# Family of Future Combat Vehicles



## AIC_2K5

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2692230&C=america

"The Army still intends to field a predominately wheeled vehicle fleet in the future. However, Riffou said the service recognizes the need for heavier tracked vehicles."



Seems unclear whether project is intended to supplement or replace LAV fleet, although since timing is in sync with U.K. Army FRES and USA FCS, one would assume the latter.


----------



## McG

I've heard, from DLR, that part of this project might include converting some of our 100 planned Leo 2 in to variants.  From the tank project there will not be enough ARV and there will be no Engr variants.


----------



## geo

MCG,
With the phase out of the C2s in favor of the A6Ms, there will be plenty of "spare parts" to keep the ARVs and AEVs going for a little while longer.

Thought I read somewhere that the Royal Marines have just retired their Centurion ARV they used to keep their beaches neat & tidy.

There's still a bit of life left in the Leo1 variants.....


----------



## McG

I really could not make an informed comment on the logistic side of things.  I have heard people talk about Euro-packs, but it has only been talk.  So, I don't know.


----------



## FEEOP042

Deleted by Mod due to OPSEC concerns


CHIMO


----------



## ArmyRick

If the US pull of the manned ground vehicle family as part of their FCS, I think it might be wise to piggy back on that. Or we could wait to see how FRES turns out for the UK.

You don't need the perfect vehicle platform as one of my friends just back from the stan said, it all matters HOW it is employed...


----------



## McG

If we were to offer development money now, it could be possible to ensure that any unique Canadian capability requirements get designed into the vehicle & it could ensure that some vehicle production goes to Canadian business.  We did this for F-35.


----------



## geo

Careful MCG

some people would say you are encouraging a boondoggle  >


----------



## McG

There are certainly risks, but we've given ourselves a little more time to reach the endstate because we bought the new tanks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US seems to like the M1117 for their MP’s and convoy escorts, and is planning to buy more of them. Has any thought been given to specialized vehicles for the our MP’s?  

The UK FRES program bought the IVECO vehicle didn’t it?


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Has any thought been given to specialized vehicles for the our MP’s?


The FFCV will consist of more than a single platform.  It will (as a minimum) have light, medium & heavy systems.


----------



## Mountie

I think the Alvis Hagglunds SEP Modular Armoured Vehicle is worth taking a look at for a FFCV.  The tracked version provides the mobility of a tracked vehicle while also maintaining many of the advantages of a wheeled vehicle.  The rubber band tracks, suspension system and hybrid electric engine allow for higher speeds, less noise, reduced logistics, etc.  



http://www.baesystems.se/default.asp

It seems that Alvis Hagglunds is moving to a "Modular Chassis" design for the Army of the Future - probably something similar to the American FCS.

Are we getting on this bandwagon, or are we going to continue to by land systems piecemeal, thereby ensuring that we field 4 or 5 different chassis with the requisite increased logistical footprint, O&M, training costs, etc.

---
SEP
 SEP (Swedish abbreviation for "Splitterskyddad EnhetsPlattformâ ?, Modular Armoured Tactical System) is a modular multi-role vehicle system. SEP combines the high valued parameters:
- Low systemcost
- Low signature
- High mobility
- High flexibility
- High reliability
- Extremely high load capacity (weight/volume)in relation to vehicle weight/volume into a system for the future armed forces.

SEP Modular concept 
Background 
The modular design allows the vehicle to be configured for more than twenty different roles including armoured personnel carrier, command post, ambulance, medical vehicle, anti-tank missile system, anti aircraft missile system, mortar vehicle, reconnaissance, forward observation vehicle, nuclear, biological and chemical warfare decontamination centre, mine clearing and mine scattering, recovery and repair, communication post, radar, electronic warfare.


The mission or role specific modules can be fitted on both the SEP-track and SEP wheel vehicle base units. Plug in building blocks will be used allowing fast adaptation to different tasks and quick upgrades as new technologies become available.

The electric transmission system (i.e. the drive shafts have been replaced by cable and the power from the engines is transferred by cable) gives a number of advantages including volume efficiency, fuel efficiency, reduced life cycle costs, reduced environmental impact and increased stealth characteristics. The engine is decoupled from the final drives allowing flexibility in the placing of systems in the vehicle and also easily allows two engines to be installed instead of one. Batteries are integrated into the electric drive system which allows the vehicle to be driven silently with the engines shut down. 

The useable internal volume of 10 cubic metres in the role module is substantially increased over a conventionally powered vehicle of a similar length. The SEP fully laden weight is 16,6 tonnes and the load capacity is up to 6 tonnes. The top speed for the wheeled and tracked variants are 100 kilometres per hour and for the wheeled variant 85 kilometres per hour. The dimensions of the vehicle 5.9 metres, width 2.7 metres and height 1.9 metres for the tracked version and 2.0 metres for the wheeled version give the vehicle a low profile and signature.

DEVELOPMENT
Studies on the SEP began in 1995 and the first SEP-track demonstrator was delivered to the Swedish Defence Materiel administration Forsvarets materialverk (FMV) in November 2000 for trials and evaluation. By 2003 the vehicle had covered over 2,000 kilometres in various trials. In September 2001, FMV placed a contract on Hägglunds for the development of the wheeled version of SEP and a wheeled variant prototype demonstrator, SEP-wheel, was delivered to FMV in 2003. In 2003 FMV placed a risk reduction contract on Hägglunds involving the construction of a second tracked SEP testbed vehicle among a lot of different risk reduction activities. 

In a parallel program, Hägglunds was also co-ordinating the industrial effort in a six nation, All Electric Vehicle project with the participation of Finland, Holland, Italy, Greece, Sweden and Turkey. 


WHEELED SEP
The SEP-Wheeled vehicle has 3 axles and is driven through all six wheels. The propulsion system is based on two engines with electric transmission and with integrated 100 kW maximum power, permanent magnet type, electric motors in the wheel hubs. The motors are fitted with a two speed reduction gear.

The wheels are mounted with double cast-steel wishbones with short torsion bar spring. The front wheels are steered normally, the centre wheels are not steered and the rear wheels are steered to provide steering at low to medium speeds and to cut out the rear wheel steering at high road speeds to maintain high speed stability. The wheels are fitted with 405/70 type R24 tires.




SEP Winter 
Background TRACKED SEP
The tracked vehicles are fitted with rubber bandtracks rather than conventional steel link tracks. The band tracks are lighter, quieter and have a longer operational life. The noise developed by the running gear is reduced. The operational life is about twice that of an equivalent steel linked track, contributing to lower life-cycle costs. Bandtracks also have a lower rolling resistance. The lower rolling resistance and the efficiency of the engines and electric transmission systems give the vehicle higher fuel efficiency.


Band track technology has been used previously by Hägglunds on the Bv206 articulated carriers which use short track length bandtracks. The longer life of the bandtracks gives advantages in lower maintenance requirements and in lower costs. The logistical requirements of judging wear, carrying spare tracks and replacing band tracks in the field will be confirmed during development trials. 

In the SEP-tracked vehicle the suspension is mounted to the underframe and not on the side frames, so the suspension is separated from the hull. A result of using a decoupled suspension and bandtracks is that the internal noise level is as low as 85dB which is sufficiently low to meet civilian vehicle noise requirements. 

The suspension being mounted on the underframe also provides a spaced outer layer which gives improved protection against mines. The SEP vehicle can withstand a 7 kilogram TNT explosion under a track. 

The vehicles are capable of operation in a many different types of terrain
and in a wide range of climatic conditions. 

ELECTRONICS
The vehicle uses a new electronic architecture developed by Hägglunds, based on an open scalable, fault tolerant databus which manages all the on-board systems and the crew interfaces including the weapons systems, battlefield management, defensive aids suite, built in test, digital radio communications and other mission or role specific systems. 

