• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future Armour

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
946
Points
1,090
Good post FJAG. I knew about their plans to keep that plant producing vehicles even when the US Army said they didn't want anymore (I believe they ran out of places to store 'right off the production line' Abrams) - good info on the cost of starting it up again.

And that's my point.

Starting up production of the F-22, C-17, or C-5 would probably be considered too costly. (Albeit cheaper than designing & producing an entirely new model of aircraft.)

I would think that a very slow, yet steady production of C-17's would be ideal. It wouldn't require restarting a production line, and with some foresight, the production facility could possibly be transferred to a smaller facility elsewhere.


I understand the F-22 has sailed, there won't be anymore built. Most likely the same with the C-5.

But the C-17 was far from lifeless. Sales were down at the time, because everybody had just procured or expanded their strategic transport fleets. Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and a few others developed or grew their strategic transport capabilities.


The US has forces all over the world, both stationed and deployed. The US is actively engaged in a variety of operations throughout the globe. At some point in the future, the US may very well need to procure an extra squadron or two of C-17 type aircraft either due to force restructuring, aircraft losses, aircraft availability (When they start to get old, or the fleet is stretched too thin) - etc etc.

I just think someone involved in that decision making process 'should have' had enough foresight to keep the possibility of building more transport aircraft open. Especially with the focus being on peer / near peer operations in the future. (And there was plenty of talk about refocusing on peer / near peer foes at the time they built the last C-17)




I'm not saying I have the ideal solution, as there are far more knowledgeable people than I. But to not have any strategic transport aircraft available to be built seems like a planning flaw. With the USAF's new force structure (not really new...) They are already a few squadrons short of C-17's. Not being able to build more just seems like it will bite them in the butt.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
227
Points
530
I f I were God for a week and of course had access to his bank account .I would a like niche aircraft that a surprising number of countries would like to have a few of these aircraft and couple with deep pockets
( relatively speaking ) to buy more than a few.
My candidate would the YC 14 .
An aircraft that probably should have gone into production except it didn't quite have the political clout necessary to make into production . In fact the whole project was cancelled and so along with the other bidder's aircraft. An administration that changed it's mind about the direction it was going in and of course it saved a couple of bucks.
If you are going to manufacture an aircraft that supplements the C17 or as a replacement go for the Gold standard.
Oh and yes it will happily airlift an CV 90/120 quite nicely.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
409
Points
980
Good post FJAG. I knew about their plans to keep that plant producing vehicles even when the US Army said they didn't want anymore (I believe they ran out of places to store 'right off the production line' Abrams) - good info on the cost of starting it up again.

And that's my point.

Starting up production of the F-22, C-17, or C-5 would probably be considered too costly. (Albeit cheaper than designing & producing an entirely new model of aircraft.)

I would think that a very slow, yet steady production of C-17's would be ideal. It wouldn't require restarting a production line, and with some foresight, the production facility could possibly be transferred to a smaller facility elsewhere.


I understand the F-22 has sailed, there won't be anymore built. Most likely the same with the C-5.

But the C-17 was far from lifeless. Sales were down at the time, because everybody had just procured or expanded their strategic transport fleets. Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and a few others developed or grew their strategic transport capabilities.


The US has forces all over the world, both stationed and deployed. The US is actively engaged in a variety of operations throughout the globe. At some point in the future, the US may very well need to procure an extra squadron or two of C-17 type aircraft either due to force restructuring, aircraft losses, aircraft availability (When they start to get old, or the fleet is stretched too thin) - etc etc.

I just think someone involved in that decision making process 'should have' had enough foresight to keep the possibility of building more transport aircraft open. Especially with the focus being on peer / near peer operations in the future. (And there was plenty of talk about refocusing on peer / near peer foes at the time they built the last C-17)




I'm not saying I have the ideal solution, as there are far more knowledgeable people than I. But to not have any strategic transport aircraft available to be built seems like a planning flaw. With the USAF's new force structure (not really new...) They are already a few squadrons short of C-17's. Not being able to build more just seems like it will bite them in the butt.
That ship has sailed for the C-17 too. The plant is gone. It was in Long Beach CA. Boeing did make 5 extra on their own dime to sell. They sold the last one a year or two ago. Boeing is pitching a C-17B with upgrades of course ($). I just a feeling in things I read that the Air Force is waiting to go big time with a something like bended wing or low observational. No more tube and wing.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
409
Points
980
Plus a can see the US doing something. Boeing is hurting with production down. The problems with the best selling 737max, end of 747, 777 sales slowing or stopped, 787 slowing sales too. Airbus announcing a A320 A330 replacement going into development (using A200 tech, I am sure the CDN taxpayer is happy with that one) This move is very strategic because they know Boeing is in trouble and the 737 is the bread and butter of the company and Boeing would be hard pressed to match. So maybe a nice big Government transport program would just the ticket.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,929
Points
1,060
1627585787976.png


A Belgian John Cockerill Defense C3105 two-person 105 mm turret has been integrated onto a rear mission module of the Boxer 8x8 Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) at Krauss-Maffei Wegmann’s (KMW’s) facilities in Munich, the company has confirmed.

The turret is armed with a 105 mm high-pressure rifled gun fed by an automatic loader, with this version fitted with stabilised day/night sights for commander and gunner, enabling hunter/killer target engagements while stationary or moving.

