Future Armour

[ArmyRick]

I am rubbing my chrystal ball and using my gift of fore sight....

The future tells me that it doesn't matter if/when Harper gets a majority. We got our toys and thats it for now, sweet deal or no, we are probably not getting additional tanks. I beleive things like TAPV are higher on the list anyways.

 

[a_majoor]

As desirable as this sounds from our perspective, the Government (past tense) and the CPC (present tense) have eliminating the deficit in a controlled draw down as their highest priority. The LPC have promised to cancel the CF-35, and the military has never figured in the thought process of the NDP, so there is no political basis for grabbing the Dutch equipment under any conceivable electoral outcome (majority, minority, LPC led coalition, NDP led coalition).

 

[GK .Dundas]

As desirable as this sounds from our perspective, the Government (past tense) and the CPC (present tense) have eliminating the deficit in a controlled draw down as their highest priority. The LPC have promised to cancel the CF-35, and the military has never figured in the thought process of the NDP, so there is no political basis for grabbing the Dutch equipment under any conceivable electoral outcome (majority, minority, LPC led coalition, NDP led coalition).

Allow me to translate for our less politically aware brethren and sisters.
" They re all politicians of course they're going to screw us over!"

 

[a_majoor]

Allow me to translate for our less politically aware brethren and sisters.
" They re all politicians of course they're going to screw us over!"

With due respect, the CPC did give us a lot of toys we would not otherwise have had, and drawing down the deficit really should be "Job One" (In fact, I'd argue it should be eliminated ASAP, but political realities get in the way).

I agree the Coalition of the idiots would indeed toss us under a bus without a thought; I had to raise a family with 0% pay raise for seven years during the decade of darkness. (This provoked a very...interesting conversation with the LPC candidate when he came canvassing the other day).

 

[Dissident]

(This provoked a very...interesting conversation with the LPC candidate when he came canvassing the other day).

One way conversation?

 

[GK .Dundas]

With due respect, the CPC did give us a lot of toys we would not otherwise have had, and drawing down the deficit really should be "Job One" (In fact, I'd argue it should be eliminated ASAP, but political realities get in the way).

I agree the Coalition of the idiots would indeed toss us under a bus without a thought; I had to raise a family with 0% pay raise for seven years during the decade of darkness. (This provoked a very...interesting conversation with the LPC candidate when he came canvassing the other day).

You are correct about the deficit I go even further and say we should be trying to eliminate the national debt.However why is it whenever there some budget cutting to be done are we almost always the "usual suspects"? And the only ones at that !
As for the CPC  you're right again ..they would pause and  .......then throw us under the bus .

 

[Fishbone Jones]

You are correct about the deficit I go even further and say we should be trying to eliminate the national debt.However why is it whenever there some budget cutting to be done are we almost always the "usual suspects"? And the only ones at that !
As for the CPC  you're right again ..they would pause and  .......then throw us under the bus .

And you'll be pineing for the good old days when the NDP\Lib coalition become the government and Layton is the PM. You'll be standing there in a powder blue beret, between to warring African nations and be lucky to have a sharp stick to use and making collect calls to the UN.

At least Harper cuts across the board and isn't afraid of taking some long standing, trough feeding GO & NGO entities with us. Unlike the millions in pandering you'll see handed to even the faintest of Opposition supporters on the backs of the taxpayers.

So yeah, go beat Harper up but hold your whining when the applecart gets upset.

 

[GK .Dundas]

And you'll be pineing for the good old days when the NDP\Lib coalition become the government and Layton is the PM. You'll be standing there in a powder blue beret, between to warring African nations and be lucky to have a sharp stick to use and making collect calls to the UN.

At least Harper cuts across the board and isn't afraid of taking some long standing, trough feeding GO & NGO entities with us. Unlike the millions in pandering you'll see handed to even the faintest of Opposition supporters on the backs of the taxpayers.

So yeah, go beat Harper up but hold your whining when the applecart gets upset.

I really don't trust any of them it 's basically  a matter of degree .The Conservatives in my mind are only the least objectionable of the lot.

 

[a_majoor]

Well there are alternative systems of government we could look at 

 

[a_majoor]

Reading the National Post today and looking at the special supplement on our mission in Afghanistan. There were several references to the inability of our forces to follow the Taliban due to being road bound or having limited cross country mobility.

