Future Armour

[REDinstaller]

I used the TLAV RWS for 6 months in Afghanistan, and I was quite happy to have it. Sighting through Thermal is much better that MNVG and being exposed from the waist up to man a pintle mount. We should employ more of them.

 

[a_majoor]

Recycling Merkava tanks to HAPC's. Many of the systems described could be retrofitted to other armoured vehicles:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20101028.aspx

Designed In Israel, Built In America

October 28, 2010: Israel is having a U.S. firm (General Dynamics) manufacture 600 of the new Nemer IFV (infantry fighting vehicle) over the next eight years. The first hundred or so were built in Israel, but the rest can be built more cheaply in the United States. One infantry battalion is already equipped with Israeli built Nemers, and the other three battalions of the Golani Brigade will get Nemers over the next three years.

Earlier this year, Israel used several of its new Nemer IFVs in Gaza. This was the first combat experience for the Nemer , and it performed as expected. One was used for a forward command post, enabling officers to get close to the fighting and, using several radios and sensors in the Nemer, to quickly shift forces and call in air support.

The Nemer is based on the chassis of older Merkava I and II series tanks. These vehicles are being retired, so they can either be scrapped, or recycled. Thus Nemer will have the thick armor of the Merkava. With the turret removed, a remotely controlled (from inside the vehicle) heavy machine-gun has been added. The Merkava lends itself to this kind of modification, because the engine is mounted in the front and there is already a door in the back of the vehicle.

While the Israelis liked the speed of the Stryker, which they considered ordering, they felt they will still be fighting in urban areas, against Palestinian terrorists, in the next ten years. There, the Nemer has an edge, because of its thicker armor. Out in the open, the Stryker has an edge. If the Israelis cannot afford to build enough Nemers, they will add armor to their existing supply of M-113 APCs. But based on tests, and the first experience in Gaza, troops prefer the Nemer.

The Nemer carries eleven people (a driver, gunner, vehicle commander and eight infantry). The passenger compartment is also equipped with a stretcher, that enables one casualty to be carried along with a full load of 11 troops. In addition to the remotely controlled 12.7mm machine-gun, there is also a roof hatch on the left forward part of the vehicle, for the commander to use, and also operate a 7.62mm machine-gun. The vehicle also has the Merkava battle management system, as well as four cameras providing 360 degree vision around the vehicle. The remotely controlled machine-gun has a night vision sight. The vehicle also has a toilet, an addition based on troop feedback (and many missions where they had to stay on board for up to 24 hours at a time in combat zones.)

Israel has over two hundred Merkava I tanks, the oldest are at least 25 years old. There are over 500 Merkava IIs being retired as well. Removing the turret, and adding more armor to the bottom, leaves you with a 54 ton Nemer, the heaviest IFV ever built. Each Nemer costs about $3 million.

Earlier, Israel had experimented with using T-55 and Centurian tanks as IFVs. This did not work because the engines in these vehicles were in the rear, where the exit doors of AFVs usually are. Thus troops had to enter and exit via top hatches. This was not a good idea in combat. When the older Merkavas became available, IFV conversions were an obvious application. Israeli troops were not happy with their elderly and poorly protected M113 APCs (Armored Personnel Carriers), and were eager to get a safer vehicle.

Over 60 Nemers have already been delivered, and Israel plans to produce 70 more, in order to equip two combat brigades. Beyond that, General Dynamics will produce the Nemers. Note that Nemer is sometimes spelled Namer, in case you want to go searching for more information on the subject.

 

[a_majoor]

Another flying jeep type vehicle. This is the sort of thing which can be developed into the LAM-V; a vehicle which can be flown by a regular soldier rather than a highly trained pilot. Rapid logistic support, scouting, inserting recce patrols and eventually armed missions will all be contemplated in the future:

http://mynavystar.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html

UAV Could Be Battlefield Ambulance

The Israel Defense Forces medical corps is looking at procuring an innovative unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that will evacuate critical casualties directly from the battlefield to the hospital. This would get more wounded to the hospital within the “golden hour,” the critical time in which a medical evacuation has the best chance of saving a wounded soldier’s life.

