Future Armour

[Colin Parkinson]

Ducted fan=hovercraft without the skirt, highly inefficent, forget about any infantry cooperation, it would be like screaming banshees you would hear them miles away. Also any vehicle riding on a cushion of air is subject to every slope, your squadron will quickly be hull down, even when they don't want to be.

Even anti-grav units would have problems I suspect, just try keeping a magnet stable onto of another's field. Ground contours and mineral denisties would likley affect the gravity field, they would need a computer to be constantly balancing the field to remain stable, I can only imagine the energy demands.

 

[a_majoor]

Ducted fan=hovercraft without the skirt, highly inefficent, forget about any infantry cooperation, it would be like screaming banshees you would hear them miles away. Also any vehicle riding on a cushion of air is subject to every slope, your squadron will quickly be hull down, even when they don't want to be.

Even anti-grav units would have problems I suspect, just try keeping a magnet stable onto of another's field. Ground contours and mineral denisties would likley affect the gravity field, they would need a computer to be constantly balancing the field to remain stable, I can only imagine the energy demands.

I never said it would be easy 

WRT ducted fans, the main reason I am suggesting this is there would be no rotors to get caught in trees, buildings or other low altitude hazzards. This 1970 era "Aerodyne" derives most of its thrust through a large, relatively slow moving fan geared to the turbine engine mounted above. IF you were to do this project with today's technology, you would probably start with a vehicle that "dashes" in the air from point to point and fights from the equivalent of rotor down and fuselage down positions (or even lands to fight). It is interesting as an exercise in speculation.

 

[a_majoor]

A little more speculation for you: a laser armed fighting vehicle. Solid state lasers are now the "in" thing in laser weaponry since there are fewer issues than with chemical lasers. A few things still need to be perfected of course, including adaptive optics, stabilized mounts able to slew and elevate large mirrors while protecting them from environmental and other harm and high density power supplies.

The form of the laser armed AFV will be a bit different, the laser itself can be contained inside the vehicle with only the mirror itself moving (similar to the laser armed 747 with a turret on the nose).

Since power will be a sticking point for some time to come (unless these things are nuclear!), I can see them being used in the AD role to target enemy aircraft, UAV's and, if possible, incoming rockets or shells. Firing lasers at tanks and other enemy AFV's would just annoy them unless you could target the enemy sensor optics.

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I understand it there are coatings available to protect both optics and the  eyeballs using said optics against lasers deliberately targeting them. I also seem to recall reading that the Chinese were offering up such a laser system for any interested buyer.

 

[a_majoor]

A little more nostalgia about how people in the 1930's viewed the "future". The Christie "Flying tank" is actually an exercise in air mobility, using a detachable set of wings and a prop geared off the motor to fly into the theater of operations. No doubt a few romantics conceived of flying tanks actually landing on the battlefield. I know the USSR took this idea a bit farther in the late 1930's (hardly surprising given the combination of purchasing Christie AFV's and the megalomaniac genius of Mikhail Tukhachevskii.), although I haven't found much documentary evidence or good pictures.

The vehicle is the Christie "M-1932" design. With its light overall weight and short barreled 75mm cannon, I would think it resembles an assault gun more than a tank. There is little protection, and the growth potential in terms of adding larger calibre or high velocity anti tank weapons (the way the Stg III and IV assult guns were for the German Army) seems limited.

About the only thing missing from this idea is grafting an autogyro rotor in place of the biplane wings. (But wait, Mike Sparks thought of that!.. )

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A wee bit more on Soviet flying tanks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_A-40

 

[Red 6]

Back in the 90s, the Army developed a system called the Stingray, which was a directed energy weapon. I had some buddies who went TDY from Fort Riley to White Sands in around 1990 to test it out. It was supposed to interfere with enemy armored vehicles by blinding the crew and knocking out laser range finders, if I remember correctly. As far as I know, it never went into service. Anyone remember this?

