Future Armour

[TCBF]

A BC and OC and CO have tanks for a reason: to lead.  when the antennas have been sheared off by splinters and half the leaders are dead, the command presence of a familiar head in a hatch is priceless. 

Often, the loader will give direction to the driver when the CC (especially a Tp WO/Ldr, BC/OC/CO is busy on other means or whatever.  The gunner is not in a position to do that.

A tank is not a submarine.  We still need a heads up view for good SA.  That view is best taken from the hatches in the top of the turret.

Tom

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

As TCBF pointed out, the time spent by the crew commander between his own tank and "coordinating" varies with the situation.  In an old-school tank Troop, the junior callsign was the "Charlie", normally a MCpl who did not have the crew commanding course but did have lots of tank time.  He mostly focused on staying in position vis a vis his fire team commander.  The "Bravo" was a Sgt and this guy's tank was potentially the most dangerous on the battlefield, since he had crew commanding experience and did not have to command a fire team.  That being said he was the lead callsign on moves and his navigation could make or break the Troop. "Alpha" was the most experienced crew commander.  He did have to command his fire team (and train the Charlie) as well as assist the Tp Ldr and take care of CSS stuff with the BC and SSM.  The "Troopie" had been through excellent crew commanding training at the School but still lacked experience.  His pairing with Bravo and having a veteran crew helped mitigate his lack of experience, as well as advice from the Tp WO and BC in the hide between traces.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the Troop was a system.  The crew commanders (and loaders) all had a part to play in coordination and the system was designed to maximize the ability for the crew commanders to both fight and coordinate.  Troop Leaders in a tank Sqn were also helped out by having the whole Sqn on one frequency.  This took some net discipline but it did simply the passage of orders and SITREPs over the air.  As long as you could navigate to the places you would usually be good to go.  You could fight your tank and troop lead at the same time.  If you've maneouvred to a good spot and have good fire control SOPs the crew commanders will take care of business without too much detailed direction.  If we could stick a fourth person in the tank (not the loader) then I'd make him a comms/SAS guy.  The crew commander is still the crew commander, but he has a fellow in the panzer to work all the tech stuff.

All that being said, I have see one proposed MGS Tp org chart that has the Troop Leader in a LAV III with several MGS "fire teams."  This is more like a TOW Platoon, perhaps, where the Tp Ldr is siting fire teams as opposed to manouevring with them.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.  Perhaps it is purely emotional.  I don't like the sound of having our front line officers sitting in CPs monitoring the battle (like the Lt in Aliens).  Irrational, I suppose, but then again battles are fought by people, and people are strange.

Looking at three man tank crews, for the T64/72/80 being smaller did not seem to be better.  They still get hit, and their tight design and carousel auto-loader can lead to catastrophic secondary explosions (even the Russian ones).  I haven't seen the LeClerc, so I'll withold judgement.  I imagine that the future holds more autoloaders rather than less, but I just hope that the autoloaders can handle the rich variety of ammunition that future tanks will be able to exploit without too much jiggery-pokery in the middle of the fight.

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

Having dug myself a very deep hole in this area, I am going to take the advice of the ancients and quit digging.

I did notice your concern about proliferating ammo types 2B.  I don't know if you have seen this information.  It concerns a Multipurpose 120mm round with a programmable fuse.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/sep/uf-army_developing.htm

Army Developing Advanced Ammo for Abrams Tank

By Joe Pappalardo

To be more useful in urban battlefields, the Army's main battle tank needs to be armed with advanced multipurpose rounds that can be adapted for use against different types of targets, officials said.

"Overall, that is where we need to be going," said Army Col. Mark Rider, project manager for maneuver ammunition systems.

"Kinetic-energy rounds are being sent to the rear," Rider noted. "From a logistics and operational standpoint, our tankers have to have the ability to ... make them multipurpose. There will be fewer specialty rounds."

As the war in Iraq shifted from limited armor engagements to counter-insurgency, tank units rediscovered their roles in urban combat. Current ammunition, however, is better suited to defeat hordes of Cold War-era Soviet tanks, rather than insurgent guerillas dug into houses and bunkers. A multipurpose round would offer tankers flexibility to target not only armored vehicles but also foot soldiers or light trucks, even if they are shielded by a rock wall or within a fortified concrete shelter.

The Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., is developing line-of-sight multipurpose (LOS-MP) munitions that would replace four rounds currently used in Army and Marine Corps tanks.

The new round uses a fragmenting warhead and programmable fuses that can be set for either point-detonation against hard targets or for airburst, to strike soft targets. The fuse settings are controlled via datalink and operated by the tank crew with a mouse click.

"One size fits all-that's the best way to put it," said Ernie Logsdon, division chief of the Munitions Systems & Technology Directorate at Picatinny.

The LOS-MP program started in 2004. "I think the urban tank experience in Iraq emphasizes the need for this round, especially for the Abrams tank, although the request did not start this way," Logsdon said, explaining that the program was designated originally for the Future Combat System's mounted combat vehicle, which is not scheduled to enter service until at least 2014. The Army decided to accelerate the development of LOS-MP, so it can be fired from Abrams tanks.

If funded to completion, the LOS-MP would replace the M830, M830A1 and M908, as well as the just-released M1028 canister round.

The M830A1 is a high explosive shot with a limited antipersonnel component, and tank crews must flick a switch manually for the round to be used against enemy helicopters. All the other current Abrams rounds are what the Army calls "dumb bullets."

The M908 was initially developed in 1996 to destroy obstacles, such as bunkers. The round penetrates concrete before detonating.

The M1028 canister round has only recently been available to Army and Marine tank crews in Iraq. The round, fired from the main cannon, contains tungsten balls that fan out into a 500-meter lethal shotgun blast.

In January, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems was awarded a $5.8 million contract for low-rate production of 3,600 M1028 rounds. The company will assemble the projectiles at its facility in Red Lion, Pa.

Although new, this canister would be replaced, along with its three brethren, by a single multipurpose round. The Maneuver Armament Systems and ARDEC together are designing two different versions; the full-bore XM1069 and the sabot XM1068.

The full bore is more lethal at close ranges, while the sabot has a smaller diameter, fewer explosives and better reach.

"If the user requirements come in and they want a longer range, we'll go with the 1068," said Logsdon. He said both versions of the multipurpose round offered as good or better lethality as the rounds they would replace.

LOS-MP would not be the preferred munition for direct tank-on-tank battles. Kinetic energy rounds would be loaded for such an engagement, according to Pete Cardell, deputy product manager for maneuver ammunition.

There are no tungsten balls or other projectiles in LOS-MP. Instead, the warhead is designed to come apart into whirling chunks of shrapnel when it is set to the airburst mode. Unlike the current canister, it would be lethal and accurate at long range.

One eager customer for new types of ammunition is the Marine Corps, which has operated the 70-ton Abrams since the early 1990s. Marines have been involved in the development of both the canister round and LOS-MP, Lodson said.

Having a multipurpose round in the arsenal has many benefits, boosters at ARDEC said. The logistical footprint of a multipurpose muniton is smaller and easier to track in the transportation cycle. A successful LOS-MP would "wipe the logistics burden away. We'd be going from five rounds to two," Logsdon said.

Other advantages come in the procurement process. By consolidating the rounds, the military would increase the size of the munitions orders. In theory, that would lower the price per round.

Since the tanks only hold 40 rounds, having more flexibility is vital, Logsdon added. "You have to figure out the percentage before the fight," he said. "With LOS-MP you have more options from one round ... And you have greater lethality than with the current set."

If funded for the 2008 fiscal year, the munition could be fielded as early as 2010 or 2011, he said. The program is vying against other projects for funds, Cardell said. "There's a lot of competition."

 

[TCBF]

From a tank perspective, cannister is great for dusting off friendly call signs that have a bad case of the 'critters'.

For autocannon, my  choice would be  APFSDS-T in the defeat of human-wave attacks..  Start with a single shot into the deepest part of the crowd. The trick to turning a crowd is to convince the people in the rear - not just in the front - that if they do not run far away very fast they wil die a most gruesome death.

It is more of a psychological issue than a kinetic one, but the effect of Sabot penetration through many rows of bodies cannot be discounted.

Co-ax would merely go through the first half dozen rows at close range, and the crowds in the rear would continue stupidly advancing to their death.  A 25mm penetrator pushing several dozen rows into the rear will have a deep morale effect.  The end result may well be less casualties to all concerned.

