US Army wants Light Tanks for Airborne units again

[VinceW]

The US Army wants to add Light Tanks to Airborne units again they might go with the Stryker MGS but they probably want something better.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/02/21/army-wants-light-tanks-for-the-airborne.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

 

[Ostrozac]

I'm not sure about even considering Stryker MGS. Can you even jump a member of the LAV-3 family? Has anyone ever tried? I'm admittedly no expert on parachute insertion of armoured vehicles, but the LAV-3 just seems to me as a little big for that role.

 

[Shrek1985]

8 of those suspension units, impacting the dirt, on a chassis that overloaded and top-heavy? No please.

The Stingray II wasn't that bad, nor was the later "Ridgeway" as far as it goes, but really? If this is what the US wants, lookit how the pros do airmech. Not that an americanized version of the BMD series could ever work.

 

[Edward Campbell]

There is, also, an Austrian/Spanish light tank:

Source: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/ascod3.html

It has a 105mm gun, a 600 hp power plant and weighs 29,000 kg. Someone, besides the USA, sees a requirement for light tanks (or believes that's all they can afford).


Edit: grammar   :-[

 

[tomahawk6]

I think any system chosen for airborne insertion should have a missile/gun tube. This would make it more survivable against older MBT's found in the third world. In an era of tight budgets I dont think this will fly.The M8 was canceled in the 90's for the same reason. The practical approach would be to seize an airfield and land C17's with Abrams MBT's.

 

[Ostrozac]

I think any system chosen for airborne insertion should have a missile/gun tube. This would make it more survivable against older MBT's found in the third world.

Such missiles are available, if you want to buy them, for 100mm, 105mm, 120mm and 125mm guns (the Israeli LAHAT is used by the Bundeswehr, I think). But US airborne brigades already have plenty of access to anti-tank missiles (Javelin and TOW) -- what they want is a gun tank.

 

[tomahawk6]

I don't think the project is realistic at this time.

 

[GnyHwy]

This makes me think of some of the posts where guys are asking to design stuff and the sky is limit when it comes to money.  It is ridiculous too think like that, and while we need to show some restraint and practicality for money, this is good opportunity to try this.

Why are we just rhyming off the equipment like the answer already exists, like some civilian engineer/industry salesman has already figured out our solutions?  Perhaps go back to when the military were the engineers, and we decided what was going to be created.  Thinking of the solution without analyzing the problem will get you the wrong answer more than not.

Does it need to be a tank?  I think not.  Perhaps it's several things in a system, instead of a hunk of steel with a gun attached to it. 

First off, what are the airborne troops deficient of ie. what do they need that they don't already have?  You can't answer tanks either.  Is it Lethality? Mobility? Protection? Comms?

Lethality, may be not so much, there are plenty of hand held weapons that produce massive effects. Not to mention the higher level support that these troops will likely have.

Mobility, yes they are somewhat deficient, but paratroopers can cover ground pretty good, and if there main task is capture, hold and upgrade ground, then mobility may not be a priority.

Protection, yes this is big one, and what they are likely missing the most.  Does that mean they need a tank?  No, because you can only fit so many guys in a tank, especially a small/light one that can be dropped.  What are the other options?  Fortifications, obstacles, active defenses?  There are all kinds of options that don't involve 20 tonnes of steel. BTW if part of the answer is a vehicle, then steel will likely only be the structural shell.  Costly, special materails will be needed to be added, such as ceramics, plastics, glass, active armour etc.

Comms is another nut to crack.  How much information needs to pass back and forth?  There is quite the divide between frontline troops and higher command when it comes to answering this one.  Front troops, just want theirs orders and then get on with it.  They also want the capability to ask for additional support when required.  Higher HQs are sometimes the other end of the spectrum, wanting and giving constant feedback.  I think our needs can be met already, as long as the back and forth info is prioritized, managed, and kept to what is actually necessary.

 

 

[Shrek1985]

If they are a stuck on a more or less traditional tank, is the light tank version of the CV90 (CV90-120) would be the best choice, IF they can hack a 25ton weight in action, without add-ons like reactive armour, ect.

It's got a 120mm "Medium Velocity" gun which will give them the same kind of HE tank gun punch as from an Abrams, with a similar anti-armour performance, at shorter range, with HEAT rounds as the M256 series has.

On the down-side it's 25 tons, the main gun uses prorietary ammo, and the 4- dismounts in the back are off-message for the American way of war. It's too much like a BMP or Merk in that way.

At heart though, this is an American idea here, so Not-Invented-Here will play a huge role in any contract. I would expect a lot of money to be wasted and nothing to come of it, but I am just playing the averages going by history.

 

[tomahawk6]

If a vehicle is light enough to air drop it will be vulnerable to RPG as well as even a 50 cal type sniper rifle.
The solution is to bring in a tank by aircraft to support the ground forces.Even then you will be limited by numbers.In this regard you cant beat an MEU or MEB depending on the mission.

 

[Old Sweat]

If a vehicle is light enough to air drop it will be vulnerable to RPG as well as even a 50 cal type sniper rifle.
The solution is to bring in a tank by aircraft to support the ground forces.Even then you will be limited by numbers.In this regard you cant beat an MEU or MEB depending on the mission.