Cheers, Mark

 

[a_majoor]

More flying tank designs from the ever inventive aerospace industry:

http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/Convair49CatalogPage.htm

In 1965, the U.S. Army asked America's major aircraft companies to submit proposals for an Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS) to support ground troops.  While most companies responded with conventional -- albeit advanced -- helicopter designs, Convair's San Diego division returned with something truly unique: A closed-wing, shrouded rotor VTOL with heavy on-board weaponry and an articulated cockpit.

Essentially a "flying tank," the Model 49 would be able to launch and land vertically like a helicopter, fly horizontally like an airplane, hover, and even operate as a moveable weapons platform while on the ground.

Said by Convair engineers to be easier operate than a conventional helicopter, the Model 49 was deemed far to radical to warrant further development.

 

[Chilly Willie]

Agree with you on this one have a look at the US FCS program.

 

[a_majoor]

I came across a copy of "Race to the Swift", by Richard Simpkin not too long ago, and read chapter seven "The Rotary Wing Revolution" with some interest. (Yes, the rest of the book is good too). Although written in the 1980's with the Soviet threat first and foremost (although ironically less than a decade before the collapse of the USSR and our victory in WW III/the Cold War) he still makes very good observations about the substitution of speed for mass (in all aspects of war. Interested readers should also look at his chapters about robotics, logistics and C3I).

Chapter seven revolves around General Senger und Etterlin’s main battle air vehicle concept: The main battle air vehicle uses ground tactically without relying on it for mobility.

Using examples like the Soviet era Airborne Assault Brigade and Hind series of helicopters as a starting point, Simpkin suggests that the great speed of heliborn forces and the ability to lie dispersed and fight concentrated gives the brigade sized helicopter force the fighting power of an armoured division almost 10 times its size. (I will not dispute his numbers, but leave it to people with greater ability and access to data).

The downside of using helicopters as main battle air vehicles is the fuel consumption, which limits time on station and the ability to fight. A hovering helicopter uses fuel at the maximum rate (opposite to an idling tank or IFV), so dispersion would require helicopters to be landed and either shut down or in "flight idle" (i.e. rotors turning so the helicopter can get in the air rapidly). the other downside was with 1980 era missile technology, Simpkin believed helicopters would be unable to engage targets with their main armament (ATGM's) while rotor down, although he did foresee mast mounted sights. He also pointed out the vulnerability of rotors and the difficulty of hovering NOE when air recirculation reduces the lift available to the rotor.

Simpkin predicted that counterrotating rotors and other technical advances would make the flying part easier, and I believe that fire and forget missiles or FOG-M can be programmed to be launched in rotor down position (given the rest of the terrain is suitable), pull up and activate sensors/cameras once they clear the crest to engage a target while the helicopter is still rotor down. I suspect in the here and now, the Sikorsky X-2 concept could spawn vehicles that would very closely approach the main battle air vehicle concept. With the ability to manoeuvre down in the weeds (especially without a tail rotor in the usual sense and smaller diameter rotors) and high dash speeds, we may be getting much closer to a flying tank/IFV than previously. Of course the ability to move swiftly without terrain constraints (when needed) is even more valuable in COIN operations than in conventional battles against peer and near peer competitors, so this is one idea which should be looked at in far more detail.

 

[CyberJonesy]

Could the Army use RC vehicles as decoys for IED attacks?

I know this may sound silly but has the Armry ever considered using a remote controlled vehicle in pair with their current vehicles? For example: Placing 2 drivers inside 1 vehicle. 1 of them drives the actual vehicle and follows the drone ahead of him while the second driver controls, by remote, a "drone", which is another vehicle used as a decoy. The RC operator can navigate with the help of cameras on the drone, detecting threats but most importantly, taking IED hits in place of their own vehicle.

I know there are many different kinds of IED's and that I'm just practically daydreaming but I just find it terrible that so many lives are lost due to IED's in Afghanistan.

 

[George Wallace]

Could the Army use RC vehicles as decoys for IED attacks?

I know this may sound silly but has the Armry ever considered using a remote controlled vehicle in pair with their current vehicles? For example: Placing 2 drivers inside 1 vehicle. 1 of them drives the actual vehicle and follows the drone ahead of him while the second driver controls, by remote, a "drone", which is another vehicle used as a decoy. The RC operator can navigate with the help of cameras on the drone, detecting threats but most importantly, taking IED hits in place of their own vehicle.