Tom

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Kirk,

As always I'm learning something new.  If I'm reading it right it looks like they will have a sabot version of this multi-purpose round.  I wonder if the sabot is designed for BMP style armour or for T72s?  I hope they keep some DU in stock just in case.  The round itself looks versatile, with the airburst settings looking useful for some situations.  I wonder if you would have to set the range and altitude for that function?  It would be cool if the laser and fire control computer did that for you, me being a lazy fellow (and I used to forget to set the fuze on the BE smoke shell).  The setting to penetrate the wall and then explode looks excellent.

Thanks for posting that!

2B

 

[Lance Wiebe]

The sabot is not a sabot as we know it, in other words, it is not kinetic energy.  It is simply a scaled down version of the larger LOS-MP. 

The Americans are simply attempting to create a round that the Brits already have, the programmable fuze HESH round.  Seeing as how the 120 smoothbore cannot effectively fire HESH, they have been (for years, I might add) trying to develop a round beyond APFS and HEAT.  The M830 series are HEAT rounds, with different fuzing options, certainly not ideal.  It lost the full effectiveness of a HEAT round, while not being really effective as an HE type round.

Unfortunately the Brits have said that they cannot afford to go the 120 rifled ammo option alone, and as part of the C2 upgrade, will be forced to go to the smoothbore.  In my opinion, it is a mistake, but I'm not the one paying the bills.  The smoothbore is an excellent gun for killing armour, the rifled gun has more options in that it can fire heavier, slower rounds with great accuracy.

 

[DG-41]

normally a MCpl who did not have the crew commanding course but did have lots of tank time.

As a quick aside, this has always been a pet peeve of mine. Why do we not train crew commanders earlier in their careers?

The officer training programme provides excellent training on crew commanding, patrol commanding, and then troop leading (with some lightweight training on how to be a troop WO concurrent with the troop leading block). My understanding is that the 6A/6B courses are materially the same thing, with the emphasis in 6B being (naturally) on the troop WO job more so than the Tp Ldr slot.

But in the real world, MCpls wind up as crew commanders (and patrol commanders too!) before they ever get any formal training.

I've long held the opinion that the crew commanding block should be a prerequisite for MCpl.

DG

 

[George Wallace]

It depends on the Crewman.  I have seen switched on Cpls crewcommanding tanks.  That is the "First" stage of CC trg.  The Cpl/MCpl who has been in the turret, and is qualified Dvr and Gnr, has a lot of experience.  If he has been the Tp Ldrs operator or the Loader for the Tp WO or Sgt, he has seen what it takes to CC.  Giving him a 'Charlie' tank to cut his teeth on is a natural progression.  From there he will go on to a more formalized course, the 6A or the DP3A or whatever they call it this week, and become a Sgt.  Of course, it can also be used to judge whether or not he can cut it, and save the expense of sending him off on a Career Crse.

 

[Kirkhill]

Would this type of sight assist in solving the "who does what and how many" questions?

A stabilised 360 degree panoramic observation and sighting system that can be employed by both gunner and commander simultaneously.  Presumably, if it can handle two monitors, it could also handle three allowing the "loader" to maintain SA as well.


September 14, 2005


Continuing its well established success in viewing and aiming system technologies for Main Battle Tanks and Armoured Fighting Vehicles, Thales UK has developed a new state of the art Stabilised Indirect Panoramic Sight (SIPS)
Taunton/DSEi
SIPS is a combined Commander's and Gunner's sighting system with a 360o panoramic view.

It features dual-axis stabilised indirect viewing/aiming sensors, comprising both Day and Thermal cameras, each of which has at least two Fields of View. In addition, it also incorporates an Eye-Safe Laser Range Finder, which is designed to operate in conjunction with the platform's fire control system for accurate target ranging and to improve first-round hit probability.
Chris Gane, Vice President Defence Optronics, highlighted that "The system therefore provides total situational awareness and a true offensive capability in a compact and flexible system." He added "Thales has aimed the system at the growing market for more capable Armoured Fighting Vehicles, including FRES, as well as upgrade programmes for Main Battle Tanks where improved surveillance capability and interface to the Fire Control System are considered vital developments"

SIPS have been designed using the latest combination of high performance sensors to provide a greatly enhanced panoramic surveillance capability. It enables the platform Commander to conduct target observation, detection and identification as well as independent surveillance, tracking and target designation for the Gunner during day and night operations. This together with minimal under-armour intrusion makes SIPS ideal for integration into the new generation of AFVs/ASVs where crew space is at a premium.