One of the candidates for the program is the AirMule, a vertical takeoff and landing UAV developed by Urban Aeronautics Ltd., an Israeli company specializing in Fancraft technology. Other aircraft being considered include helicopters converted to unmanned vehicles.

Lt. Col. Gil Hirschorn, a doctor and former flight medic who leads the medical corps’ trauma branch, says an important benefit of AirMule is its ability to land in areas of a fire-saturated battlefield that would be inaccessible to other vehicles. Hirschorn says the UAV, which is now being tested, will be equipped with stretchers, air conditioning and a communications system that establishes video contact between injured soldiers and the medical center. The wounded will be transported in a protected compartment and monitored throughout the flight. The current design holds two wounded soldiers lying prone. Future versions will include space for a medic.

The vehicle would add an important capability to the logistics of casualty evacuation, and be able to support amphibious operations as well as ground forces.

AirMule is a ducted-fan vehicle that uses Urban Aeronautics’ patented Fancraft lift system, based on internal rotors that provide lift and propulsion systems. The core of the technology is the Vane Control System (VCS), which consists of a cascade of vanes at the inlet and outlet ducts that can be deflected simultaneously (top and bottom) or differentially to generate side force or a rolling movement. Front and rear ducts are deflected differentially for yaw. “The VCS generates six degrees of freedom independent of one another. For the first time we have a vehicle that moves sideways without the need to roll,” says Rafi Yoeli, founder and CEO of Urban Aeronautics.

The company successfully completed the first phase of tethered flight trials, which consisted of autonomous hovers in which the vehicle maintained stable height and attitude. An onboard fly-by-wire system controls pitch, roll and yaw. The next series of tests will evaluate the AirMule’s position-keeping capability, and the vehicle will fly untethered for the first time.

The UAV is powered by a 730-shp. Turbomeca Arriel 1D1 turboshaft engine, which drives the fore and aft ducted rotors and aft thrusters through gearboxes and shafts. Its unique propulsion capabilities reportedly enable safe flight through areas of dense vegetation, in urban areas, over rough terrain and at high temperatures. The flight-control developed by Urban Aeronautics is a four-channel redundant system that relies almost entirely on inertial measurements and is augmented by GPS for translational position and velocity readings. Two laser altimeters indicate the vehicle’s height above ground. According to Yoeli, data show that the AirMule will hover with high precision even in gusty wind.

The vehicle carries a useful payload of 227 kg. (500 lb.). It has a maximum takeoff weight of 1 ton, and is designed to fly missions of 2-4 hr. at up to 100 kt. Its maximum ceiling is 12,000 ft. An operational version is expected to be available by 2012.

The concept of ducted-fan technology was popular among aircraft designers in the late 1950s and early 1960s when Piasecki Co. developed ducted-fan vehicles known as “flying jeeps” for the U.S. Army. The configuration was similar to the design used by Urban Aeronautics—two ducts, fore and aft, with a cabin in the middle. The concept, though, was ahead of the technology needed to develop a viable aircraft. The flying jeeps were difficult to control and had little endurance—only about 20 min. Because of this, vertical takeoff and landing remained a feature exclusive to helicopters. An array of technologies that have evolved since—efficient, lightweight engines, composite materials and flight-control computers—solved most of the problems associated with ducted-fan vehicles. What remained were aerodynamic challenges, notably in the areas of drag and controllability. Urban Aeronautics patented a package of innovations that reportedly resolves these problems.

The company is working on two other unmanned applications of the Fancraft technology—Panda, a small, electrically powered surveillance UAV, and Mule, a mid-sized UAV with a 500-lb. payload capacity.

In 2006 the company began working with Bell Helicopter to design the X-Hawk, a large, man-carrying ducted-fan vehicle for urban missions in the military and civilian sectors.