I know there are many different kinds of IED's and that I'm just practically daydreaming but I just find it terrible that so many lives are lost due to IED's in Afghanistan.

Kids have made this suggestion before and we have explained it.

The IED doesn't always target the lead vehicle.  The Taliban will pick any vehicle in a convoy to attack, not just the lead vehicle.  The vehicle does not have drive over an IED.  An IED could be in a wall, in a curb, in a culvert; it could be anywhere.  A remote controlled vehicle would not solve the problem, and is too expensive to build and operate.

 

[CyberJonesy]

Thanks for the answer George.

I like your signature, too 

 

[a_majoor]

Improved crew ergonomics and protection also fall under this heading. A Canadian invention with application to crewmen and crews of any AFV, RG-31, SP cannons and LAV:

http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/24312/?nlid=2647&a=f

A Helmet to Prevent Paralysis
Engineers are designing a helmet that could protect the spine from serious injury.
By Lauren Gravitz

Helmets for everything from football and hockey to motorcycle riding are built to protect the head from impact. Each successive generation of design is better at dissipating force and protecting against concussions and other knocks to the skull. But current helmets can still do little to prevent the spinal injuries that cause paralysis.

Now researchers at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver are working on a design that could protect the spine during a head-on collision. When a person's head hits a flat object straight on, the impact normally causes the neck to crumple as it absorbs the brunt of the force. If a broken vertebra dissects or otherwise damages the delicate spinal cord, the result can be permanent paralysis. If the head hits an object at an angle, it can glance off without much damage--that's why football players are taught to tackle opponents with their heads raised.

"I became interested in whether there was a way to convert the impact against a flat object into an impact against an angled object," says Peter Cripton, the mechanical engineer and biomechanics specialist at UBC who led the project. He and his colleagues developed the "Pro-Neck-Tor" helmet, which consists of an outer shell that looks like most helmets on the market today, a rotating inner shell that hugs the head, and a mechanism that connects the two.

"The main purpose of helmets, whether in sports or transportation, is always to prevent brain injuries. We're trying to do something quite different," Cripton says. "We're working toward a helmet with the same ability to prevent concussion, but also with the ability to prevent neck injuries." During normal, day-to-day use, the inner shell remains immobile. But when the helmet hits something with enough force, the inner mechanism releases, and the inner shell rotates, guiding the head as if it were hitting an angled surface instead of a flat one.

"Just putting more padding on your head isn't going to solve the neck injury problem, and it may even make it worse," says injury biomechanics expert John Melvin, an adjunct professor at Wayne State University in Michigan who's been studying the problem since 1968. "It's a tough problem, but they're taking a unique approach, and I think it has potential. It'll have to be evaluated in many, many ways to make sure it's safe--you don't want to end up causing serious brain injury while preventing a serious neck injury."

Revamping helmets is a tricky business, especially when there's no good way to field-test them without living, breathing human beings. (Crash test dummies won't work, and cadavers don't have the necessary neck strength and position.) But in simulation testing, 3-D prototypes of the helmets reduced force to the neck by about 50 percent. Once the researchers perfect the design, they'll individualize the helmets for different sports--football, hockey, and bicycling, for instance, which tend to result in different kinds of impacts.

The Pro-Neck-Tor project just received $150,000 in a new round of funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to help enable commercialization of the technology. Cripton and his colleagues hope to have a helmet ready for market in about three years.

Copyright Technology Review 2010.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Kids have made this suggestion before and we have explained it.

The IED doesn't always target the lead vehicle.  The Taliban will pick any vehicle in a convoy to attack, not just the lead vehicle.  The vehicle does not have drive over an IED.  An IED could be in a wall, in a curb, in a culvert; it could be anywhere.  A remote controlled vehicle would not solve the problem, and is too expensive to build and operate.

Israel is using remote controlled vehicles along certain parts of it's border, but they control the ground quite well and the vehicles operate on closed roads in a smallish area. Very different then Afghanistan. The IDF also apparently used remote controlled bulldozers in Cast lead

 

[a_majoor]

Well, retro-future armour anyway.