CREW STATIONS
The SEP design incorporates built in component redundancy, for example there are duplicate crew stations and the vehicle is able to continue operations with only one of the two diesel engines running. 

The crew stations and the SEP man-machine interface is subject to detailed studies in the ongoing Risk reduction contract. Much effort will be learnt from the collaborative project VETEC by Hägglunds of Sweden and Diehl Geräte of Germany and which was sponsored by the Swedish Defence Materiel administration FÃƒÂ¶rsvarets materialverk (FMV) and the German Federal Office for Defence Technology and Procurement 

STEALTH

The new electric drive vehicle SEP has greatly improved stealth characteristics in terms of thermal and acoustic signatures as well as low visual and radar signatures. The continuous rubber band tracks are very much quieter and lighter than conventional steel tracks.

ENGINES
The SEP uses two commercially available diesel engines placed in the sponsons of the vehicle. This gives the advantage of a totally clear central volume of the vehicle compared with traditional build with a large engine compartment interfering. 


PROTECTION
The different zones of the vehicle have different levels of ballistic protection. With the highest level of protection for the personnel compartment. The hull is of high hardness steel armour construction rated to protect against shell fragments and rifle rounds. The 1.5 tonnes add on armour includes ceramic tiles and provides protection against 14.5 mm armour piercing rounds. Heavier armour provides protection against 30 mm armour piercing fin stabilised discarding sabot (30 mm APPFSDS) rounds.


SPECIFICATION
Empty weight 10.1 tonnes
Maximum fully laden weight 16.6 tonnes

Crew 2
Length 5.9 metres
Height tracked SEP 1.9 metres
Height wheeled SEP 2.0 metres
Width 2.7 metres 
Air transportable within C-130 envelope

Power
Diesel engines 2


Performance
Forward speed tracked SEP 85 kilometres per hour
Forward speed wheeled SEP 100 kilometres per hour
Operational life 30 years

Payload, universal load carrier 6 tonnes
Payload, personnel transport 4.5 tonnes
Number soldiers, APC role 12 soldiers
Internal volume 13 cubic metres
Role volume 10 cubic metres 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 SEP_Wheel_nr_1.jpg (49.58 KB, 450x300 - viewed 616 times.)


----------



## EX COELIS

Wheels are a cheap alternative to the real thing.  Either do it right or don't do it at all.  I didn't see allot of wheeled Combat vehicle's during my time in then West Germany. With the exception of Recce vehicle's like the Luch's ( Good vehicle, but squeaky brakes). Now we're paying a heavy cost for our change in tactical combat assessments of Operations to come; and it ain't going to be Peace Keeping.  We're learning the hard way. But on the other hand, something is better than nothing.


----------



## geo

Ex
For the most part, Canada probably has more tracked vehicles in use, in theatre, than it's other NATO partners.


----------



## EX COELIS

Interesting.  Besides the Leo C2's and engineer spin offs, what other tracked wheels are currently is use by the current deployment?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Besides the Leo C2's and engineer spin offs, what other tracked wheels are currently is use by the current deployment?



T-LAVs


----------



## EX COELIS

Roger that. Cheers
PS I was wondering where those M113's went to.  Buddy of mine said they sent them over.  Should have known they'd change the name to hide the fact that they're still using a 30 year old piece of kit.  I should have known better.


----------



## geo

Ex
The Brits do have the FV107 Scimitar with it's 30mm RADEN canon as a recce / gun platform - they also run lots of Armed land roversA fifth of the fleet is damaged or has been destroyed by enemy fire, he added, but more would be arriving soon.  Another vehicle, a Pinzgauer, has been fitted with extra armour to try to cover the shortfall, but there is a limit to the number of men and the amount of equipment they can carry. 
And the strain was increased because extra troops had recently been deployed without extra vehicles.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Roger that. Cheers
> PS I was wondering where those M113's went to.  Buddy of mine said they sent them over.  Should have known they'd change the name to hide the fact that they're still using a 30 year old piece of kit.  I should have known better.



Ah but they are completely refurb though  ;D and gone are the tiller bars.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

geo said:
			
		

> Ex
> The Brits do have the FV107 Scimitar with it's 30mm RADEN canon as a recce / gun platform - they also run lots of Armed land roversA fifth of the fleet is damaged or has been destroyed by enemy fire, he added, but more would be arriving soon.  Another vehicle, a Pinzgauer, has been fitted with extra armour to try to cover the shortfall, but there is a limit to the number of men and the amount of equipment they can carry.
> And the strain was increased because extra troops had recently been deployed without extra vehicles.



Which is about the same age as the M113, maybe older if you count the old Fox turrets.


----------



## McG

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Wheels are a cheap alternative to the real thing.  Either do it right or don't do it at all.  I didn't see allot of wheeled Combat vehicle's during my time in then West Germany.


But, we are not fighting the Soviets in West Germany.


----------



## EX COELIS

Very true.  However, are we not fighting in a more dangerous environment?  Involved in more unpreditable deployments?  Living in a more complex world where there is no defined enemy?  Shouldn't we be better equipped to deal with todays unknown threats?

In the Cold War days we knew what we were up against; their equipment, tactics, strengths, objectives, doctrine etc.  We don't have that luxury or template to work from in today's hostile environment.  So can it be said that we should be better equipped in what can be decribed as a more dangerous threat than we, as a Western nation, have ever encountered in the past?

Are cheap, 8 wheeled, lightly armoured series of vehicles up to the tasks that lay ahead?  Are we prepared to pay the price in body bags to find out?


----------



## McG

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Very true.  However, are we not fighting in a more dangerous environment?  Involved in more unpreditable deployments?  Living in a more complex world where there is no defined enemy?  Shouldn't we be better equipped to deal with todays unknown threats?


Yes, we should be properly equipped.  However, you've made an assumption that heavy tracked vehicles are universally better than medium wheeled vehicles & that this is simply a universal truth.  You are wrong.  Each comes with its own strengths & weaknesses.



			
				EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Are cheap, 8 wheeled, lightly armoured series of vehicles up to the tasks that lay ahead?


Oooo!  You’ve called wheels cheap.  That’s sold me.



			
				EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Are we prepared to pay the price in body bags to find out?


You are right.  We would be better to pay the price in body bags to determine if some other system is better simply because you’ve made an emotional plea that was completely devoid of any arguments linking the technical trade-offs to operational & tactical requirements.

Sorry if I seem blunt, but for such a tired debate as tracks vs. wheels, we typically expect a deeper level of argument than one’s emotional examination of what did or did not work when the two way range of the Cold War did not go live.


----------



## ArmyRick

I am going to back McG here.

Ex-ex coelis, do you have any idea the capability of the LAVIII with a 25mm chain gun, 7.62mm co-axial MG?
Do you not realize the body count would be much higher if they had been using grizzly or M113s?

Wheels aint the issue.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

EX COELIS said:
			
		

> Roger that. Cheers
> PS I was wondering where those M113's went to.  Buddy of mine said they sent them over.  Should have known they'd change the name to hide the fact that they're still using a 30 year old piece of kit.  I should have known better.



Wrong again. About the only similarity to a M113, without going into specifics, is the shape.


----------



## a_majoor

The British also have some "Warrior" IFV's in theater, but they may have the same problem they had with the Warrior in Bosnia: crappy narrow roads and bridges which cannot support the weight of the vehicle.

There are numerous solutions to military problems, and really it is the human factor rather than wheels, tracks or weight of armour which makes a difference. In Iraq, the British used Land Rover 110's during the first Persian Gulf War for long range patrolling behind the lines, and are using them today along the Iran Iraq border, as well as in Afghanistan. Other nations use different systems, organizations and TTP's to deal with the situation in the way they deem most suitable. They are "light" while we have the ability to bring a complete mechanized combat team into the fight. On the other hand it is often more productive to bring a dentist along rather than a tank, due to the nature of the operation.