-ends-

Notes to Editors

Sensors:
Eyesafe Laser Rangefinder (MELT):
Range 250m to 9995m
Accuracy +/- 5m
Wavelength 1535nm (Class 1 Erbium)
Fire Rate : 12ppm + 1Hz Burst


Thermal Imagers 8-12 mm or 3-5 mm:
Dual FOV
8-12 mm:
WFOV: 8.75 x 6.65? or 9.7 x 7.4?
NFOV: 3.05 x 2.25? or 4.1x3?
3-5 mm:
WFOV: 11.0 x 8.25?
NFOV: 3.67 x 2.75?


Day CCD:
Monochrome or Colour
NFOV CCD: 3.05 x 2.25? or 4.1 x 3?
WFOV CCD: 8.75 x 6.65? or 9.7 x 7.4?

General
Maximum turret relative angular rate > 1.7rad/s
Minimum inertial tracking rate < 0.1mrad/s
Maximum inertial tracking rate > 85mrad/s
Stabilization accuracy < 0.1mrads Peak (general cross country)
Weight: 80 kgs

About Thales UK
Thales UK's defence activities encompass optronics, air defence, sensors, communications and naval systems. The company is the UK's second largest defence contractor and has been a supplier to the MoD since the First World War. Thales employs 11,000 staff in the UK and 60,000 people in 50 countries. In 2004, Thales UK's revenues were £1.1bn


Media contact:
Chris Graves
Tel: +44 (0)1823 331071
[email protected]

http://www.thalesgroup.co.uk/press-room/pressreleases/thales-uk-unveils-new-stabilised-panoramic-sight.cfm

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I'm going to go back to first principles for a second here and then think forward five to ten years about what future Canadian armour should look like.

What capabilities should we have?  What are we lacking?  What will our threat be?

Seeing as we will be focused on the "snakes" as the enemy, I imagine that our current Coyote/LAV familiy of vehicles will continue to serve as an effective core.  Given what is available on the market, what should be added to that stable?  Should we "wait out" for what might come down the pipe from the FCS (Future Combat System) or carry on evolving our own family?  Are there any modifications we can make to our existing mounts?

For me, the first priority is to have a smaller, updated sensor package for the Coyote and a more compact OCS (observer control station).  This would free up space for two "scouts" in each Coyote.  Slap a couple of ALAWs on the side and we're good to go.

Scouts out!

 

[TCBF]

"As a quick aside, this has always been a pet peeve of mine. Why do we not train crew commanders earlier in their careers?"

- Can you imagine if the Air Force did this?

"Hello, welcome to 399 Sqn.  Just in from BOTC?  Great.  We are going to give you some OJT on our Airbusses, and then at some point, you will learn to fly one on your Captain's Course.  Any questions?

Idiocy.  I never understood tying rank to CC courses.

Tom

 

[Kat Stevens]

I know I'm swimming a bit out of my depth, but I'm wet now.  I CC'd an AVLB for 3 years in AET 1 CER as a Cpl.  I was also CC for the AEV in Bosnia '97, still a Cpl. I know it doesn't have the same level of "balls in the air" concentration as a gun tank, but the tactical portion, map reading, comms, and decision making was the same.  Short story long, anyone with enough time around a vehicle to be comfortable in the back hatch, rank regardless, can do a good job.

Kat

 

[TCBF]

True.  My first CC was a one hook Trooper.  But now, you have to have an AFV CC Course to move an AFV (notwithstanding the maint/admin crses to move one in and out of maint and test drives, etc).

Tom

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.uqm.com/

Maj. Baker just posted this under the "Just Plain Robots...." thread.

Seems applicable to this discussion -  not just for what it means for robots but also wheeled mobility

Check out the Spinner vehicle video on the top right.

 

[Blue Max]

Gentlemen, the Germans are planning for their new PUMA-IFV, an unmanned turret. If this works it may be the first step for a future tank design that does not have crewmen in the turret, and while still a potential for a MBT design application, it would allow the MBT to have a lower silhouette than todays designs. Of course this all hinges on how well this new equipment allows the crew to have situational awarness.