It always strikes me as odd that the Swedes, who have similar population, climate and GDP can develop advanced projects like this, the Strv 122 (improved Leopard 2A6), SAAB jet fighters, warships and submarines, SP artillery etc. without going broke while we seemingly cannot.

The Strv 2000 project is still very interesting, and probably would still be quite potent on today's battlefield. An unintended consequence of utilizing the main gun for APDFS only and a 40mm coax for soft targets is it would actually be a good fire support vehicle in todays unconventional battlefield, where to 40mm would work against almost any conceivable "technical" or grapehouse bunker, while minimizing colateral damage.

http://strv102r.tripod.com/strv_2000.htm

STRV 2000
The never realized supertank

In the late eighties it became apparent that Strv 101R, 102R, 103C and Strv 104 were inadequate against the evolving threat. To prepare for purchase of foreign tanks an M1A1 and a Leopard 2 were borrowed for a year to help formulate technical specifications for a new tank. A Swedish concept was studied as well. It was influenced by the experiences with the "S" and the lessons learned from the trials with the UDES 03, UDES 19 and the UDES-XX-20 in the late seventies and early eighties.

The UDES 03 was a test vehicle were the concept of an elevating gun mounted on a turretless chassie was tested and found workable. The UDES 19 was a german Marder with a 10,5 cm gun was mounted on top of the vehicle to test the feasability of a external tank gun in a low profile top mounted turret.

The UDES-XX-20 was ready for testing in 1981. It was based on the Hägglunds BV 206 and had double waiststeering and an external 12 cm tank gun. While mobility was very good the concept is more expensive than tracksteering. The vehicle weighed 25 tons.

The earlier experiences led to two different concepts for further study. The first with an external gun mounted on an almost invisible turret and the second with a compact turret. The second concept was chosen for further study and a full scale wooden mock up was constructed. The tank was to weigh 55 tons and have modular armor for easy upgrading, a front mounted engine, a 14 cm smoothbore autoloaded gun firing APFSDS only. For softer targets than tanks the coaxial 40 mm autocannon firing APFSDS and HE was to be used, or the 7,62 mm coaxial Ksp m/39. The gunner and commander was to sit on the right side of the turret. The tank  was of course to have a state of the art C3I-system. The importance of IRV had not been recognized when the study started so instead of an adequate IRV the Lyran illumination round mortars were to used. But the studies had clearly shown that the cost for developing a swedish tank was prohibitive compared to foreign purchase. In 1991 the decision to buy a forign design was taken.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Nothing like watching Finland and the Soviet Union duke it out and then watch the world go to hell around you to encourage your citizens to sped money on defense. However even the Swedish military is feeling the effects of the "peace dividend" generation. They have been downsizing for quite a while and apparently quite painfully. I suspect they would have jumped at a request with good terms to lease some CV-90's when we leased the Leopard 2A6M's

 

[a_majoor]

Electric armour for protection against RPGs and HEAT rounds makes another advance:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/03/uk-reports-progress-to-electric-armor.html

UK Reports Progress to Electric Armor Enhancement to Tanks To Counter Rocket Propelled Grenades

The UK is working on a new type of armour that will use pulses of electrical energy to repel rockets, shrapnel and other ammunition that might damage a vehicle.

    Researchers at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), which is the research and development arm of the Ministry of Defence, claim it is possible to use supercapacitors with tank armour to turn the armour into a kind of giant battery.

    When a threat from incoming fire is detected by the vehicle, the energy stored in the supercapacitor can be rapidly dumped onto the metal plating on the outside of the vehicle, producing a strong electromagnetic field.

Rocket Propelled grenades use shaped charges to penetrate armor. Explosives turn a metal liner into a plasma of about 20,000 degrees celsius which then hits the armor in a cone shape that melts through thick armor.