Going back to the FFCV; I am also of the opinion that the SEV can be the basis for most of our light and medium vehicle needs: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27679/post-188549.html#msg188549


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting piece of information from the UK. The youtube video is interesting in how the vehicle can "morph" to minimize IED damage, has on board UAV capability and attacks targets using "smart" munitions.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/03/uk-military-robot-plans.html



> The MOD's research needs the plan also introduces five Capability Visions designed to stimulate new technologies and new uses of existing ones.
> 
> They are:
> 
> • Reducing the burden on the dismounted soldier – challenging industry to lighten the load on a soldier to 25kg while maintaining and improving personal protection levels
> 
> • Future Protected Vehicle – lightweight vehicles to achieve the effectiveness and survivability of a main battle tank. (Watch a computer animation of the Future Protected Vehicles in action in a simulated battle scenario.)
> 
> • Reducing operational dependency on fossil fuels – finding options for alternative sources of energy supply, management and use in future operations
> 
> • Novel Air Concept – a cost effective, reusable uninhabited air system that operates within the urban landscape
> 
> • Electronics Defeat – understanding the threats of and to sophisticated electronic systems and information technology and how they can be protected against.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFbbc00jnbQ&eurl=http://nextbigfuture.com/2009_03_01_archive.html


----------



## geo

Amaazing what you can do with computer graphics..... doesn't always work out in real world though.....

Vaporware ?


----------



## a_majoor

True, I forgot to put in "proposed" or "conceptual". Still, an interesting look at what others are thinking about.


----------



## geo

I'm holding out for a "death ray"


----------



## ArmyRick

I am still in favor of getting on board with the US FCS Manned Ground Vehicle program.


----------



## Mountie

That would have been great.  I hate to burst your bubble but Defence Secretary Robert Gates just made a press release on the future budget.  FCS manned ground vehicles have been cancelled and they are rethinking the concept.  There is a post on this site, it was in the current events yesterday.  But its all over the internet.  Its hasn't happened yet, its just a budget proposal that the program be cut.  It may not get passed, but still.  A lot of wasted money if it does.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Gate’s has certainly attacked many a sacred cow, I suspect he knows that congress will grind him to get some reinstated, which likely he will be ordered to by his “Oneness”


----------



## ArmyRick

At this point it is a reccomendation. Here are my thoughts on cancelling the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the program.
1. How long will the US stretch out the usage for the Bradley, Abrams and Paladin series? These vehicles have been in service for 25-30 years.
2. They already cancelled the crusader SPH (under the previous Bush admin) and I beleive they were looking into a future MBT weighing 44 tons that also got cancelled. Is every administration simply going to cancel the previous governments programs? They will end up like the CF using vehicles for 40 years (Our M113s). 
3. They want to cancel because the vehicle does not refelct the reality of the situation today in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK who actually knows what the reality of 2015 today? Will they be fighting in jungles again? Maybe in some mountainous regions? Maybe it will be an actual unifomred and recognized army. In the year 2000, nobody knew the US would be doing extensive ops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think preparing a general capable combat force is what you MUST do and then tailor the SOP and tactics to the threat as required.

I guess my big point here is either FCS MGV or a new family of armoured vehicles is needed for the US. They need to get on with it and start making these things so that come 2020 or 2025, the american troops aren't driving 45 year old relics that have been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> At this point it is a reccomendation. Here are my thoughts on cancelling the Manned Ground Vehicle portion of the program.
> 1. How long will the US stretch out the usage for the Bradley, Abrams and Paladin series? These vehicles have been in service for 25-30 years.
> 2. They already cancelled the crusader SPH (under the previous Bush admin) and I beleive they were looking into a future MBT weighing 44 tons that also got cancelled. Is every administration simply going to cancel the previous governments programs? They will end up like the CF using vehicles for 40 years (Our M113s).
> 3. They want to cancel because the vehicle does not refelct the reality of the situation today in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK who actually knows what the reality of 2015 today? Will they be fighting in jungles again? Maybe in some mountainous regions? Maybe it will be an actual unifomred and recognized army. In the year 2000, nobody knew the US would be doing extensive ops in Afghanistan and Iraq. I think preparing a general capable combat force is what you MUST do and then tailor the SOP and tactics to the threat as required.
> 
> I guess my big point here is either FCS MGV or a new family of armoured vehicles is needed for the US. They need to get on with it and start making these things so that come 2020 or 2025, the american troops aren't driving 45 year old relics that have been rebuilt 3 or 4 times.



Barring some breakthrough in technology I would expect to see the basic fleet of the US Army (especially the M1) serving for the next thirty years. I would expect that those vehicles would still be upgraded and rebuilt, and I am not sure what is wrong with that. A new design is not necessarily more capable just because it is new.


----------



## ArmyRick

What about the vehicles themselves? I am not an expert (far from it). 
How many times can you re-build or do a life extension on an AFV before its simply too old? 

Those in the know would appreciate your input (if you don't know, then don't speculate because I am capable of doing that on my own)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the equipment attached to the hull can be upgraded, the turret can be upgraded or replaced. The problem happens when the hulls beginning to crack. I wonder for the M1’s if they could restart a slow build of new hulls. The design works well and new hulls with slight changes to incorporate lesson learned might be worthwhile. I am not sure of the status of the production line. These decisions might effect sales of the tank to Iraq if there is no new production as the Army may decide they need to stockpile the hulls and turrets. They do currently have a program to rebuild armoured vehicles being brought back, I have seen pictures of trainloads of stripped hulls and turrets being transported to factories for repairs. Likely they do electronic/ X-ray type examination of the main components to determine which hulls are repairable.


----------



## Mountie

I've been following the FCS program pretty closely.  From everything that I've read the weight of Manned Ground Vehicles was to be 24-28 tons.  They gave up the hope of transporting them in C-130 Hercules and chose to up the armour a little.  You also have to remember that some of the reduced weight is due to other factors than armour reduction.  The rubber tracks weigh less than the old steel tracks, the remote weapons turret weighs less the current turret, the hybrid-electric engine weighs less then a conventional engine, the lower fuel requirement saves weight.  So when you compare them to the vehicles that they are replacing they basically weigh the same and offer just as much protection.  They are to protect against 30-45mm cannon fire over the frontal 60 degree arc and agains 14.5mm and 155mm shell fragments on the whole vehicle.  That's pretty much the same or better than the vehicles that it is designed to replace, with the exception of the MCV variant vs the M1A2 Abrams.  Then the active protection system protects against higher calibre rounds and anti-tank missiles.

M2 Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle 30 tons 
M3 Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle 30 tons
M109A6 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer 32 tons.
M113 Support Vehicles 12-13 tons (Command Post, Medical & Mortar Carrier)
M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank 70 tons
M88 Armoured Recovery Vehicle 70 tons (but the weight is only for recovering the M1 MBT not for protection) 

So in the end the FCS ICV and RSV variants provide basically the same protection as the Bradley IFV and CFV variants they would replace.  But they carry more infantry (9 vs 6 in the Bradley), more scouts and recce equipment (4 vs 2 in the Bradley, plus various surveillance systems), they travel faster and quieter (90 km/h vs 66 km/h for the Bradley) and have a better unrefuelled range (750 km vs 483 km for the Bradley). 

The support variants of the FCS: Command Vehicle, Medical Treatment Vehicle, Medical Evacuation Vehicle and NLOS-Mortar are actually much better protected and much better equipped then the M113 variants that they would replace.  

The NLOS-Cannon, which has already been completed, is equal in fire-power to the M109A6 Paladin, it is lighter but it has a crew of only 2 vs 4-5 on the Paladin and it is much faster (90 km/h vs 56 km/h) has a much longer unrefuelled range (750 km vs 350 km) and is much more digitilized, including an auto-loader capable of faster fire than the Paladin.  