And this leads into the selection of the aim of the airborne mission, the enemy forces and the amount of time that the airborne force is expected to survive before link up. It very well may be that if a case like Desert Shield arose today, it might be possible to fly in some armour to provide mobile, protected firepower that an AFV provides, especially if it was positioned somewhere near the theatre. The same may be the case if the aim is to sieze a beach head on a hostile shore and an MEU or MEB is also being inserted over the beach by helicopters and amphibious vehicles.

 

[GnyHwy]

I think the thread title says it all.  The US Army "wants" as opposed to "needs".

At heart though, this is an American idea here, so Not-Invented-Here will play a huge role in any contract. I would expect a lot of money to be wasted and nothing to come of it, but I am just playing the averages going by history.

Sadly this is likely true, and the partial solution will be to buy an existing system, label it as the answer to our problems, but in reality it only sort of does the job.

I am not convinced that a tank is even close to the solution required. Trying to defeat RPGs with blunt force, especially if weight is concerned is a futile endeavor. 

One could only expect to defeat small arms, and you don't need a tank to do that.

 

[AC 011]

I'm not sure about even considering Stryker MGS. Can you even jump a member of the LAV-3 family? Has anyone ever tried? I'm admittedly no expert on parachute insertion of armoured vehicles, but the LAV-3 just seems to me as a little big for that role.

"Yes" to both questions.  There's publicly available information out about the US Army dropping the Stryker MGS out of a C17, a few years back, to prove it was possible.  I don't know if they carried through with certification, but the original article would imply that they did not.  Getting a new vehicle program started would likely not go over well and this will remain in the "want" file.

 

[GnyHwy]

Ridiculous!  Isaac Newton is rolling in his grave!

 

[UnwiseCritic]

I can understand the reasoning behind it. As paratroopers are used to seize key points to help speed up the main attack. They could get stuck for longer than expected as this always happens. Possibly even lose control of an area where supply drops land (arnhem). And now that all the less powerful "evil" countries have been knocked off. Theyre looking into the future... Iran. At least double in size of everything compared to Iraq and possibly more loyal to their leader. And therefore will contest ground more hotly. So if you want to jump in and seize these features on the modern battlefield you could use just infantry, but s#!t happens and it would always be nice to have more firepower and armor. Especially if you have to repel any strong offensive or even a small counter attack and with the wests inability to stomach casualties this would help. And yes people do jump these in without thin armor etc.

http://gizmodo.com/5864987/those-crazy-russians-use-retrorockets-to-slow-down-tanks-dropped-from-planes

I had heard that quite a few people died prior too the rocket attatchment.

 

[GnyHwy]

Good thing that Gizmodo hasn't a clue!

 

[UnwiseCritic]

If you listen closely you hear at the end that "these rockets are (almost) perfectly reliable"
Glad Im not russian.

 

[a_majoor]

Coming at this from a different angle, the French flew in light tanks at Dien Bien Phu (OK, so they were not parachuted, but they were used to support an airborn operation). The tanks provided a bit of mobile firepower, but given the logistical limitations of an airborn operation, they could not be reinforced, nor supplied in any way that would have really affected the outcome. Even the proposed breakout would have resulted in abandoned tanks somewhere down the road as they ran out of fuel and ammunition.

While Dein Bien Phu may not be a great example, many other airborn and airmobile operations might not have changed too much with the addition of armour. Think of a version of "Market Garden" where tiny airborn tanks were inserted by glider and emerged to do tank battle with an SS Panzer division. The Battle of Ia Drang might have been conducted differently if Hal Moore had tanks, but his use of artillery and air power probably accomplished pretty much the same thing (and once again, it would be problematic to actually insert and use tanks in the  Ia Drang valley; the French lost Groupement Mobile No. 100 very near there because the terrain prevented the mechanized firepower of GM 100 from being effectively brought into action).

So while light tanks might be useful in some situations, would they be useful enough to really turn the tide? Could they be inserted in sufficient numbers, provided with sufficient logistical support and would the terrain be suitable for the employment of tanks? If anything, I would be more in favour of some sort of mobility and logistical support improvements for airborn and airmobile forces; dropping in with BV 206 or similar vehicles provides mobility across virtually any terrain and the ability to carry 2 tons of supplies or pack heavy weapons like mortars into battle.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I have seen Scimitar LAPSEd onto a heavy drop DZ, The Household Division were pretty sharp at this type of op... good looking too - all those tall blonde hunky guys  ;D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_Reconnaissance_(Tracked)

 

[little jim]

I think any system chosen for airborne insertion should have a missile/gun tube. This would make it more survivable against older MBT's found in the third world. In an era of tight budgets I dont think this will fly.The M8 was canceled in the 90's for the same reason. The practical approach would be to seize an airfield and land C17's with Abrams MBT's.

WRT rolling tanks off the back of C-17's...

The US has a couple of battalions in tan berets who have this as one of their tasks (airfield seizure) and the guys with the maroon berets still practice this sort of thing (see Ex PURPLE DRAGON).