Electrical forces can act upon the plasma and shield the armor. Armor would still be used to stop kinetic energy shells and bullets. Regular armor is more effective against regular kinetic shells and bullets. RPGs and shaped charges are disproportionately cheap and effective and require a military to have thicker armor on heavier and more expensive vehicles. A cheaper electric armor solution would reduce costs and weight while enable equal or greater protection against the range of weapon threats.

    Armour piercing rounds, RPGs and "shaped charge" roadside bombs pose a far greater threat to armoured vehicles and tanks as it is not possible to put enough armour plating on all parts of the vehicle to protect it completely.

    The comparatively lightweight electric armour, however, could be used to protect the entire outer shell of a vehicle by using a thin cloth-like flexible supercapacitor material.

    This can be used to form a lining beneath the armour that turns the vehicle into a giant battery pack.

    An early incarnation of a different type of electric armour technology has already been trailed by Dstl.

    It used several layers of metal which have electric current flowing through them.

    When an RPG round penetrates the outer layer, it completes the electrical circuit creating a highly electrically charged field between the layers.

    This charged field vaporizes the copper jet that shoots out from the front of the RPG warhead, preventing it from penetrating the inner hull of the vehicle and keeping the soldiers inside safe.

    At a test in 2002, senior British Army officers saw the chassis of a Warrior infantry carrier, which was fitted with the early electric armour, survive repeated attack by RPGs before being driven away with only minor damage.



Super Bainite Armor with Edges for Double Performance and Half the Weight

    The Ministry of Defense has tasked Dstl with reducing the weight of armoured vehicles by 70 per cent over the next decade in a bid to improve speed and manoeuvrability.

    Dstl has also developed an experimental armour steel that is covered in holes known as Super Bainite, which could also be used on vehicles.

    Scientists found they could double the ballistic performance of the armour by introducing the holes to the steel, while halving its weight.

    Professor Peter Brown, who headed the Dstl team that developed Super Bainite, said: "This is because when a bullet hits, it's always near to the edge of a hole.

    "This causes the bullet to topple over, turning it from a sharp projectile to a blunt fragment which is easier to stop."


Defense Review covered super-bainite armor back in 2008

    The DSTL team is headed up by scientist Peter Brown. According to him, due to the unique low-temp process by which Super Bainite is made, it’s able to "match the ballistic performance of the very best off-shore armor steels for a fraction of their cost."

    Super Bainite has already been successfully produced in production trials by DSTL in partnership with with Corus and Bodycote, and the first Super Bainite armor plates are currently undergoing ballistic testing.

BBC coverage of super bainite

    Professor Peter Brown explained: "You shouldn't think of them as holes, you should think of them as edges. When a bullet hits an edge, it gets deflected, and turns from a sharp projectile into a blunt fragment - which is much easier to stop. It doubles the ballistic performance and halves the weight."

 

[a_majoor]

"Flying tanks" are back.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/04/darpa-plans-flying-hybrid-electric.html#more

DARPA Plans Flying Hybrid Electric HumVee for 2015

DARPA has 58 pages of specifications around what kind of flying car they want.
* flying/driving range of 250 miles
* measure no more than 30 feet long by 8.5' wide and 9' high
* perform vertical take-off and landing
* carry four people
* perform unmanned operations
* and be easy enough to control that anyone who can drive a Humvee can also pilot the vehicle.
* Capable of handling small arms fire
* Quick entry and exit

DARPA imagines that the vehicle could use
* hybrid electric drive
* adaptive wing structures
* ducted fan propulsion systems
* and lightweight heavy fuel engines.

The closest vehicle to meeting the DARPA specifications is the Terrafugia Transition. It is a roadable plane that can carry 430 pounds and seats two people and has a flying range of 460 miles and a driving range of 600 miles. The Terrafugia Transition requires a Sports Pilot license which takes 20 hours of training. The Terragugia Transition does not have unmanned capabilities and does not have vertical takeoff capabilities.

The Parajet Skycar is also a contender.

Robotic Flying and VTOL Are Key Hurdles to Enable Safe and Easy Flying Cars for the General Population
The UAV and VTOL aspects were discussed in my vision of UAV that carry passengers to revolution city commuting.