The only big issue is the FCS Mounted Combat Vehicle that would replace the M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tank.  It weighs less than half the Abrams and completely relies on Active Protection to defeat enemy tank rounds and anti-tank missiles.  However, its still faster and quieter (90 km/h vs 68 km/h), it uses considerably less fuel (the biggest drawback to the Abrams is the massive fuel consumption) which gives it a bigger range (750 km vs 391 km) and its 120mm cannon is the same size as the Abrams but it has a non-line of sight range of 8 km vs a 4km for the Abrams' M256 cannon.  And of course the M88A2 Armoured Recovery vehicle has to weigh the same as the Abrams in order to recover it, but the FCS Mainteance Recovery Vehicle only needs to weigh 24-28 tons and has the same advantages in speed (90 km/h vs a very low 40 km/h for the M88) and carries more mechanics than the M88.

So when comparing the FCS MGVs to the vehicles and systems they would replace I don't think its such a huge mistake.  They seem to have similar protection other than the MCV/M1A2 Abrams.  So if the only issue is the MCV maybe only it should be re-evaluated?  The US Army claims that the new Stryker ICV is highly successful in Iraq and the Canadian Army has been successful with the LAV-III in Afghanistan and they are both lighter and have less protection than the FCS would.  So what is the huge problem?

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I am sure that the FCS program will deliver capabilities whether it is cancelled or not. The work that has been done will have benefits regardless (especially with the network aspect). I am very skeptical, though, of their ability to deliver an M1 replacement at half the weight. I just don't think that one size fits all with combat vehicles. With the other systems they will have to decide if improvements are worth the cost.


----------



## Mountie

Agreed.  So maybe they should just re-evaluate the MCV variant.  Maybe the MCV should be much heavier than all the other variants.  The Leopard 1 weighed 40-42 tonnes when it was arguably the best tank in NATO during the Cold War.  The Leopard 2A6M weighs 62 tonnes.  Would a MCV variant weighing 48-54 tonnes (twice the weight of the other variants 24-28 tonnes) be more acceptable?  The other argument is that if the FCS MGV armour can defeat RPG and heavy machine gun fire with its armour is that good enough?  In the types of combat that would see the FCS vehicles slugging it out with enemy tanks would the Active Protection System protect the vehicles?  

Counter-insurgency operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, for which the argument to cancel the FSC MGV program is being based, see the enemy using RPGs, mortars, heavy machine guns and small arms.  All of which the FCS MGV can protect against with its armour.  It only relies on its sophisticated Active Protection System to protect it against tank rounds and anti-tank guided missiles.  I don't think either of these weapons systems have been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan.  If they have, its been in very small numbers.  And in these rare cases the APS would defeat them.  Canada deployed the Leopard C2 very successfully in Afghanistan.  The Leopard C2 is basically a 'Medium Tank' weighing about 42 tonnes plus the MEXAS armour.  To my knowledge none of these tanks were lost to direct fire.  The problem was they were decades old, no air conditioning, lack of spare parts, etc.  But the actual armour protection I think was very adequate for a counter-insurgency operation.  

Tank rounds and anti-tank guided missiles would typically only be encountered in high-intensity warfare such as the original invasion of Iraq, or Operation Desert Storm, or a future conflict with North Korea, Iran, or another major nation.  It is this type of warfare that the Active Protection System was originally designed for.

So to conclude, the Stryker/LAV-III have been highly successful in counter-insurgency operations.  The FCS MCV variant has much better firepower than the Stryker Mobile Gun System and has much better protection.  Basically it has the protection of a Bradley with the firepower of an Abrams.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.   So beef up the armour on the MCV a little to the size of a so-called 'medium tank' like the Leopard C2 and let the Active Protection System do the job when something larger attacks it.  This would give you a vehicle with the armour and weight of a medium tank but with the total protection capability of a main battle tank.

Comments?  Thoughts?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

I do not pretend to know what the US decision-makers are thinking, but perhaps the rationale is that the current heavy fleet is seen as being able to handle conventional/symetrical/peer threats and the current mixed fleet of vehicles is also handling the COIN fight (both arguable premises, but there you go). Perhaps pumping billions into these systems, which in many cases are not necessarily mature technology, is seen as too high a risk given what exists in the fleet and the foreseen threats?

Why have a 48-54 ton concept MCV when you can have an M1A2 or Leopard 2A6 which are battle-proven technologies? I will take proven armour protection over the promise of active defence.

Regarding the age of fleets, I was a Battle Captain for a squadron of thirty to forty year old vehicles. As long as we had parts we were OK which is true of any vehicle. I think that the existing MBTs in the West will continue to soldier on for a few decades yet, although I am sure that their systems will be upgraded. The US takes rebuilds very seriously.

Other vehicles may well be replaced before them, and FCS variants/outputs will probably be some of those platforms that enter service.


----------



## Kirkhill

T2B: you may not know what the High Head Yins are thinking but you seem to be thinking the same thing they're saying.



> Today, the Army uses 6-ton Humvees, designed to bring a few soldiers through uneven terrain; 18-ton Stryker troop carriers, to haul infantrymen around an urban battlefield; and 72-ton tanks, optimized for destroying another big army. Under Future Combat Systems, all of these would've been replaced with one family of vehicles, each 27 tons big.
> 
> "*Trying to build that range of capabilities into a single vehicle — really we hadn't gotten there yet. And the question is whether you even can do that," Gates says*.



Source


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The active systems can also be deployed unto the M1, giving it even further protection from some of the newer weapons entering the battlefield. It's clear that certain players are trying hard to aqquire modern ATGM to use against western MBT's. Some of the makers would not be to sad if some of their systems were able to destroy a M1, Chally or Merk, even as they claim no knowledge of how the bad guys got hold of their systems.

One thing I learned in the CG, a multi-tasked system is something that can do many thing, but none them well.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

So here's some pure speculation on my part:

I'd be willing to bet that given the pending cancellation of FCS, we're going to see legacy systems like Bradley, and M1 operational for the next 15-20 years.  Even then, FCS was never going to be a 1 for 1 replacement for these pieces of equipment, and Bradley and M1 were going to be used concurrently, albeit the FCS brigades were going to be the 'tier 1' active duty units, with lower readiness active duty and National Guard units equipped with the legacy systems.

I do suspect that an armoured Self-Propelled Howitzer replacement project for M-109 in US service will probably begin in the next few years and I'd be suprised that the selected product for the mech infantry and armoured units isn't something that uses an MLRS type chassis with a US in-service 155mm gun system i.e. Americanized 'Artillery Gun Module' http://www.military-today.com/artillery/agm.htm.  For the SBCTs probably the BAE M777 mounted on Stryker 'portee' style will be selected if they end up writing a requirement for an SPH rather than towed artillery, which they currently are using.

In regard to what Canada's Family of Future Combat Vehicles program will end up fielding here are my bets:

LAV IIII fleet will be rebuilt to LAV-H standard.  In 5-7 years we may see a weapons system upgrade from 25mm to 40mm Case Telescoping Weapons System, provided that it is successful in French and British service.   Possibly the turret will be replaced with a remote system so as to allow for more armour for the hull and a lower center of gravity. Apart from increased cross country mobility, the weapons and armour upgrade will go a long way to satisfying the requirements of CCV (which I'll get to later).

Additional LAV-H variants will be procured to replace AVGP, Bison, and TLAV vehicles, albeit not at a 1-for-1 replacement, and the procurement will be run in fits and starts/drib drab fielding as there's alot of ambiguity and lack of coherent planning and management for armoured support/specialized vehicles i.e. Bison/AVGP/TLAV ARV/MRT, TLAV MTVE, Bison CP, Ambulance, EW, NBC Recce, etc.  By 2020 we'll probably see the last of the Bison and TLAV variants replaced with LAV-H models.

What we may see is that once the Bison's and AVGP are phased out with LAV-H replacements, we could see a sell-off of our Coyotes to a country looking to expand its armoured vehicle fleet and replacement (again with reduced numbers) with a recce variant of LAV-H.  Again though, I doubt we'd see much happen in this area before 2020.

Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle will likely be spec'd to piggyback on whatever vehicle is chosen for the US JLTV program.  Barring a cancellation of JLTV, LAPV will be spec'd to whatever vehicle is chosen for the US MRAP-ATV project.  This one shouldn't be a difficult sell to TB, because of the 'peacekeeping' duties and the increased protection levels that it will provide over and above the vehicles it replaces (thereby saving Canadian lives), given the defence priorities of a likely future Liberal government.  As part of that TB sell, some of the specialized versions of the Bison and TLAV family may get roped into LAPV, i.e. NBC Recce, Ambulance (more of a replacement for LSVW ambs though), etc.

Close Combat Vehicle will not get funding approval and instead will be offered as the sacrificial lamb by the Army to Treasury Board to gain funding of LAV-H upgrades and procurement of LAV-H based variants.

As with our procurement of Leopard 1 variants, several years will probably go by with us still using the Leo 1 ARV, AEV, and AVLB.  Once we hit critical mass with respect to parts availability and maintenance issues with the Leo 1 'hangers-on' we'll get the Swiss Ruag Leo II AEV 'Kodiak', Buffel ARV, and AVLB.

Regarding the 'Future Indirect Fires Capability' (FIFC), through the defacto selection of M777 as Canada's next tube artillery system through a series of UORs, I'd be suprised if a SPH portion of FIFC doesn't end up being the LAV III M777 'portee' type system, based on commonality of the gun and chassis with in-service equipment.

On the Long Range Precision Rocket side of things, if this thing gets through funding approval, it would likely be the HIMARS system mounted on whatever the MSVS SMP chasis is selected.

All in all, the Canadian Army's CMBGs will likely look like an SBCT-Heavy once FFCV is fielded, rather than what was the proposed FCS equipped Brigade Combat Team.


----------



## ArmyRick

Another option is to look at the UK Army FRES program. the vehicles to be used in that will be a combination of tracked and wheeled (the main wheeled vehicle selected is the Pirahna 4 or 5 8 x 8).

Maybe thats the route we need to consider is some vehicles heavy and track based (MBT, CEV, AVLB) and some wheeled (IFV, recce).

thoughts?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

The Hagglunds SEP concept also looks interesting, and it offers a common chassis with options for tracks or wheels (not a user-switch though). I am not sure if that specific vehicle will get fielded by anyone, but it is an example of what we might expect in the next ten to fifteen years. Replacing the mid-weight 'utility' APC/Recce/FOO etc etc with a common chassis with wheels or tracks options is certainly an interesting thought that achieves some level of commonality but maintaining some specific capabilities for specific requirements. 

I still don't think we are near getting to one chassis for _all_ our needs.


----------



## Mountie

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> So here's some pure speculation on my part:
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that given the pending cancellation of FCS, we're going to see legacy systems like Bradley, and M1 operational for the next 15-20 years.  Even then, FCS was never going to be a 1 for 1 replacement for these pieces of equipment, and Bradley and M1 were going to be used concurrently, albeit the FCS brigades were going to be the 'tier 1' active duty units, with lower readiness active duty and National Guard units equipped with the legacy systems.
> 
> I do suspect that an armoured Self-Propelled Howitzer replacement project for M-109 in US service will probably begin in the next few years and I'd be suprised that the selected product for the mech infantry and armoured units isn't something that uses an MLRS type chassis with a US in-service 155mm gun system i.e. Americanized 'Artillery Gun Module' http://www.military-today.com/artillery/agm.htm.  For the SBCTs probably the BAE M777 mounted on Stryker 'portee' style will be selected if they end up writing a requirement for an SPH rather than towed artillery, which they currently are using.
> 
> In regard to what Canada's Family of Future Combat Vehicles program will end up fielding here are my bets:
> 
> LAV IIII fleet will be rebuilt to LAV-H standard.  In 5-7 years we may see a weapons system upgrade from 25mm to 40mm Case Telescoping Weapons System, provided that it is successful in French and British service.   Possibly the turret will be replaced with a remote system so as to allow for more armour for the hull and a lower center of gravity. Apart from increased cross country mobility, the weapons and armour upgrade will go a long way to satisfying the requirements of CCV (which I'll get to later).
> 
> Additional LAV-H variants will be procured to replace AVGP, Bison, and TLAV vehicles, albeit not at a 1-for-1 replacement, and the procurement will be run in fits and starts/drib drab fielding as there's alot of ambiguity and lack of coherent planning and management for armoured support/specialized vehicles i.e. Bison/AVGP/TLAV ARV/MRT, TLAV MTVE, Bison CP, Ambulance, EW, NBC Recce, etc.  By 2020 we'll probably see the last of the Bison and TLAV variants replaced with LAV-H models.
> 
> What we may see is that once the Bison's and AVGP are phased out with LAV-H replacements, we could see a sell-off of our Coyotes to a country looking to expand its armoured vehicle fleet and replacement (again with reduced numbers) with a recce variant of LAV-H.  Again though, I doubt we'd see much happen in this area before 2020.
> 
> Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle will likely be spec'd to piggyback on whatever vehicle is chosen for the US JLTV program.  Barring a cancellation of JLTV, LAPV will be spec'd to whatever vehicle is chosen for the US MRAP-ATV project.  This one shouldn't be a difficult sell to TB, because of the 'peacekeeping' duties and the increased protection levels that it will provide over and above the vehicles it replaces (thereby saving Canadian lives), given the defence priorities of a likely future Liberal government.  As part of that TB sell, some of the specialized versions of the Bison and TLAV family may get roped into LAPV, i.e. NBC Recce, Ambulance (more of a replacement for LSVW ambs though), etc.
> 
> Close Combat Vehicle will not get funding approval and instead will be offered as the sacrificial lamb by the Army to Treasury Board to gain funding of LAV-H upgrades and procurement of LAV-H based variants.
> 
> As with our procurement of Leopard 1 variants, several years will probably go by with us still using the Leo 1 ARV, AEV, and AVLB.  Once we hit critical mass with respect to parts availability and maintenance issues with the Leo 1 'hangers-on' we'll get the Swiss Ruag Leo II AEV 'Kodiak', Buffel ARV, and AVLB.
> 
> Regarding the 'Future Indirect Fires Capability' (FIFC), through the defacto selection of M777 as Canada's next tube artillery system through a series of UORs, I'd be suprised if a SPH portion of FIFC doesn't end up being the LAV III M777 'portee' type system, based on commonality of the gun and chassis with in-service equipment.
> 
> On the Long Range Precision Rocket side of things, if this thing gets through funding approval, it would likely be the HIMARS system mounted on whatever the MSVS SMP chasis is selected.
> 
> All in all, the Canadian Army's CMBGs will likely look like an SBCT-Heavy once FFCV is fielded, rather than what was the proposed FCS equipped Brigade Combat Team.



Sounds pretty good.  I think you are dead on.  A LAV-H Canadian Stryker Brigade Group of sorts.  Only thing I would change is the FIFC would be a M777 on a MSVS portee rather than a LAV-III portee.  Nothing wrong with the LAV-H SPH though, just a hunch.  Cheaper I would assume.  And how about the future Fennek F2GT being proposed by Germany's KMW as a sequel to their Fennek instead of the US JLTV? Looks pretty good. 

http://www.kmweg.de/administration/media/temp/kmw-005-f2eu_eng.pdf


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Fennek (or the Fennek Mk2 which is now being developed/marketed) is too recce. specific to fulfill the various roles that LAPV will be tasked with.  JLTV or MRAP-ATV will also be in service in far greater numbers than Fennek, so logistics support from the manufacturer will be alot less problematic.


----------



## a_majoor

If the Joint Tactical Radio System gets the bugs worked out, then the foundational premise of FCS can be applied to any vehicle or system which has JTRS and associated systems installed. 