 

[GAP]

The Gorgon Goes To War In Afghanistan
November 27, 2010:
Article Link

The U.S. Air Force is finally sending its new, multi-camera system for UAVs, Gorgon Stare, to Afghanistan. These two (quarter ton each) pods are carried on one of the wing hard points of MQ-9 Reaper UAVs. This system has already been tested in Afghanistan, and undergone over a year of tweaking. At this point, each Gorgon Stare contains nine cameras (five day and four night/infrared). Aside from enabling several camera operators to work from one UAV, the camera system also has software to enable covering a larger area, by having the cameras cover adjacent areas. The cameras can also look at the same area, from slightly different angles, and produce 3-D images. Two or more cameras can be used over the same area, at different resolution to, for example, search for a specific individual (who is on the Hellfire delivery list), and have another camera focus in on suspect individuals to get a positive identification. The system software also allows for rapidly shifting from one area to another, in response to requests from the ground. Since the RQ-9 operates at higher altitudes (7,000 meters or more), the cameras can zero in on particular patches of ground, over a wide area.

Systems like Gorgon Stare are a way of addressing the UAV shortage. One method is to equip a small aircraft (manned or not) with more powerful cameras, ones designed to monitor several different ground operations at once. Another method is to install more powerful cameras in smaller UAVs. This has been an ongoing effort, with smaller UAVs having gone through several generations of sensor packages in the last six years.

Another approach is one very powerful camera on a UAV. An example of this is ARGUS-IS, which is basically a huge 1.8 giga (billion) pixel camera (which consists of 368 five megapixel sensors). When operating at 3,200 meters (10,000 feet) altitude, the ARGUS-IS camera watches 40 square kilometers (a circular area 7.2 kilometers in diameter). The camera periodically transmits a picture of all that to the ground station. There, operators can select a smaller area, and have the camera send a higher resolution image of a smaller area (sharp enough to show individuals) as video (15 frames a second). What makes all this work is a powerful, parallel processing, computer in the five meter long, 230 kg (500 pound) pod that carries the camera. The computer compresses the images enough so that the bandwidth available can handle the huge amounts of data being sent down. The pod can be carried by a helicopter, as it works best if it stays stationary.

The growing number of larger UAVs, like the 4.7 ton MQ-9 Reaper, enables larger sensor packages to be designed and built. The only downside of system like Gorgon Stare is that the constant weight, and aerodynamic drag of the pods reduces the air time (to 14-15 hours per sortie.)
END

 

[a_majoor]

More o the X-hawk. As a LAM-V it fulfills the promise of General Senger und Etterlin’s main battle air vehicle concept: The main battle air vehicle uses ground tactically without relying on it for mobility. Current designs are transports and section carriers, but patrol craft carrying sensor equipment such as Gorgon Stare or fire support gunships with automatic cannon and rocket or missile launcher pods seem to be logical evolutions of the design (the mockup in the picture seems a bit over the top with two miniguns). With Bell involved there should be enough resources to bring the concept to fruition:

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/1-9958.aspx

Subject: Bell and Urban Aeronautics teaming on X-Hawk ducted VTOL
reefdiver    8/13/2006 3:12:35 PM

Bell Team Proposes Fancraft For City Combat

Bell Helicopter and Israeli design house Urban Aeronautics Ltd. Bell and Urban Aero have signed a Proof of Concept Collaboration Agreement to explore ducted Fancraft? technology and hope to fly a demonstrator around 2010. With twin LHTEC T800 engines, a conceptual 6,700 lb X-Hawk Urban Warfighter would use fore and aft lift fans with top and bottom control vanes to attain altitudes to 12,000 ft. Reversible thrusters promise forward speeds to 140 kt and wheels driven by electric torque motors will enable the vehicle to drive through streets at 10 to 12 mph. The Fancraft concept is applicable to a variety of vehicles, including a 4,200 lb X-Hawk. According to Jon Tatro, Bell director of advanced concept development, ?We see it as more evolution than breakthrough. We don?t see any show stoppers.?

The X-Hawk builds upon the Piasecki Air Jeep experience with advances in fly-by-wire controls, turboshaft engines, and control actuators. The lift fans vary collective blade pitch only and work in conjunction with moving inlet and exhaust vanes. Combined fan pitch changes control climb and descent. Differential fan pitch controls vehicle pitch and yaw. In contrast to the Air Jeep, vanes above and below the fans meanwhile provide twice the roll control power available with exhaust vanes alone. Also unlike the original Air Jeep, the X-Hawk also introduces fan louvers for and aft to reduce momentum drag and increase lift. Computer-based Fly-By-Wire flight controls will blend motions throughout the flight envelope to maintain generally horizontal flight and low pilot workload.