When fully deployed Robotic flying and a shift to commuting via air :
* This could eliminate 1.2 million fatalities each year in worldwide car fatalities
* This could increase economic productivity by enabling commuting to be ten times faster and have some safe productive work while in transit

DARPA robotic flying car success could save millions of lives and be worth trillions to the world economy.

OK, maybe not a tank, but a form of AFV. We have discussed this before here. Technology has advanced to the point where we can finally see this becoming possible.

 

[GAP]

There's no particular thread on RWS's....so I stuck this in here...

Lifesaving Robotics
June 29, 2010
Article Link

One of the most important (in terms of saving lives) new weapon to appear in the last decade is the RWS (Remote Weapon Stations). This is the ubiquitous remote control weapon (usually a machine-gun) seen on so many vehicles (from hummers to MRAPs and tanks). The leader in the field, Norwegian firm Kongsberg, has sold over 15,000 of its Protec (Protector) Remote Weapon Stations. Over two-thirds have been bought by the U.S. Army, at a cost of $2.2 billion (about $212,000 each). Widespread and successful use on Stryker, M-1 and hummer vehicles has led the U.S. Army to adopt the Kongsberg system as standard. The initial order, in 2007, was for 6,500. But the success of the system increased demand. The remote control gun turret has now become a standard system on American combat vehicles.

Kongsberg has several models of the Protec, to support small, medium and large sized weapons. Now there are a lot of competitors, if only because Kongsberg can't keep up with the demand. Many of the new competitors are trying to grab niche markets. The more obvious ones are those demanding RWS that can handle larger weapons, like 25mm or 30mm autocannon. But the most interesting new development is the portable RWS. It can be mounted on a hummer, but quickly removed, and carried by two troops, and set up anywhere using a tripod. The operator can stay behind cover, while the light machine-gun, exposed to hostile fire, unflinchingly takes on the enemy. There are lots of combat situations that could make use of this lightweight RWS.

The Protec RWS is the key component of the U.S. Army CROWS (common remotely operated weapon stations). This idea of a remote control turret has been around for nearly half a century, but years of tinkering, and better technology, have finally made the remote control gun turret finally work effectively, dependably and affordably. This has made the RWS practical for widespread combat use. While some troops miss the greater feeling of situational awareness (especially being able to hear and smell the surroundings) you got as an old-school turret gunner, most soldiers and marines have adapted and accepted the new system. What it lacks in the smelling and hearing department, it makes up in terms of night vision and zoom. And it's a lot safer.

CROWS is a real life saver, not to mention anxiety reducer, for troops who drive through bandit country a lot, and man the turret gun. You're a target up there, and too often, the bad guys get you. Not with CROWS. The gunner is inside the vehicle, checking out the surroundings (with night vision, zoom and telephoto capabilities). CROWS also has a laser rangefinder built in, as well as a stabilizer mechanism to allow more accurate fire while the vehicle is moving. The CROWS systems (RWS, weapon and installation) cost about $260,000 each, and can mount a variety of weapons (M2 .50 caliber machine-gun, MK19 40-mm automatic grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine-gun and M249 5.56mm squad automatic weapon). CROWS comes in several different configurations, based on weapon mounted and armor installed (light, at 74 kg/163 pounds, standard, at 136 kg/298 pounds and CROWS II, at 172 kg/379 pounds.) The heaviest version is usually used in MRAP (armored trucks) and has a better user interface, a thermal imager and sniper detection system. By the end of 2006, there were about a thousand CROWS in service. There are now over 8,000. Many of the enemy fighters have seen Western or Japanese films featuring killer robots, and often think that's what they are facing. The fear factor is real, and it helps.

The accuracy of the fire, and uncanny speed with which the CROWS gun moves so quickly and deliberately, is due to something few officers expected. The guys operating these systems grew up playing video games. They developed skills in operating computer systems (video games) very similar to the CROWS controls. This was important, because viewing the world around the vehicle via a vidcam is not as enlightening (although a lot safer) than having your head and chest exposed to the elements (and any firepower the enemy sends your way). But experienced video gamers are skilled at whipping that screen view around, and picking up any signs of danger.
More on link