Future Armour

[FJAG]

I believe in building one machine that can do many things for logistical purposes.

I agree entirely on one chassis - I may have been too critical of Boxer. They advertised the interchangeability of the mission module which I've always thought is more fad than useful. BUT. . . the idea of a common chassis right up to the drivers station ought to be de rigour for the fighting vehicle fleet. I'm ambivalent whether the mission module is welded on or interchangeable although I'm leaning just a touch more to Boxer-style than I used to. When it comes to dual use weapon modules, however, I tend to think of them as more technically complex (and thus more expensive) than they need to be and one has to be very careful about crew training and simultaneous, but mutually exclusive use during contact.

all the CUAS turrets could be under the supervision of one person in the troop

It's not there yet at the small scale we consider needed for a platoon or company, but I agree the time will come when these things are networked and functioning cooperatively - and quite possibly by a system outside of the company or even battalion itself. That is not the same as the system being completely autonomous. My guess is that there are quite a few more years where each system will need a crew,

I further believe that even though radars are better and cheaper they are still emitters

Very true and there are a whole lot of folks much smarter than me in this field working on solutions for the CUAV/AD field. We're at an infancy stage right now and all the glossy brochures aren't delivering a solid solution.

4 vehicles with audio, passive RF and EO/IR sensors, and one with a radar, I would think would make an acceptable force basis. At leat for the Recce part of your Strike-Recce complex.

I simply call it "cavalry" now and leave "tank" as a separate organization.

But you are also a fan of using your tanks for both striking the schwerpunkt and for conducting reconnaissance.

Definitely yeas for the former. Not necessarily for the latter. I leave "recce" as the very light sneak and peak recce of the infantry battalion recce platoon. I'm not using "recce" anymore as a noun or adjective above battalion. I accept recce as a verb for a part of what "cavalry" does.

A lot of which concerns me because we’ve seen that all of the digital displays don’t seem to make up for situational awareness of actually been up in the turret and being able to look through an optical device either weapon site or vision periscope blocks.

Bought a Subaru Forester this year. They must think that I'm ready for a new model because they keep sending me ads for the 2026. It comes with the "360-degree Surround-view monitor" feature. This uses multiple cameras that you can use to see all around the vehicle and which stitches together images from them to give you an all around overhead view that looks something like an image from a drone flying overhead. It comes with specific vehicles - Subaru doesn't sell options - just vehicle classes so its impossible to price but I'd guess as less that $1,000 of components. Properly designed layouts for cameras and redundancy for damage an obscuration will, IMHO, provide better situational awareness - especially if networked with other battlefield sensors from connected vehicles.

 

[RangerRay]

I agree entirely on one chassis - I may have been too critical of Boxer. They advertised the interchangeability of the mission module which I've always thought is more fad than useful. BUT. . . the idea of a common chassis right up to the drivers station ought to be de rigour for the fighting vehicle fleet. I'm ambivalent whether the mission module is welded on or interchangeable although I'm leaning just a touch more to Boxer-style than I used to. When it comes to dual use weapon modules, however, I tend to think of them as more technically complex (and thus more expensive) than they need to be and one has to be very careful about crew training and simultaneous, but mutually exclusive use during contact.

It's not there yet at the small scale we consider needed for a platoon or company, but I agree the time will come when these things are networked and functioning cooperatively - and quite possibly by a system outside of the company or even battalion itself. That is not the same as the system being completely autonomous. My guess is that there are quite a few more years where each system will need a crew,

Very true and there are a whole lot of folks much smarter than me in this field working on solutions for the CUAV/AD field. We're at an infancy stage right now and all the glossy brochures aren't delivering a solid solution.

I simply call it "cavalry" now and leave "tank" as a separate organization.

Definitely yeas for the former. Not necessarily for the latter. I leave "recce" as the very light sneak and peak recce of the infantry battalion recce platoon. I'm not using "recce" anymore as a noun or adjective above battalion. I accept recce as a verb for a part of what "cavalry" does.

Bought a Subaru Forester this year. They must think that I'm ready for a new model because they keep sending me ads for the 2026. It comes with the "360-degree Surround-view monitor" feature. This uses multiple cameras that you can use to see all around the vehicle and which stitches together images from them to give you an all around overhead view that looks something like an image from a drone flying overhead. It comes with specific vehicles - Subaru doesn't sell options - just vehicle classes so its impossible to price but I'd guess as less that $1,000 of components. Properly designed layouts for cameras and redundancy for damage an obscuration will, IMHO, provide better situational awareness - especially if networked with other battlefield sensors from connected vehicles.

Higher levels of the Bronco and Baby Bronco have that as well. Looks great for off-roading!

 

[GR66]

And note that I'm not generally against turrets - just in circumstances where there is a dual role to also carry dismounts or troops in general where interior space is needed. It's interesting that many new tank designs take the crew out of the turret to enhance crew survivability at the cost of mechanical complexity.

With the caveat that not all "lessons" from Ukraine are actually lessons that should be followed, but with the increased so called "transparency" of the battlefield and the vastly increased number of non-LOS weapons present is it still the right approach to maximize the internal space of IFVs to be able to maximize the number of dismounts they can carry, or is it better to disperse them among different vehicles to reduce risk?

 

[FJAG]

With the caveat that not all "lessons" from Ukraine are actually lessons that should be followed, but with the increased so called "transparency" of the battlefield and the vastly increased number of non-LOS weapons present is it still the right approach to maximize the internal space of IFVs to be able to maximize the number of dismounts they can carry, or is it better to disperse them among different vehicles to reduce risk?

Its a good point but one has to weigh that against the friction that comes from having to manage and maintain more vehicles in a given sized unit or formation. It's kind of like having to make a choice somewhere between:

a Spartan APC - 4 dismounts

and a US Marines AAVP-7 - 21 dismounts

 

[GR66]

Its a good point but one has to weigh that against the friction that comes from having to manage and maintain more vehicles in a given sized unit or formation. It's kind of like having to make a choice somewhere between:

a Spartan APC - 4 dismounts

and a US Marines AAVP-7 - 21 dismounts

That's the problem. I don't think anyone has figured out yet what the real implications of the Ukraine war are on modern mechanized warfare. We're stuck in a bind where the extreme choices are go lighter/faster with active protection systems, numbers and greater difficulty to detect taking the place of armour or going heavier with active and passive protection to defeat the current crop of small UAVs. So do we split the difference? A bit of each? Of course there's no one single right answer as every war will be different.