Urban Aeronautics flew a scaled Fancraft in 2003 to validate the vane controls and performed wind tunnel tests in August 2005. It leads the design effort with Bell providing material and program support. Under a generic Fancraft study funded by the Office of Naval Research, Penn State University will work with Bell and Urban on Fancraft mathematical models. Purdy Corp. has designed an X-Hawk drive system with split torque gearboxes and cross-shafting for single-engined safety.

X-Hawk Urban Warfighter disk loading would be about 40 lb/sq ft, twice that of the V-22 tilt rotor. The designers are considering a fixed wing to offload the fans and Looking at flying wing ? cabin lift and wings to offload the fans and supplement cabin lift. Skirts are also a possibility for a hovercraft able to skim the surface at speeds to 70 kt.

Inspired by events in Mogadishu in 1993 where trapped US soldiers were denied helicopter extraction, the notional X-Hawk Urban Warfighter would be flown by a single pilot and carry 11 troops above city streets. It could deliver troops to rooftops or window level with half the noise of a helicopter. While helicopters may be denied rooftop landing zones by towers, TV antennas and other obstructions, the ducted fans are protected from contact and provide an aircraft for the complex urban environment. Computer simulations show the Fancraft twice as effective as a Bell 212 in urban entry scenarios, and Bell and Urban believe an acoustic signature half that of a helicopter will give the Fancraft a less predictable approach. The Fancraft also generates no downwash at altitudes greater than 60 ft and maintain a lower boundary layer than that created by a helicopter.

 

[GAP]

USMC Invents RoboCargo
December 10, 2010
Article Link

The U.S. Marine Corps has ordered four UAV type cargo helicopters, and is sending them off to Afghanistan for field tests. Two of these are Boeing A160Ts, and two are Lockheed K-MAXs. These two models are the finalists in a competition that has been under way for over two years.

It all began in 2008, when the marines went shopping for a UAV to deliver supplies, at least half a ton per trip, in order to get essential items (ammo, water, food) to combat troops in remote locations. The marines wanted the UAV in action within six months, and hoped to find something that already existed. They believed that most likely candidates would be helicopter UAVs, which could land wherever needed.

For the last decade, the U.S. Department of Defense has been developing a helicopter UAV designed to stay in the air for over twelve hours at a time. At that time, this A160T Hummingbird had stayed in the air for 18.7 hours, at altitudes up to 15,000 feet, while carrying a 137 kg (300 pound) load (to simulate a typical sensor package). The first flight test of the Hummingbird Unmanned Aerial Vehicle took place eight years ago. From the start, the A160T was a contender for the marine contract.

The A160T is a three ton helicopter, able to fly under remote control or under its own pre-programmed control. The UAV has a top speed of 255 kilometers an hour, and was originally designed to operate for up to 40 hours carrying a payload of 127 kg. Maximum altitude was to be about 10 kilometers (30,000 feet), and its advanced flight controls were to be capable of keeping it airborne in weather that would ground manned helicopters. The marines came along just as the A160 was completing development and ready for production. The marine version can be configured to carry a half ton (500 kg) of cargo for several hours.

The Lockheed K-MAX is a 5.4 ton helicopter with a cruising speed of 148 kilometers an hour and an endurance of over six hours. It can carry up to 2.7 tons slung underneath. This made the K-MAX an ideal candidate for the marine UAV. When the K-MAX UAV was tested, it successfully met the marine requirements. It was able to carry a 680 kg (1,500 pound) sling load to 12,000 feet (3,900 meters), and hover. It was able to deliver 2.7 tons of cargo, to a point 270 kilometers distant, within six hours (two round trips). The K-MAX UAV can also carry up to four separate sling loads (totaling 1,568 kg, or 3,450 pounds).

After two of each of these UAVs spend six months in Afghanistan next year, the marines will decide which one to buy, how many and how soon.


end

 

[a_majoor]

I like the idea of UAV logistics carriers, and UAV helicopters are certainly viable as the "echelon" for conventional as well as aerial forces. As actual fighting vehicles, helicopters fight as aircraft, while a LAM-V or Main Air Battle Vehicle is free of many mobility restrictions created by the rotors and tail rotors of the helicopter.

