective range than conventional guns against aerial targets with about equal per shot damage, but the rate of fire is no greater than an equivalent conventional weapon due to bore cooling and erosion issues, and that is very important against aircraft. The weakness of rail guns is a poor ability to engage infantry, excessive penetration vs. HE or HEAT in urban terrain, and a limited capability for indirect fire. Terminally guided munitions are probably not going to be practicle. Overall weight for equivalent systems appear about equal when power conditioning and ammunition is included, but the power conditioning will probably have to be build into the turret with the gun.

I suspect that a semi-conventional cannon using electrothermal assisted combustion will prove a better choice as a general purpose weapon due to a greater selection of munitions.

 

[Kilo 2-3]

I think a dual purpose smaller Rail gun system would suit your IFV quite well.
especially as I am guessing you will be powering the beasty withsome type of high output electrical system.
Also the rail gun would be so much more brutal against aerial attack. I hope the air con unit does not fail for the guys inside. Rail gun runs hot man!!!

If someone who's a bit handier with physics wants to take a crack at power consumption and generation figures for AFV-sized engines and a hypothetical railgun, by all means go ahead.

My hunch on this one is that it'd be fairly challenging to build a sufficiently powerful AFV-portable railgun without running into performance and weight tradeoffs.

I think the assertion about improved lethality of railguns vs. air targets is a bit of a moot issue. To the best of my knowledge, most modern railgun development, most notably that of the US Navy, has been focused on surface-to-surface engagements.

Railguns have a number of drawbacks that make them poor surface-to-air weapons. Against fast-moving, aggressively maneuvering targets a railgun's low rate of fire is a serious liability. Unless they can achieve first-hit accuracy, they're unlikely to get a second shot off. And getting that level of accuracy would require significant sensors, optics and fire control systems, adding weight and complexity which would be better used on armor, ammunition and infantry capacity.

Secondly, their energy demands require relatively large powerplants to run them, which in turn generate large IR signatures when active, making the AFV even more vulnerable on the battlefield.

Furthermore, AFVs don't fight in a vacuum on the battlefield. MBTs, APCs and armored bulldozers all fulfill specific, limited roles for a reason. Alone, a center or a goalie wouldn't stand a chance in a soccer match; but when working together, the players form an effective, deadly team.

The battlefield works much the same way. "Combined arms" warfare, with air, naval, and ground forces all cooperating the in the same battlespace has been a major part of modern military doctrine for decades. For this reason, our hypothetical AFV doesn't have to corner itself shooting down planes. Instead, it can let friendly MANPADS, SAMs, and fighters establish and maintain air superiority, while it focuses on its main jobs: supporting the infantry and winning the ground war.