When fitted with the C3105 turret, the Boxer can carry four dismounts in addition to its driver, commander, and gunner.




 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,334
Points
1,010
Interesting new ad from BAE regarding the CV90 current upgrades. Its really interesting to see their design constraints. So many things to consider when desiginig and IFV.

CV90MkIV Vid
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,334
Points
1,010
This?

CV90MkIV Vid

Or this?

I'm not gonna lie. I get motion sick in vehicles all the time. Not a great look for a navy guy granted.

I'm sure the Ajax will be sorted out. This is normal teething issues. The difference is that the CV 90 is an evolutionary design so lots of that stuff has already been sorted.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,155
Points
1,060
If this works out, I can see a potentiel for new forms of applique plastic armour
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
253
Points
880
If this works out, I can see a potentiel for new forms of applique plastic armour
Time to trade in my tin foil hat.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,440
Points
1,010
If this works out, I can see a potentiel for new forms of applique plastic armour
BUT will it stand up to the Forged In Fire challenge?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,351
Points
1,090

New German Light tank concept, would be a great addition to our new Cavalry Regiments.....
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,929
Points
1,060

New German Light tank concept, would be a great addition to our new Cavalry Regiments.....

If that then buy the regiments the full suite of Lynx Vehicles and ditch the Leos. Accept the 80% solution. Maybe the future will see 20 tonnes of Colin's miracle polymer replacing the 20 tonnes of add-on steel armour.


And it's a Quebec company.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,929
Points
1,060
We do need heavy AFVs for our NATO committed heavy brigade;)

If the LAV 6 is considered heavy enough then I suspect the Lynx would suffice.

Especially seeing that you could lift two, in light configuration, in a single C17. Two C17s would add 4x 120mm guns in DFS to an Air Transportable force.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
6,788
Points
1,110
If the LAV 6 is considered heavy enough then I suspect the Lynx would suffice.

Especially seeing that you could lift two, in light configuration, in a single C17. Two C17s would add 4x 120mm guns in DFS to an Air Transportable force.
The LAV 6 isn't an IFV, anyone who is thinking that is frankly on crack.
If you need a 120mm lighter option - then the solution would be to get a DFS gun chassis LAV for the LAV units - and get a real heavy Tracked IFV for the Leo Bde.

Wheels and Tracks do not have the same tactical mobility.
Wheels do great on road and in some off road terrain - but by and large tracks do significantly better off-road.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,334
Points
1,010
The LAV 6 isn't an IFV, anyone who is thinking that is frankly on crack.
Based on the only two criteria that matter for armored fighting vehicle categorization the LAV 6 is clearly an IFV.


What are our community thoughts on light tanks...

Seems that there are a few new light tanks coming on the market recently. Lynx 120mm, CV90120, Griffin.

Looking at Ukraine which (no big data yet) is showing that artillery, ATGM and UAV's are the main enemy of tanks, I can see an argument for light tanks. Light tanks are harder to detect with smaller cross-sections and in some cases (CV90120) heat signatures. They are easier to hide from observation, likely have better tactical mobility due to their lighter weight, and certainly have higher strategic mobility.

Light tanks can take active protection systems no differently then MBT's. In the case of guided artillery, ATGM, and UAV attack having hard-kill active protection (smoke is also active protection) only needs to stop one or two rounds before the light tank can maneuver or hide.

If you armour their turret similar to an MBT (Lynx 120 seems to be doing this with cheek armour that matches the Leo's) then you can engage from a hull-down position with no difference in protection to an MBT.

One of the things we fail to consider often is the survivability onion,

1652710070174.png

Arguably light tanks are better at all the categories than the last two (penetrated and affected).

The question is what capability is a light tank bringing? The Griffin is for air/rapid mobile forces and uses its 105mm as a direct fire capability to engage fortified positions or light armour. The 120mm armed light tanks are more capable against enemy heavy armour, and can obviously do the same role as a Griffin. RECCE tanks perhaps? Or are these capabilities better done with ATGM turreted IFV?

This is not to say that MBT's are not a necessary capability, but that light tanks may more of a role in the future going forward.
 

IKnowNothing

Member
Reaction score
90
Points
380
@Underway is a 50 tonne (plus active protection) KF41 based Lynx120 a "Light Tank" or a "lighter" Tank? How far off an MBT is it?

I like the idea. Heavy / Medium = Lynx / LAV, each Bde with a common chassis with a full suite of variants.

Modularity of the armour could allow for pre-positioning kits in Europe (cheaper than an expanded fleet) and flying over 34 tonne vehicles
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,334
Points
1,010
@Underway is a 50 tonne (plus active protection) KF41 based Lynx120 a "Light Tank" or a "lighter" Tank? How far off an MBT is it?

I like the idea. Heavy / Medium = Lynx / LAV, each Bde with a common chassis with a full suite of variants.

Modularity of the armour could allow for pre-positioning kits in Europe (cheaper than an expanded fleet) and flying over 34 tonne vehicles
I use the term light tank to distinguish from an MBT.

I mean it sounds cool but again, whats the capability it provides that another system can't do as well? And if you have an MBT would you not use that instead of a light tank, and/or put your resources into MBT instead?
 
Top