IF the MABV concept is made viable by the X-hawk or something similar, I could see mixed squadrons of MABV's, utility LAM-V's and UAV helicopter logistics vehicles working together.

 

[GAP]

The Army Does It Differently
December 24, 2010
Article Link

The U.S. Army is now receiving UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicle) similar to those used by the air force, but flown under different conditions, by a quite different type of crew. While air force Predators and Reapers are flown by officers, assisted by sergeants operating sensors, the army operators are mostly sergeants, with some warrant officers. The air force operators control their UAVs via satellite link from a base in the United States. Only the ground crews go overseas. But army operators and ground crews not only go overseas, but are assigned to a specific brigade, which they are a part of. That makes a big difference. When an army UAV operator provides overhead surveillance for troops, he often knows some of them. Even if he doesn't know them personally, he knows they are part of his brigade, and if anything goes very right, or wrong, he might receive a personal visit from those involved. With the air force operators, it's a job. With the army operators, it's personal. For this reason, the army has refused air force calls for all heavy (over one ton) UAVs to be pooled. The air force cannot understand the personal angle, but for the army and marines it's essential. Moreover, when there's a victory out there because of UAVs, it is for all to see in the UAV operations center, on big, flat screen displays. The response among the UAV operators is emotional, just as it is, in a more somber way, if there are problems down there.

The air force pilots, who are nearly all pilots of manned aircraft, have one advantage over their army counterparts; they have experience flying an aircraft in bad weather. This is the one skill army UAV operators have the hardest time acquiring. The army is tweaking its UAV simulators to more accurately depict these problems, as well as the frequent need to use crude, improvised air strips for take offs and landings. Even air force pilots would have trouble with this, but it's very rare for air force UAVs to be using such crude facilities.

This year, army brigades overseas began receiving the new 1,500 kg MQ-1C UAV. Called Gray Eagle, until recently it was informally known as the Sky Warrior. This UAV will supplement, and eventually replace the current 159 kg/350 pound Shadow 200s. These aircraft carry day and night cameras, and laser designators, but usually no weapons. Most of the new army heavy UAVs delivered over the next five years will missile carrying MQ-1Cs. By 2015, the army will have over 500 MQ-1Cs.

The Gray Eagle joins an already vast UAV fleet. The U.S. Army currently has 87 RQ-7 Shadow UAV systems (with several UAVs each), six MQ-5 Hunter systems, nine MQ-1Cs, 12 Sky Warrior Alphas, over 4,000 Ravens (in 1,300 systems, assigned to infantry companies, convoys and base defense) and 16 RQ-18 MAV (helicopter type) systems. Army UAVs now spend over 25,000 hours a month in the air. It took army UAVs 13 years to achieve their first 100,000 air hours, and 8.5 years to get their next 900,000 hours.

The army needs as many MQ-1Cs as it can get. To keep one MQ-1C in the air, often necessary to maintain constant surveillance on something of interest, or to assist a ground unit under constant threat, requires several MQ-1Cs. By the end of next year, the manufacturers will be turning out two MQ-1Cs a month.

The first MQ-1C aviation company was formed a year ago. An MQ-1C aviation company has 115 troops, 12 MQ-1Cs and five ground stations. The first MQ-1C company was assigned to the U.S. Army 160th SOAR (Special Operations Aviation Regiment), which belongs to SOCOM. The army plans to eventually equip each combat brigade with a MQ-1C company, and establish 45 of these companies. The new SOCOM MQ-1C unit will support special operations (Special Forces, SEALs, rangers, NATO commandos) in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, the MQ-1C achieved Quick Reaction Capability 2, meaning that it can carry Hellfire missiles.

The MQ-1C carries 135.4 kg/300 pounds of sensors internally, and up to 227.3 kg/500 pounds of sensors or weapons externally. It has an endurance of up to 36 hours and a top speed of 270 kilometers an hour. SMQ-1C has a wingspan 18 meters/56 feet and is 9 meters/28 feet long. The MQ-1C can land and take off automatically, and carry four Hellfire missiles (compared to two on the Predator), or a dozen smaller 70mm guided missiles. Each MQ-1C costs about $10 million. The MQ-1C has automated takeoff and landing software, and is equipped with a full array of electronics (target designators, and digital communications so troops on the ground can see what the UAV sees.)