The crew of the Puma occupies a single, unified spaceâ “a crucial prerequisite for the effective optimization of all operational and control sequences, up to and including application of the IFV's weapon systems.

By eliminating the basket, a cube-shaped internal space results, easily enabling the crew and its equipment to be accommodated without compromise. Moreover, the division of space offers major advantages with respect to communication, ensuring that crewmembers can understand each other at all times.

Remote-controlled turret
The newly developed remote-controlled turret was chosen in order to reduce the amount of area to be protected. With its turret adaptationâ “no longer a turret basketâ “the vehicle is shortened and volume and weight are saved. The Puma's functionality increases very considerably through the turret adaptation: because the commander is put in the position of reconnoitring the enemy position using allround sensors, whilst at the same time the gunner effectively combats the target using target sensors.

360 degree glass optic
All-around sight is ensured through a 360-degree glass optic with round view periscope. The weapon optic allows for stabilised day and night vision, it includes a laser range-finder as well as an integrated direct sight which makes possible a 360-degree view independent of the position of the turret.

The crew has an 360 ° all-around view by periscopes. In addition there are mounted a rear-view camera and four '0-lux' cameras as an optronic expansion to the infantry troops' direct view.

The Puma will be the world's first IFV to have an unmanned, automatically controllable turret that has a 360 degrees traverse ability. It features automatic dual target tracking, automatic gun target adjustment, automatic sighting, a 360 degree commander's independent viewer that speeds targeting for the commander and gunner enabling the Puma to have a hunter/killer capability.

The turret design means that the commander and gunner are no longer seated in the turret, but instead decoupled redundant positions within the hull of the vehicle. It was therefore possible to make the Puma turret smaller and lighter.

The turret is operated using external fibre optic and optronic sights, an advanced second-generation starring ATTICA thermal imaging device with built-in, high-resolution CCD daylight cameras. The German company Zeiss Optronik is responsible for the integration of these innovative sights with Puma's advanced fire-control system.

In addition to the optronic observation and target sensors, Puma will be equipped with conventional glass fibre external sights. The design of the turret control panel represents a major departure. The vehicle's communications suite includes digital information displays for the commander, driver and squad leader.

The extensive use of state-of-the-art electronics and the digitalisation of the sight systems enables utilisation of relatively large, high-resolution monitors which have nothing in common with conventional oculars. Moreover, Puma is also equipped with a complete gun stabilisation system, the eye-safe LDM 38 laser range finder and numerous other devices.

Those in the rear fighting compartment will have access to the same information as the commander and gunner.

The infantrymen have access to a corner reflector that enables them to fire a close-in defence weapon (launcher) mounted on the outside of the turret and serving as secondary armament. This means that - compared to those in the Marder 1 A3 - the infantry section will be in a much better position to observe the battlefield and engage close-in targets - well protected and from the relative comfort of their seats. They will be able to dismount and execute their mission with a clear picture of what is going on outside the vehicle - whether it is a fire fight, riot control or the distribution of humanitarian aid.

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.de/index.php?lang=3&fid=2517
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/

 

[George Wallace]

Blue Max

These ideas are over thirty years old.  The Germans had remotely operated MGs on their Marders when they were first rolled off the production lines and have since dropped them.  The MGS that we are supposed to get is yet another design that is supposed to lower the profile of the AFV.  Also a very old idea.  The Swedish STank was a low profile tank, of a completely unique design that has also passed by the wayside. 

Question:  All the italicized print in your post is your statement; or from some other source?  It is a bit of a confusing read.  Where did the removal of the Gun Basket come from? 

By eliminating the basket, a cube-shaped internal space results, easily enabling the crew and its equipment to be accommodated without compromise.

The links you have provided for the PUMA are for an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, with a 30 mm Cannon.  It doesn't have a gun basket....never has.

The Sensor packages are similar to what we have for the LAV III.  Nothing new there. 

My problem with this remote turret is the fact that the crew now rely on Sensors for all their info.  These Sensors are all "Visual".  There are no acoustic sensors.  The Crew Commander can no longer use his ears.  Another problem is that technology also has a tendency to break easily, especially in tracked vehicles, and if any portion of the "all around" sensor package fails, then there is no way for the crew to use their basic God given abilities to their fullest extent.  (A crew commander needs to be able to stick his head up and look and listen.)