Now even discounting the bias and limited experience of journalists who were embedded in theater, I think this does raise a point. Generation three tanks have protection through massive arrays of armour, firepower using huge cannons to drive KE penetrators and some really awesome automotive components to propell these motorized fortresses, but in areas of complex terrain, their size and weight limits their mobility. As well, there are some pretty heavy logistical requirements to supporting these beasts.

Is there a real requirement for smaller, lighter tanks or fire support vehicles? How much can/should we sacrifice in terms of firepower and protection for increases in strategic, operational and tactical mobility? Is it sufficient to shrink tanks to CV-90120 size, or smaller (AMX-13?). For that matter, should we be looking to unconventional solutions like the PT-76 amphibious tank, or BMD type vehicles that can be deployed by air? [the vehicles named are to give a shorthand description of what might be done, not advocacy of dusting off ancient designs]

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think the main problem is that people want a 20 ton tank with the protection of a 60 ton tank and gets 15mpg

 

[Haletown]

Reading the National Post today and looking at the special supplement on our mission in Afghanistan. There were several references to the inability of our forces to follow the Taliban due to being road bound or having limited cross country mobility.

There is never, ever going to be an AFV that can follow the most mobile, highest traction, longest enduring and deadly military invention we know as Infantry.

 

[George Wallace]

Only a "Two Cylinder Jobbie", "Graval Technician", "Pongo" is good at that.    ;D

Would that make him/her an AFP?

 

[Haletown]

Only a "Two Cylinder Jobbie", "Graval Technician", "Pongo" is good at that.    ;D

Would that make him/her an AFP?

don't forget Death Tech  8)

 

[McG]

Reading the National Post today and looking at the special supplement on our mission in Afghanistan. There were several references to the inability of our forces to follow the Taliban due to being road bound or having limited cross country mobility.

In the first half of '06, the mixture of vehicles was an impairment to mobility itself.  Convoys and packets were unable to exploit the strengths of any vehicle but instead were limited by the collective weaknesses.  One could not go where it was too tight for a LAV III nor where it was too rough for a G-Wagon or RG-31.  Greater uniformity of fleets can in itself be a way to improve future mobility, and so we should ensure there are no micro-fleets without the necessary combat and support variants to form homogeneous fighting organizations.

Engineer fighting vehicles also need to be in the mix.  Despite having an all wheeled fleet in the same time period of '06, there were a great number of times that I could have employed AEV or AVLB for greater freedom of manoeuvre to allow friendly forces to extract from difficult locations or to appear unexpectedly along axis not without good routes.

The arrival of tanks with implements and supported by heavy engineer fighting vehicles allowed us to start going places that none of our other vehicles could.

 

[a_majoor]

So perhaps the better answer would be a "family" of vehicles with similar mobility characteristics and associated support (engineering) equipment to get where we need to go?

This seems to be a sensible answer and one I can easily digest and understand (and the implications for having all these mini fleets of armoured vehicles is pretty negative). The weird practice of looking at vehicles in isolation and not having "mandates" to extend studies/purchases to families of vehicles really has to end.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In the first half of '06, the mixture of vehicles was an impairment to mobility itself.  Convoys and packets were unable to exploit the strengths of any vehicle but instead were limited by the collective weaknesses.  One could not go where it was too tight for a LAV III nor where it was too rough for a G-Wagon or RG-31.  Greater uniformity of fleets can in itself be a way to improve future mobility, and so we should ensure there are no micro-fleets without the necessary combat and support variants to form homogeneous fighting organizations.

Engineer fighting vehicles also need to be in the mix.  Despite having an all wheeled fleet in the same time period of '06, there were a great number of times that I could have employed AEV or AVLB for greater freedom of manoeuvre to allow friendly forces to extract from difficult locations or to appear unexpectedly along axis not without good routes.

The arrival of tanks with implements and supported by heavy engineer fighting vehicles allowed us to start going places that none of our other vehicles could.

I guess the cloest we came to this was in the cold war, with the tracked fleet, even then it was far from perfect, I recall 3rd herd dragging their 5/4 ton CP's behind tracks to follow the battery.