The original MQ-1 Predator is a one ton aircraft that is 8.7 meters/27 feet long with a wingspan of 15.8 meters/49 feet. It has two hard points, which usually carry one (47 kg/107 pound) Hellfire each. Max speed of the Predator is 215 kilometers an hour, max cruising speed is 160 kilometers an hour. Max altitude is 8,000 meters/25,000 feet. Typical sorties are 12-20 hours each.

As its model number (MQ-1C) indicates, this UAV is a Predator (MQ-1) replacement. The U.S. Air Force had planned to replace its MQ-1s with MQ-1Cs, but later decided to buy only larger Reapers. The MQ-1C was developed by the army. The third member of the Predator family is the MQ-9 Reaper. This is a 4.7 ton, 11 meter/36 foot long aircraft with a 20 meter/66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry about a ton (2,400 pounds) of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, or two 227 kg/500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours. The Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, to replace F-16s or A-10s in ground support missions.
end

 

[ArmyRick]

Interesting to note how the US Army will not releive control of its aviation assetts. I say good on them. I was talking to my boss (He is an arty guy) and he had told me in our system, any UAV over 200 Lbs basically is air force control. Personally, I don't agree with every AC being under air force control.

Maybe a compromise would be to have an Air Command wing under OPCOM to the Land forces command. Pool all the chinooks, griffens and larger UAVs not intended for coastal patrol under control of this wing.

Am I right out to lunch on this idea? Or am I just plain old hammered on Christmas 'nog and rhum? Ideas?

 

[a_majoor]

Bit OT, but fun anyway; a Lego "S" tank that is fully functional including the elevating/depressing suspension and the dozer blade:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_224347&v=_-DYTLgyI-Q&feature=iv.

In a way it is too bad the S tank is no longer in service; imagine rearming the thing with a 120mm cannon as an Infantry fire support vehicle. Here is a short documentary of the real thing for comparison.


(Edit to add documentary)

 

[Infanteer]

Didn't that thing have an elevating gun, or was that some varient?

Can't shoot on the move and no traversing turret - why wouldn't you just bring a main battle tank?  Is there any significant cost savings here?

Although I thought the integral dozer blade was pretty cool.

 

[Franko]

Didn't that thing have an elevating gun, or was that some varient?

Can't shoot on the move and no traversing turret - why wouldn't you just bring a main battle tank?  Is there any significant cost savings here?

Although I thought the integral dozer blade was pretty cool.

S Tank was developed specifically for fighting in the terrain inherent in that country. Closed in mountain roads and the tank had to be low silhouette.

Elevation was done by adjusting the suspension, azmuth by turning the tank.

It was dropped for a reason.

 

[a_majoor]

When the S tank was designed, the Swedish Army was looking at a way to ensure their vehicles had the best chance against a massively superior foe. Analysis showed that reducing the height of the vehicle greatly reduced the chances of being seen and thus you would be able to open engagements before the enemy knew you were there and could break off almost at will before the enemy could locate you.

The compact size and low profile also made the armour envelope very effective for its weight, the S tank was far better protected than any other vehicle of its weight class. The design also allowed for various follow on effects; the vehicle could be fought by one person acting as the driver/gunner and being his own crew commander; with the full three man crew, the radio operator (who faced rear) could drive the vehicle away at the same speed the driver/gunner could drive forward. It was small and light enough to be fully amphibious. The Striv-103 had a lot of firepower for its size, the boxes on the front of the hull held two fixed co-ax GPMG's, and a crew commander's GPMG was also provided. The main weapon was longer than the conventional 105mm cannon used by NATO and had a higher muzzle velocity, higher rate of fire due to the autoloader, and the vehicle could pack 50 main gun rounds.