In the US context, most of the manned FCS systems _could_ be canceled if the JTRS information networking can be installed in legacy vehicles, although given the increasing age of the fleet and the heavy logistical burden there are arguments for continuing with most of the FCS systems except for the "Tank" analogue. Being able to almost double the range of an M-2 in a vehicle with similar size and weight reduces the logistics train for fuel handling, for example, and the SP artillery system is most certainly needed.

For Canada, the forecast of the LAV-H eventually supplementing or replacing the vehicle fleet seems well founded, and advances in combat networking and miniaturization means more internal space will become freed up as time progresses (frankly, it is possible now using hardened laptops and tablet type computers to replace the multiplicity of "boxes" inside AFV's. Even the wiring harness can be supplemented by wireless technology where COMSEC and EMCON are not a concern). With a bit of forward planning and ruthless project management, we can even avoid the mismash of "almost" compatable LAVs as each project comes up for approval.


----------



## Mountie

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Fennek (or the Fennek Mk2 which is now being developed/marketed) is too recce. specific to fulfill the various roles that LAPV will be tasked with.  JLTV or MRAP-ATV will also be in service in far greater numbers than Fennek, so logistics support from the manufacturer will be alot less problematic.



I don't pretend to have the experience to disagree with you, I'm just wondering why you think that.  Simply going by the company websites and public JLTV requirements I would think that the Fennek 2 had a nice variety and met the standards.

JLTV requirements compared to Fennek 2: (armour protection isn't listed for either the JLTV or F2GT so I couldn't compare them)

Payload Category A:  Payload capacity of 3,500 lbs.  The only version is to be the General Purpose Mobility with a crew of 4.  Fennek 2 Light Variant has a total weight of 22,000 lbs and a crew of 4 and the Basic Variant (slightly stretched) has a total weight of 33,000 lbs and crew of 6.

Payload Category B: Payload capacity of 4,000-4,500 lbs.  
Infantry Carrier Variant - 2 crew + 4 troops
Reconnaissance Variant - total crew of 6
Command & Control on the Move - 4 crew 
Heavy Weapons Carrier - 5 crew and heavy weapon (7.62mm MG - 40mm AGL or anti-armour missile)
Close Combat Weapons Carrier - 4 crew + weapon
Utility Variant - 2 crew
Ambulance - 3 crew + 2 stretchers
There are Fennek 2 variants to fill all these roles.  The 4x4 Basic Variant can fill all these roles.  Total weight of 33,000 lbs and crew of 6 for the Weapons and Utilty variants, crew of 8 for the Command & Control variant.  The Extended Variant could easily be configured to carry 2 stretchers.

Payload Category C: Payload of 5,100 lbs
Shelter Carrier/Utility/Prime Mover - 2 crew + shelter carrier or cargo bed
Ambulance - 3 crew + 4 stretchers
The Fennek 6x6 Heavy Version Extended can fill the Shelter Carrier and Ambulance roles and the 6x6 Heavy Version Pickup can fill the Utility and Prime Mover variants.  Total weight of 53,000 lbs and crew of 3 + the shelfter carrier for command post or ambulance and the pickup bed.

The pictures of the three finalist variants look just as recce as the Fennek 2 I think.

The three finalists are Northrop Grumman/Oshkosh, AM General/General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin.


----------



## Kirkhill

Given all these changes possible.... is it practical yet to consider the possibility of a 2 Operator Crew?  One driving, one commanding-shooting, or when stationary the driver shooting while the "commander" conducts surveillance, or the driver conducts surveillance while the commander handles administrative chatter?

It seems with the ROWS concept, switchable screens and joystick controls that the crew doesn't have to be tied to a particular station. (And I consider the MGS to be a large calibre ROWS - the same might be said for HIMARS-MRLS, where the crew conduct operations from inside the cab, not to mention the concept of netting the entire force so that the local/distant commander can see what his subs are seeing and, conceivably, take charge of the weapons systems and actively engage targets)

Could TTPs be developed to successfully work a 2-car patrol/team with a total of 4 crew?  I am thinking in terms of the discussion about manning numbers, especially when conducting Constabulary Duties over large Spaces and the need to maintain a force in the field for a long while.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

When the Ferret was in service, we had exactly that:  A 2 person crew.  However, unlike conventional policing, where you can put 2 constables in a cruiser, patrol around a neighbourhood, then park and lock the car if you need to do some dismounted stuff, then return to the vehicle, I don't think the operating environment where the military is deployed would allow for the vehicles to be left unattended.

Also, crew exhaustion becomes a major factor in considering the merits of a 2 person crew.  Gone are the days when at night, we'd leaguer up for even just a few hours sleep.  Thermal/Night Vision imaging systems, improved command and control systems, and other technological advances over what we had when the Ferret was in service can require a much higher optempo than we experienced then.

Even with that said, there was an article back in the mid 90's in the Armour Bulletin that was discussing the exhaustion rates for crews and specifically did a break down on the amount of time that a Ferret equipped recce. squadron would be combat ineffective due to sleep deprivation as a result of its 2 person vehicle crews.

With respect to the Fennek 2, Given that on the Euro side of the house, there are several other competing designs for that protected vehicle market, i.e. Gefas, Dingo 2, etc. even if Fennek 2 is adopted by Germany and a couple other countries, the logistical infrastrure and support capability will be no where near as comprehensive as what will be there for the US JLTV, something that will likely make the successful JLTV candidate that much more attractive to the CFs for LAPV.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Given all these changes possible.... is it practical yet to consider the possibility of a 2 Operator Crew?  One driving, one commanding-shooting, or when stationary the driver shooting while the "commander" conducts surveillance, or the driver conducts surveillance while the commander handles administrative chatter?



Building a vehicle with multiple on-the-fly re-programmable stations is a good way to go - having it operateable (if that's a word) by two crew members is a great concept - but keep the crew at four for redundancy and to permit a crew commander keep their SA and not always have to focus on the near fight.


----------



## Kirkhill

Would it make a difference if the concept of operations relied on firm bases (FOBs, Platoon Houses, Police Forts....) vice long range recce, advance to contact, maintain contact on a 24/7 battlefield?

In other words, differentiating again between High Intensity and Low Intensity, is there room in the Army's inventory for two separate vehicles that the same crews could operate in two different modes depending on the operating environment?  As you said Matt, we had that with the Ferret, used with effect on the Green Line in Cyprus I believe, and an uncle of mine drove an original Dingo on the Inter-German Border back in the 40's.  Something more akin to a ruggedized Cruiser than a Formation Recce Vechicle?

Edit to add:  Something that would be more in line with the needs of the RAF Regiment, conducting Base Protection Duties and Close Patrols, than the needs of our current Recce Squadrons?

Edited again to add:  Or  perhaps I am thinking more along the lines of a vehicle more in line with the traditional needs of Infantry - traditionally a slow moving force designed to hold ground instead of Cavalry - a fast moving force designed to disrupt, shape and recconoitre.


----------



## a_majoor

While not an FFCV per se, this idea of robotic "outriders" is interesting:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/ripsaw-robotic-tank.html



> *Ripsaw Robotic Tank
> *
> 
> Built by twin brothers, Geoff and Mike Howe of Barwick, Maine, the Ripsaw, unmanned ground vehicle, can careen at high speed [over 60 mph] over obstacles that would leave a vehicle’s crew dazed and bruised. It is operated by a driver in another vehicle using a modular crew station that can be unbolted and placed in a range of Army vehicles, including the Stryker and all the MRAP models. It is a cheap unmanned vehicle that is able to drive at the full speed of Humvees or other military truck convoys.
> 
> A weaponised version, modified by the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC) at Picatinny Arsenal, NJ, includes a remotely operated M240 machine gun. The gun is operated by a separate person using another modular station that can be put in a range of vehicles. The Ripsaw can carry a payload of 2,000 pounds. It is not armored and each track can be removed as a unit should it be damaged. It was funded by an earmark worth about $1 million.
> 
> Howe and howe is a small company with about a staff of 16 (although if prospective sales for some of the vehicles are made this staff will increase.