 

[a_majoor]

While the basic Merkava design is 40 years old (!), the mark IV version shows how vehicles can stay "current"

http://defense-update.com/features/2010/june/merkava_40_years_interview_09062010.html#2000

MERKAVA - 40 Years of Action

This year the Merkava tank is celebrating its 40th years anniversary. For four decades the Merkava program remained on track, keeping pace major revolutions in technology, strategy, economy and political. “It was not an easy task” Brigadier general Yaron Livnat, Merkava Tank Program Manager (PM) told Defense Update. In 2006 the program reached its lowest point, awaiting the general staff decision to pull the plug on the Merkava program and, in fact, the entire armored corps. 12 months later the program was back on track, as the IDF realized its erroneous judgment, recovering from the second Lebanon War, where the Israelis suffered significant hits but also proved their prowess, land maneuver reestablished its validity and necessity.

With a fully funded long-term recovery plan to evolve the tank into a ‘family of vehicles, supported at the highest levels of GHQ and MOD,’ the IDF fully embraced the development and fielding in the introduction of a new armored vehicle, more than 40 years after deploying of the first M-113 APC, the Namer armored infantry vehicle emerged as a totally new concept.

“The Merkava program represents a highly sophisticated, heavy industrial complex which has only few counterparts worldwide. The program, established by General Israel Tal 40 years ago, remains virtually unchanged” said Livnat, “we still have the same departments and quite a few of our technical experts are working here, after more than 30 years. The same organizational formation is still valid, although we implemented state of the art computing tools and machinery. That stability helped retain the engineering, operational, combat experience and technical expertise, gained through the program’s evolution” Livnat added.

From a program focused on the automotive, protected platform of the 1970s the Merkava Program Management office (PM) evolved and expanded into new fields of vehicle electronics, software design, electro-optics and advanced armor technology, which are all part of the Merkava Mk4 and Namer IFV designs.

“Unlike its counterparts worldwide, the Merkava PM office represents a special breed – a military unit under IDF command and a branch of the Ministry of Defense (MOD) which is running a ‘business’, managing an operation in the methods used in the commercial world. This approach enables us to address our customers as piers, while ‘speaking the same language’ with our suppliers” explained Livnat.

Merkava 4 - The Tank of the 2000s

The development of the current generation Merkava Mk4 began in 1999 and represented a major step toward a modular, ‘open platform’. This unique approach enabled us to transform the tank from an armored vehicle, designed to fight other tanks, into a versatile platform optimized for a changing battlefield - from low-intensity asymmetric warfare to high intensity counter-armor operations. “In 1999 our charter was to design a tank that will survive changes and evolve with the time. We did not them call it ‘Asymmetric Warfare’. Back then we realized we will have to outmatch future threats with advanced protection, or active protection systems (APS), which did not exist at the time. But these were already included in the requirements and conceptual design of the tank, as we defined the interfaces of the armor, to accommodate future growth, as such technology would become available.  Today, Merkava Mk4 tanks are rolling out of the assembly line, equipped with the latest Trophy Active Protection System, integrated as a standard element of the protection suite.”

Similarly, it was clear that information technology will develop at a rapid pace and we wouldn’t like to be left behind, so we packed enough electrical and computer power, by designing powerful computers that use a scalable, distributed computing architecture,  sharing common, interconnected protocols and networks on board, providing the tank’s systems  flexible means to perform multiple tasks in an efficient, redundant and reliable manner.

In fact, rather than having a specific processor committed to individual tasks, the many processors employed on the Merkava Mk4, provide ‘services’ to applications, each service is prioritized by parameters like importance, urgency and process-duration. These processors can be located in different areas of the tank and are interconnected into ‘rings’, over multiple network paths, providing a resilient and survivable infrastructure. This approach also offers exponential growth, as specific elements are not restricted by memory, computing power or other operating parameters. The original network developed for the Merkava, preceded the Digital Army Program (DAP) known as Zayad, which was introduced in later versions of the tank and is gradually being applied to the current fleet.

Design versatility is also characteristic in other areas, including weapon systems, armor protection and combat support tool attachments, enabling the user to rapidly and flexibly configure the tank with mission-specific kits, designed for different applications.