This was 1950's engineering; the build of the Striv-103 was done in the 1960's and all vehicles were later rebuilt to "C" standard in the early 1980's. Obviously, other technologies like full stabilization, night and thermal imaging and the various armour and automotive improvements made "Generation  3" tanks possible, and other technologies like helicopter anti tank platforms and top attack missiles reduced the advantage of low profiles, so the advantages of the S tank  were no longer so apparent. If anything, the Striv-103 was a tank destroyer like the Hetzer of WWII fame. If you were digging into a positional defense, a vehicle like the S tank would be a great help (and it can dig itself in, which is always handy). The Striv 103 packed a lot of features into a small package, it was probably as expensive as any conventional tank of the era.

The vehicle with the overhead gun was a test article built on a Marder chassis to experiment with the concept, the Swedish Army was satisfied it could work and also tried the concept with a 120mm on a pedestal mount on a modified BV-206 chassis; which also worked but was judged to be too complex and expensive  The Striv 2000 project studied the idea of a tank with a pedestal mounted cannon, but it was rejected in favor of a front engined chassis carrying a compact turret with a 140mm main gun and a 40mm co-ax. This was abandoned as being too expensive, and the Swedish army now uses the Striv-122; a modified Leopard II.

The Swedes still have their own way of doing things, the Striv 122 has increased top and bottom armour and various other changes, and the Swedes also developed a gun tank version of the CV-90 (CV 90120); although that has not been taken into service it is an interesting design as well.

 

[GK .Dundas]

There's a story floating around that the Dutch may well end up retiring their whole tank force because of defence cuts. Anyone else  pondering what I'm pondering?

 

[Kalatzi]

NGH

Kinda like when we wanted to relace centurions with scorpions

some of the centuriions took offense at the the nature of their replacements

Note this was before al Gore invented the internet

 

[ArmyRick]

Kalatzi,

What? I am kind of not getting your post (unless its some kind of ha ha). I have been told by old armoured guys about the near disaterous attempt to replace our entire centurion fleet with Scorpions. I even read an ARmour journal in the early seventies saying how the CF was getting Scorpions.

As for the comment 'bout the Dutch. That would be sweet picking up more Leo2 except, it would cost money and the operating/maintenance cost has to be factored in. Would whatever Government that gets elected be willing to grab more Tanks? and Pay for it?

 

[GK .Dundas]

NGH

Kinda like when we wanted to relace centurions with scorpions

some of the centuriions took offense at the the nature of their replacements

Note this was before al Gore invented the internet

UHH, Centurion that's kinda like an AVGP with tracks? (Obscure cartoon reference also pre-internet.  Feeling real old today! : ) Yeah I know but wouldn't it be nice just to have enough tanks to support our three under strength brigades and may be have few for training and attrition.
SIGH! Years ago I came to the conclusion that a properly funded Canadian military would probably a sign of the Apocalypse if only because even a creature as short sighted as a Canadian politician might notice that ! :
Of course. I was also more of an optimist in those days ..................... 

 

[ironduke57]

There's a story floating around that the Dutch may well end up retiring their whole tank force because of defence cuts. Anyone else  pondering what I'm pondering?

It looks like it will really happen. No more tanks for dutch.

Also:
-6 PzH2000
-50% of the AA & AT Fennek´s
"only" 80 of 119 Generals stay
-6000 Military Personal overall
-4 Minehunters
-2 Patrolships
-1 AOR (HNLMS Zuiderkruis) (Maybe an opportunity?)
-17 Puma Helo´s
-19 F-16
-1 DC-10

Regards,
ironduke57

 

[Cloud]

Kalatzi,

What? I am kind of not getting your post (unless its some kind of ha ha). I have been told by old armoured guys about the near disaterous attempt to replace our entire centurion fleet with Scorpions. I even read an ARmour journal in the early seventies saying how the CF was getting Scorpions.

As for the comment 'bout the Dutch. That would be sweet picking up more Leo2 except, it would cost money and the operating/maintenance cost has to be factored in. Would whatever Government that gets elected be willing to grab more Tanks? and Pay for it?

Might happen if Harper gets a majority government.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think they are keeping the Fennecks, but not buying the AA & AT systems for them. The AOR was built in 1975 and as old as ours pretty much (thought the same thing till I looked it up)

We could buy the entire stock of tanks, lease space at the USAF storage yards in Nevada and keep them there and rotate the fleet as needed, but then that's crazy talk.

The 6 SPG would be interesting, but that's a pretty small fleet.