----------



## Kirkhill

I recall that one of the problems indicated with the TALON-SWORD system was that it moved so slowly that it was relatively easily to disarm - effectively delivering weapons and ammunition to the opposition.

It would be interesting to see someone try to disarm this thing at 60 mph.


----------



## a_majoor

More on the Ripsaw. Go to the link for Youtube videos:

http://www.popsci.com/invention



> *Tank Delivers Death at 60MPH*
> 
> See the Ripsaw in action: An unmanned beast that cruises over any terrain at speeds that leave an M1A Abrams in the dust
> By Bjorn Carey Posted 05.21.2009 at 12:04 pm 10 Comments
> 
> Mean Machine: Troops could use the Ripsaw as an advance scout, sending it a mile or two ahead of a convoy, and use its cameras and new sensor technology to sniff out roadside bombs or ambushes John B. Carnett
> View Photo Gallery
> 
> Today's featured Invention Award winner really requires no justification--it's an unmanned, armed tank faster than anything the US Army has. Behold, the Ripsaw.
> 
> Cue up the Ripsaw’s greatest hits on YouTube, and you can watch the unmanned tank tear across muddy fields at 60 mph, jump 50 feet, and crush birch trees. But right now, as its remote driver inches it back and forth for a photo shoot, it’s like watching Babe Ruth forced to bunt with the bases loaded. The Ripsaw, lurching and belching black puffs of smoke, somehow seems restless.
> 
> Like their creation, identical twins Geoff and Mike Howe, 34, don’t like to sit still for long. At age seven, they built a log cabin. Ten years later, they converted a school bus into a drivable, transforming stage for their heavy-metal band, Two Much Trouble. In 2000 they couldn’t agree on their next project: Geoff favored a jet-turbine-powered off-road truck; Mike, the world’s fastest tracked vehicle. "That weekend, Mike calls me down to his garage," Geoff says. "He’s already got the suspension built for the Ripsaw. So we went with that."
> 
> Every engineer they consulted said they couldn’t best the 42mph top speed of an M1A Abrams, the most powerful tank in the world. Other tanks are built to protect the people inside, with frames made of heavy armored-steel plates. Designed for rugged unmanned missions, the Ripsaw just needed to go fast, so the brothers started trimming weight. First they built a frame of welded steel tubes, like the ones used by Nascar, that provides 50 percent more strength at half the weight.
> 
> Ripsaw: How It Works: To glide over rough terrain at top speed, the Ripsaw has shock absorbers that provide 14 inches of travel. But when the suspension compresses, it creates slack that could cause a track to come off, potentially flipping the vehicle. So the inventors devised a spring-loaded wheel at the front that extends to keep the tracks taut. The Ripsaw has never thrown a track
> 
> Behind the Wheel: The Ripsaw’s six cameras send live, 360-degree video to a control room, where program manager Will McMaster steers the tank  John B. Carnett
> 
> When you reinvent the tank, finding ready-made parts is no easy task, and a tread light enough to spin at 60 mph and strong enough to hold together at that speed didn’t exist. So the Howes hand-shaped steel cleats and redesigned the mechanism for connecting them in a track. (Because the patent for the mechanism, one of eight on Ripsaw components, is still pending, they will reveal only that they didn’t use the typical pin-and-bushing system of connecting treads.) The two-pound cleats weigh about 90 percent less than similarly scaled tank cleats. With the combined weight savings, the Ripsaw’s 650-horsepower V8 engine cranks out nine times as much horsepower per pound as an M1A Abrams.
> 
> While working their day jobs — Mike as a financial adviser, Geoff as a foreman at a utilities plant — the self-taught engineers hauled the Ripsaw prototype from their workshop in Maine to the 2005 Washington Auto Show, where they showed it to army officials interested in developing weaponized unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). That led to a demonstration for Maine Senator Susan Collins, who helped the Howes secure $1.25 million from the Department of Defense.
> 
> The brothers founded Howe and Howe Technologies in 2006 and set to work upgrading various Ripsaw systems, including a differential drive train that automatically doles out the right amount of power to each track for turns. The following year they handed it over to the Army’s Armament Research Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC), which paired it with a remote-control M240 machine gun and put the entire system through months of strenuous tests. "What really set it apart from other UGVs was its speed," says Bhavanjot Singh, the ARDEC project manager overseeing the Ripsaw’s development. Other UGVs top out at around 20 mph, but the Ripsaw can keep up with a pack of Humvees.
> 
> Over the Hill: Despite the best efforts of inventors Mike and Geoff Howe, the Ripsaw has proven unbreakable. It did once break a suspension mount — and drove on for hours without trouble  John B. Carnett
> 
> Back on the field, the tank has been readied for the photo. The program manager for Howe and Howe Technologies, Will McMaster, who is sitting at the Ripsaw’s controls around the corner and roughly a football field away, drives it straight over a three-foot-tall concrete wall. The brothers think that when the $760,000 Ripsaw is ready for mass production this summer, feats like this will give them a lead over other companies vying for a military UGV contract. "Every other UGV is small and uses [artificial intelligence] to avoid obstacles," Mike says. "The Ripsaw doesn’t have to avoid obstacles; it drives over them."
> 
> Check out the rest ​


​


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Another Christe?


----------



## ArmyRick

getting away from RIPSAW (Another thread maybe?) and back to future family of combat vehicles. The LAV High Capacity (LAV-H), would it be better able to support a direct fire weapon system? For those in the know?

I remember seeing the beast in May last year and the GDLS guys said it could handle something like 5,000 Kg more than the current LAV III series. With that I see the vehicle being able to handle more armour and maybe a 90mm or 105mm weapon system for reserve/cavalry use.

Thoughts and idears?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Is that the 8x8 version that was used to test the GIAT turret?


----------



## Matt_Fisher

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> getting away from RIPSAW (Another thread maybe?) and back to future family of combat vehicles. The LAV High Capacity (LAV-H), would it be better able to support a direct fire weapon system? For those in the know?
> 
> I remember seeing the beast in May last year and the GDLS guys said it could handle something like 5,000 Kg more than the current LAV III series. With that I see the vehicle being able to handle more armour and maybe a 90mm or 105mm weapon system for reserve/cavalry use.
> 
> Thoughts and idears?



I don't think that adding weight to a vehicle's hull in the form of armour is the magic answer which will make it be able to handle a higher powered weapon.  The hull strength around the turret ring is also a huge area of concern.

What interests me about the Ripsaw's suspension system is its relatively high ground clearance.  If you were to adapt that suspension system to a larger tracked vehicle platform, you could have an armoured vehicle with a significant amount of ground clearance.  With that clearance, you'd then be able to add significant armour to the belly of the hull, i.e. a tracked vehicle with a V shaped hull, which might go a long way to defeating pressure plate IEDs and Anti-tank mines, but with better off-road mobility than a wheeled MRAP/APV type vehicle.


----------



## a_majoor

An interesting series of trade offs would have to be made here:

Higher ground clearance = more protection vs IED/Mines and better cross country performance in theory

Higher ground clearance = higher CG, possible limitations to weapons and load carriage, possible limitations to cross country mobility (vehicle more inclined to tip over) greater tactical visibility (CC is higher up) but also greater problems with visual/signature control (vehicle is higher up and easier to see)

Reducing the size of the hull to compensate makes crew accomodations, carriage of stores etc. much more difficult. Changing the form factor to increase the amount of interior volume makes the vehicle larger in other dimensions, affecting tactical and operational mobility (might not fit down a track or inside a transport plane/ship designed for "normal" equipment).

WRT medium weight vehicles in the LAV class, low profile "Wegmann" type turrets or beefed up RWS are the way to go for large calibre weapons carriage.