Then again, this is an IFV, and has little to do with the discussion on the Future of Armour, in the sense of Tanks.  A whole other breed of animal.

 

[a_majoor]

Actually, any AFV can be a topic of "Future Armour", tanks are really the "cult vehicle" and the place where most of the advances come first.

While remote controlled turrets may be old ideas, they have some undoubted advantages in reducing hight, weight and armoured volume. Some presumptive designs like the "T-95" have the crew sitting three abreast in the hull, which is not only cosy, but also allows the crew to have a certain amount of mutual support through presence (just like the age old tendency of Infantry soldiers to huddle together even though we have over a century's worth of experience to tell us it is dangerous to do so). SLA Marshall pointed out in "Men Against Fire" that the weapons most often fired in battle were the crew served weapons, since the team members could provide support and encouragement, when the individual riflemen were more prone to hide.

Most of your objections are valid as well, George, but systems are becoming reliable to a degree that wasn't even possible in the 1980s and 90s. As well, electronics are becoming smaller and cheaper, I see no reason there couldn't be redundant systems all over the tank or AFV in a similar manner to the "Halifax" frigates having five separate control nodes (although without the crews for each node).

My thinking is that current tank and AFV designs are at a plateau, and the new security environment will demand new ways of thinking about the technical and tactical aspects of AFV design.

 

[DG-41]

And the other major problem with all the remote-control, remote-sensor stuff is that it pushes up costs.

The hard fact of the matter is that the Canadian Army is always going to be extremely cost-sensitive, both in initial expendature and long-term maintainence. The weapon systems we buy today will be, like it or not, the weapon systems our children and grandchildren will be fighting with.

And like George, I am very suspicious of all the remote turret stuff. It seems like everybody who has tried it has abandoned it in later designs.

The closest thing I can find to a successful remote turret have been the chin guns in various attack helicopters - but even in those cases, the gunner has direct eyes-on the target. I have yet to see a successful remote turret where the operator is effectively locked in a sealed room.

DG

 

[a_majoor]

Playing devils advocate here....

The biggest long term cost is not capital or O&M, but personnel! To best control costs, the management needs to find ways to reduce the number of people needed to perform a task. To this end, any way to automate tasks, outsource or simply drop roles and duties is a positive. (In the real world, we need MORE boots on the ground, not less).

As for firing from a sealed room, our friends in the Navy have been doing this for more than a century, since the introduction of turreted, ironclad warships. Post WWII warships routinely load, aim and fire gun turrets and missiles without anyone in the turret. The hatch in the back allows the turret to be entered for maintanence and in an emergency, but otherwise it is quite empty. I believe the Italians actually put a 76mm naval gun turret on a tank chassis (complete with carousel and autoloader) as an experiment, although details like sighting and so on would have to be worked out to make this a practical proposition.

 

[Kirkhill]

The only thing more important than a soldier's life is a capitalist's profits. ;D

Capitalists have been choosing to put automated systems into their plants for decades now largely for the reasons that  a_majoor states:

1) Increasing Reliability
2) Increasing Sophistication (both of sensors and systems - auto plants are just more capable)
3) Decreasing Costs (of the technology)
4) Decreasing Size (of the technology)
5) Reduced manpower
6) Reduced training costs (more per individual but fewer individuals)

When a buddy of mine started selling to the dairy industry in Alberta in the 1950s he claimed there were 50 dairies of the mid to large size.  By the time I went to work with him in the 80s there were 15 in Alberta and maybe 50 in Western Canada.  Currently you would be lucky to find 15 in the West and we are rapidly heading to having 15 in Canada handling something like 80% of the total volume of milk.  Each of those plants is fully automated some only requiring 10 to 20 operators per shift.

Before plants used to run 8 to 16 hours a day 4 to 6 days a week.  Some, if not a majority now run 24/7.  Maintenance staff and management are now more harried because if something goes down it is a critical failure, but that is the result of 24/7 scheduling. 

But overall equipment reliability is much improved as is plant productivity.

The tank is the ultimate expression of industrial warfare.

Cheers.