For example, an electrically controlled coax weapon-attachment is mounted on top of the main gun barrel, accommodating an automatic grenade launcher (AGL) or 0.5” heavy machinegun (HMG). This weapon enables the gunner to employ an alternative kinetic effect weapon, in situations that do not require firing the 120mm main gun. “To operate the AGL or 0.5” HMG the gunner uses the same firing and aiming procedures through the same sight,  operating the tank's ballistic computer, which is informed on the specific weapon’s ballistic characteristics” Livnat explains. The weapon is automatically aligned with the gun and connected to the gunner’s optics and fire control, through a common interface, embedded in the tank. This interface indicates the type of weapon and ammunition being used, enabling the ballistic computer to instantly lay the weapon in the correct aiming solution. “This versatility was the key in the transformation of the Merkava mk4 in recent years, from a main battle tank, into a versatile warfighting platform, capable of effectively engaging soft and urban targets, in less-intensive warfare, without sacrificing its operational capabilities in high intensity combat”, General Livnat concluded.

In the past, tanks normally fought and survived within rigid formations. Today, they can operate in looser ‘packs’, seamlessly sharing targets, coordinating activities amongst themselves and cooperating with other elements, over the DAP C4I network. After 10 years and numerous improvements in software, we still operate the same displays and user interface displays, although the version currently in service, has improved dramatically in the level of details and situational presence it provides to the user. We expect to replace these only when we shall implement the next phase-upgrade of the battle management network.”

The multiple networks embedded in the tank are also enabling rapid introduction of new electronic equipment, enabling the Merkava Mk 4 to remain up-to-date, with the highest standards. “Previous generations of tanks are not as easily upgraded, and their modernization process is extensive and laborious, and, therefore difficult to justify in times of budget cuts.” Applying the unique Merkava Program Office versatile process, is one of the reasons for Livnat's confidence about the future of the Merkava production. “The IDF and MOD are supporting continued production of Merkava and Namer vehicles, at least throughout the next decade. This continuous production of Merkava Mk4 will enable the IDF to gradually phase out older tanks, that are more difficult to maintain and difficult to upgrade” said Livnat.

 

[GAP]

Not armor per se, but definitely the future

Smart Phones At War
October 5, 2011
Article Link

As quickly as the U.S. Army is moving to develop and adopt a battlefield smart phone, it is actually just trying to keep up with its troops. Civilian firms (both defense oriented and otherwise) have noted this troop interest and quickly come up with solutions to problems the army believes are in the way of deploying a battlefield smart phone. These proposals include solutions for security and lack of a signal. The big problem the army has is not a lack of solutions, but figuring out which ones to adopt. Meanwhile, troops are taking their phones into combat. And even without a signal, they can use all sorts of useful apps. Some of these are civilian applications, but others were created by troops, for chores they wanted to automate. And when the troops do get a signal, the phones become even more useful. Even the brass have been impressed.

Meanwhile, there is no shortage of ideas for apps (applications, programs, software). The most widely popular have to do with simply letting troops know where they are, and where the enemy is believed to be. GPS in the smart phone provides the location, the army has plenty of digital maps to use on the smart phones, and local headquarters have reports of where enemy forces are, or are thought to be. Making this stuff available to all troops, all the time, is a big lifesaver, and stress-reliever. There are also apps that enable smart phones to collect finger prints, and quickly let you know if the guy you have just caught is worth keeping. Another firm has an app that would allow smart phone users to control small UAVs. Another app allows users to share video feeds from nearby UAVs, or from anyone else with a military smart phone. Commanders can quickly draw up a plan for an operation and send it to subordinate commanders (down to team leaders, who run five man infantry teams). This saves time, and on the battlefield, that saves lives.

Then there are the iPads. These are already being adopted by officers and troops, without waiting for permission. Combat pilots in Afghanistan have, like many businesses, discovered new and useful ways to use the iPad. U.S. Marine Corps helicopter pilots found the iPad a useful way to carry hundreds of military maps, rather than the hassle of using paper versions. Marine commanders quickly realized this "field expedient" (a military "hack" that adopts something for unofficial use while in the combat zone) worked, and made it official. That meant buying iPads for this and getting to work coming up with more uses. Meanwhile, support troops that have to handle a lot of data, are finding ways to get it done on iPads. This is pretty simple for technical troops who rely on lots of manuals. There are often already available in PDF format, and can easily be put on an iPad. But the iPads are basically hand-held computers, and can do so much more. The troops are making that happen themselves.