----------



## X-mo-1979

I was told an announcement would be made for the Lav 3 and coyote replacement in june.Any word on that? I am anxiously awaiting the decision between the two they are looking at.


----------



## The Bread Guy

If you believe the Canadian Press, the CV90 (Wikipedia) is one of the vehicles "under serious consideration" for what appears to be a short-term bridge buy:


> The Defence Department wants to buy at least 20 tracked armoured vehicles within the next two years to relieve pressure on the army, whose fleet has been pounded by the war in Afghanistan.
> 
> The proposal, which officials are trying to get through cabinet, is one component of an expected $4-billion overhaul of the military's combat vehicle fleet, defence sources said Monday.
> 
> The army currently uses light armoured vehicles known as LAV IIIs, eight-wheeled fighting vehicles armed with a 25 mm cannon.
> 
> Although agile and quick-handling on roads and solid ground, the army has found LAVs often get stuck in boggy ground along riverbeds where the Taliban have increasingly chosen to stage ambushes.
> 
> One of the vehicles under serious consideration is the CV90, which is essentially a light tank that's capable of carrying troops, according to defence sources ....



Further down the road...


> .... the Defence Department is planning a major upgrade to its light armoured vehicle fleet. That includes the possible purchase of a newer, larger version of the LAV - dubbed the LAV-H.
> 
> That project would help the country's economy since the contract would go to General Dynamics Land Systems, which has an assembly line in London, Ont., and refurbishment factory in Edmonton.
> 
> A second pillar of the plan would be an upgrade to the army's 1960s-vintage M113 armoured personnel carriers.
> 
> Ross also told the Senate committee that contracts will soon be released to upgrade used Leopard 2A4 tanks purchased from the Netherlands last year ....


----------



## X-mo-1979

From what I was told out of the two choices it was going down to room per person for dismounts.One vehicle had more cubic room per soldier.

I hope the CV-90 gets it.However the other vehicle I was told about was not a lav-h


----------



## ArmyRick

What was the other vehicle? Don't keep us in suspense!


----------



## ironduke57

Wasn´t the ASCOD already mentioned before?
(But I still say PUMA FTW! ;D)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## X-mo-1979

Can't remember the name.It was french and wheeled.They were considering it due to the extra cubic room per dismount in the back.However it;s all rumour till it comes down I guess.


----------



## ironduke57

The Véhicule Blindé de Combat d'Infanterie (VBCI) then?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9hicule_Blind%C3%A9_de_Combat_d'Infanterie

Regards,
ironduke57

edit: Video of an stuck VBCI getting freed by an AMX 30 Tank:
- http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8j1u5_vbci-a-la-traine-face-a-un-bon-vieu_news


----------



## Matt_Fisher

I'd have a hard time thinking that we'd unseat GDLS in Canada with an imported wheeled armoured vehicle that I have a hard time believing does much more than what our current LAV III and proposed LAV-H can do.  Now if it were a tracked vehicle with better mobility, armour, and firepower, it's still going to be a tough sell politically, but if we're trading Canadian apples for French apples, forget about it...politically, it'd be suicide for the government to appear to be stabbing Ontario in the back, or kicking them while they're down in these times of massive automobile industry and manufacturing layoffs and restructuring.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well the French could promise to open a plant in Bearhead........ 

I suspect they will open the tender up to allow them to compete, but ensure that regional benefits are a major factor in the selection process. Unless the French think they could also capture a large US contract as well, it wouldn't be worth it.


----------



## Matt_Fisher

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well the French could promise to open a plant in Bearhead........
> 
> I suspect they will open the tender up to allow them to compete, but ensure that regional benefits are a major factor in the selection process. Unless the French think they could also capture a large US contract as well, it wouldn't be worth it.



...and unless the French plan on opening up a major manufacturing facility to build almost the entire vehicle in the US, and hire on US engineers to basically redesign the thing, or partner with a major US defense contractor so that it's ITAR compliant, then it doesn't really have much of a snowball's chance in Hades at winning any US business.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I'd have a hard time thinking that we'd unseat GDLS in Canada with an imported wheeled armoured vehicle that I have a hard time believing does much more than what our current LAV III and proposed LAV-H can do.  Now if it were a tracked vehicle with better mobility, armour, and firepower, it's still going to be a tough sell politically, but if we're trading Canadian apples for French apples, forget about it...politically, it'd be suicide for the government to appear to be stabbing Ontario in the back, or kicking them while they're down in these times of massive automobile industry and manufacturing layoffs and restructuring.



Makes sense, until you read the high level mandatories.  And don't forget that IRBs can make anything seem palatable.  This will alll sort itself out in the coming months, but there is both more and less on the table than meets the eye.


----------



## X-mo-1979

I'm wondering how all the kit will be distributed when it returns to Canada.Are we going to see the heavy medium light battle groups they talked about a couple years back?Or will we have a very small fleet of vehicles at each base training on differnt platforms .i.e Lav 3 and the replacement vehicle?
Or will the newly purchased equipment be put away for the next time we fight a war.


----------



## McG

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is that [LAV-H] the 8x8 version that was used to test the GIAT turret?


No:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/28681/post-659097.html#msg659097
It looks like the LAV III/Stryker but is slightly larger (GDLS engineers claim this is for improved mobility reasons), better armoured, with significantly improved suspension, and other tweaks to give greater range of performance.



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I was told an announcement would be made for the Lav 3 and coyote replacement in june.  Any word on that?


Your source is confused.  The LAV III is not about to be replaced (in fact, there is a mid-life upgrade project just kicking itself off the starting line).  There is a project to replace Coyote, RG-31, some Bison, and some G-Wagon.  However, you are probably thinking of the Close Combat Vehicle which is intended to provide an infantry platform to compliment the Leopard 2.  You can see more on CCV here:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/81408.0.html
and here:  http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/70177.0.html



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you believe the Canadian Press, the CV90 (Wikipedia) is one of the vehicles "under serious consideration" for what appears to be a short-term bridge buy:


CCV will not be a "bridge" or "band-aid" solution.  It will be a permanat tiny-sized capability that the Army will have to sustain into the future.


----------



## a_majoor

DARPA has another approach for vehicles (if this works we are looking at the generation after next...)

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/darpa-ifab-vision-for-open-source.html#more



> *DARPA iFAB Vision for Open Source Foundry Fabrication and DARPA Autonomous Robot Program*
> 
> 1. DARPA has the iFAB program to develop "foundry-style manufacturing capability." By which they mean microchip foundries - the generic, build-any-chip-for-any-designer factories that churn out microchips for every application you can imagine, and which are the dominant mode of manufacture for most of the silicon in use today.
> 
> The specific goals of the iFAB program are to rapidly design and configure manufacturing capabilities to support the fabrication of a wide array of infantry fighting vehicle models and variants. Parallel efforts titled vehicleforge.mil and Fast Adaptable Next-Generation Ground Combat Vehicle (FANG) seek to develop the infrastructure for and conduct a series of design challenges (termed Adaptive Make Challenges) intended to precipitate open source design for a prototype of the Army's Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV).
> 
> The iFAB end vision--to be developed in the second phase of the program which will be solicited under a separate BAA at the conclusion of the present effort--is that of a facility which can fabricate and assemble the winning FANG designs, verified and supplied in a comprehensive metalanguage representation with META/META-II tools.
> 
> 2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched the Autonomous Robotic Manipulation program. ARM seeks to provide future robots with enough autonomy so they will require only occasional high-level supervision by human operators. According to DARPA, this will simplify human control, potentially improving how tasks such as bomb disposal are carried out and allowing individual robots to carry out a variety of missions.
> 
> The four-year program’s goal is to develop software and hardware that allows robots to autonomously grasp, manipulate and perform complex tasks with minimal human direction. DARPA has tapped a number of research teams to tackle various parts of the program. These areas of work include developing designs for a multifinger hand emphasizing robust design and low cost and software that allows robots to perform several tasks.


----------