All this is nothing new. Last year the U.S. Army decided to establish an app store (the Army Marketplace) for military smart phone users. This includes the iPad, which soldiers are also big fans of. The army app store includes an "App Wanted" section where users can post descriptions of an app they need. If a developer (in uniform, or an army approved civilian with access to the Army Marketplace) is interested, a discussion can be started on an attached message board. The army hopes that the needed app will be quickly created and made available at the Army Marketplace. Developers can charge for their apps, although the army is also willing to pay developers to create needed apps that have been described by military smart phone users.

One of the more impressive apps was one that assisted troops calling in air and artillery fire. Specialized, and now portable, computers have been used in the military for decades, to help troops who call in artillery fire, or air strikes. But these "forward controllers" have to lug around a lot of gear, as they move, often on foot, with the infantry they support. Every bit of weight counts. The less you carry, the more energy you have for life-and-death tasks. Now, there is an app for that, and the forward controllers can leave behind gear that has now been replaced by an iPhone app.

The army and marines see these portable devices as key battlefield tools. Not just for communication, but for a wide range of data handling (computer) chores. Some of these apps turn the iPad or smart phone into part of a weapon. The military wants to work closely with Apple to ensure the troops get the software they need, as well as customized hardware. Details are largely kept secret. But now the military knows, for certain, that creating lots of these apps requires more time and effort than many troops can muster. Then there is the problem of maintenance (upgrading and fixing bugs). So the army is going to establish a team to take care of this, using some army personnel and contractors as part of a permanent organization.

This is all part of a trend. In the last decade, the U.S. military found the iPod music player an increasingly useful tool. This happened for two reasons. As time went on (the iPod was introduced just after September 11, 2001), more and more troops bought iPods. By 2005, most troops had them. The iPod was the perfect entertainment device for the battlefield. When you got a chance to take a break, you put in the ear buds, turned it on, and were in a different place for a few minutes. The iPod battery usually kept going until the next time you got a chance to recharge.

The second reason was that, from the beginning, the iPod could do other things (run software for things other than listening to music). That's because the iPod was, basically, a very small personal computer. In fact, the iPhone is basically an high end iPod (sold as such as the iPod Touch), with cell phone capability added.

At first, most of the other iPod software was games, but soon non-game applications were added. There was a problem for the military, however. Except for some skilled hackers, no one but Apple, or with the help of Apple, could create software for the iPod. Despite that, the U.S. Army had some military software written for the iPod. This worked well, but it took over a year to get new software for an iPod, a delay that did not encourage rapid development. That changed three years ago, when Apple opened its App Store, and released a tool kit (SDK) for programmers to develop software for the iPhone and iPod Touch. This meant that military programmers could create Touch software to suit their needs, and do it quickly. In less than a year, hundreds of military-specific Touch programs have been created. Many do not show up in the App Store, as they are only for military use.

The Touch, and now the $500 iPad, have become the new "most favorite gadgets" for the troops. The Touch is cheap (under $230), has the same interface as the iPhone, has several hundred thousand programs (and growing rapidly) available, and can also serve as an iPod (to listen to music or view vids). The Touch has caught on, and it does the job better than any earlier PDA. The Touch also has wi-fi built in, making it easier for the troops to get new software or data onto their Touch. The iPad is basically a larger Touch, and popular for reading magazines, and consulting technical manuals. Troops have long been reading books on the iPhone and Touch. Now, smart phones like the iPhone are becoming increasingly common, so much so that few troops will go off to war without one. And the smart phones get smarter every year. As of 2011, your average smart phone has the computing power of a ten year old laptop.
end

 

[a_majoor]

Given much of the vast cost of military vehicles is due to the electronics, it might be much simpler and cheaper to get a ruggedized tablet computers mounted in each crewspace on place of the various "black boxes" One more as network server connecting the other boxes and we are complete. I once saw a ruggedized tablet at AUSA 2006 which had the capabilities to be used as a wireless network data device and could even employ VoIP to make it a voice radio with the appropriate radio module attached, so this isn't even a future technology.