Infantry Vehicles

[Kirkhill]

Back to "infantry vehicles / future armour" and the chain gun.

First - I don't know enough, and it isn't my butt, to have a hard position on the M242 25mm. I have been inclined to follow the prevailing belief that bigger is better.

But...

I also see the point about the dangers of a more effective gun encouraging people to close to distances that the vehicle was never intended for.

Also...

Miniaturization is causing targets to become cheaper, more plentiful, smaller and harder to hit. Which has resulted in 57mm and 40mm 3P and 35mm AHEAD ammunition for taking on "swarms".

So, I will persist in my obtuseness. What can be achieved with the existing Bushmaster 25mm by simply (I use the word carefully) adding a Programmable Air Burst Munition to the magazine and revising the fire control system. Can the rate of fire be increased beyond 200 rounds per minute? Can the slew rate be increased?

My thought is to ask what are the optimizing opportunities that can be implemented in the immediate term.





Udder thought

Future armour - Robotics

The difference between Infantry and Armour, by one definition, is that one fights at 4 MPH while the othe fights at 40 MPH.

I don't know if robotics are ready for the 40 MPH fight but they are certainly ready for the 4 MPH fight. I can see robotics having a major impact on the infantry Combat Support Company in terms of manpower, capabilities and impact on the defensive battle.

By putting all the support weapons on light tracked carriers, that can be remotely operated, then you can bring any weapon into the field, you can keep the operators under cover, you can more easily co-ordinate the weapons plan, and you can keep the weapons under cover, under overhead protection, until you want them to run out into battery and expose themselves.

Those moves would certainly twist the effort to favour the defence.

Milrem Robotics’ THeMIS Combat Unmanned Ground Vehicle on Display at DIMDEX

The European leading robotics and autonomous systems developer Milrem Robotics will exhibit their THeMIS Combat Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) during D

www.businesswire.com

Germany to Provide 14 THeMIS Unmanned Ground Vehicles to Ukraine

The German Ministry of Defense has contracted two defense and technology firms to manufacture unmanned ground vehicles for Ukraine.

www.thedefensepost.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can't wait till infantry is armed with EW weapons to break the link to all these autonomous weapons.

 

[Kirkhill]

I can't wait till infantry is armed with EW weapons to break the link to all these autonomous weapons.

Try disrupting fibre optic cables..... or even free air laser.

I don't want the vehicles to be wandering kilometers. Displacing 50 to 100 m from OHP to firing positions would suffice.

 

[Kirkhill]

As to the 25mm PABM solution ...

Apparently it has been on offer at least since 2007?

ATK's New 25mm Chain Gun Built For Ground, Air and Maritime Platforms - Defense Daily

By Geoff Fein Alliant Techsystems is planning in 2008 to install its newest lightweight remotely operated 25mm chain gun on a variety of platforms, from

www.defensedaily.com

The LW25 features a dual-feed system with the ability to select between two different types of munitions, Grace said, including training and tactical ammunition. Additionally, the gun will be able to fire ATK’s airburst munition.

“It’s the only airburst ammunition type classified,” he said.

The munition leverages ATK’s turns count fuze technology used in the 30mm MK310 Programmable Airburst Munitions (PABM), currently under qualification by the Navy for use on the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

And on the Rate of Fire?

Rate of fire • Cyclic: 200rpm with 1hp or 500rpm with 8hp

M242 Bushmaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Kirkhill]

Or maybe there is an argument for the 30mm?

WARFARE TECHNOLOGY

A blog about the latest advances in military technologies on weapons, turrets, armored vehicles and land systems.

warfaretech.blogspot.com

 

[Kirkhill]

And 40mm grenade solutions

Navy Looking Into Grenades For C-UAS - Defense Daily

The Navy issues a an RFI on May 15 looking into sources for specific 40mm grenades to be used in counter-unmanned aerial systems (C-UAS).

www.defensedaily.com

Taking Out ‘The Toys’ - Asian Military Review

Countering unmanned aerial systems, no longer hobbiest’s ‘toys’, now takes investment and well developed systems, says JR Ng.

www.asianmilitaryreview.com

 

[AC 011]

As to the 25mm PABM solution ...

Apparently it has been on offer at least since 2007?

ATK's New 25mm Chain Gun Built For Ground, Air and Maritime Platforms - Defense Daily

By Geoff Fein Alliant Techsystems is planning in 2008 to install its newest lightweight remotely operated 25mm chain gun on a variety of platforms, from

www.defensedaily.com

And on the Rate of Fire?

M242 Bushmaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes. 25x137 PABM is not a new thing. Development appears to be complete, but the final qual testing is waiting on somebody who actually wants to field it. It's been discussed at different times with OATK/NGAS and GDOTS, but it stalls.

25mm payload is small compared to the 30mm, and with 30mm cannons becoming more common and the 30mm PABM already qualified that is what is being pushed.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes. 25x137 PABM is not a new thing. Development appears to be complete, but the final qual testing is waiting on somebody who actually wants to field it. It's been discussed at different times with OATK/NGAS and GDOTS, but it stalls.

25mm payload is small compared to the 30mm, and with 30mm cannons becoming more common and the 30mm PABM already qualified that is what is being pushed.

Does the 30mm Bushmaster fit in the LAV6.0 turret? Or does the turret have to be changed?

And do we have sufficient stocks of 25mm in inventory to worry about the cost of the changeover to 30mm?

I guess the question is which solution could be fielded fastest at the least cost (recognizing we might be sacrificing the best solution).

 

[AC 011]

Does the 30mm Bushmaster fit in the LAV6.0 turret? Or does the turret have to be changed?

And do we have sufficient stocks of 25mm in inventory to worry about the cost of the changeover to 30mm?

I guess the question is which solution could be fielded fastest at the least cost (recognizing we might be sacrificing the best solution).

The 30mm will not fit in the LAV 6.0 turret shell. It's not that far off, but the required shell rework would not be cost effective.

Better to start with a new turret with a sight and FCS designed to take on air and ground targets.

 

[markppcli]

Does the 30mm Bushmaster fit in the LAV6.0 turret? Or does the turret have to be changed?

And do we have sufficient stocks of 25mm in inventory to worry about the cost of the changeover to 30mm?

I guess the question is which solution could be fielded fastest at the least cost (recognizing we might be sacrificing the best solution).

Bush master II 30mm

Mass	344 lb (160 kg)
Length	134.05 inches (3,405 mm)
Barrel length	94.88 inches (2,410 mm)
Width	13.5 inches (340 mm)
Height	15.43 inches (392 mm)

Bush master 242

Mass	119 kilograms (262 lb)[4]
Length	2,672 mm (105.2 in)[4]
Barrel length	2,175 mm (85.6 in)
Width	318 mm (12.5 in)[4]
Height	373 mm (14.7 in)[4]

Apologies for the annoying alternate units. I blame wiki. 25 mm probably is at the end of its useful life, still very effective an it’s primary job of perforating IFV hull but to small to take next gen fusing. My sense in terms of C-UAV is that Bn / BDE level AD guns that can be pushed down would be the most expedient option.

My concern with tracked weapons carriers will always be how they actually get to the fight, and what kind of maintenance / operator bill they take up.

 

[GR66]

Does the 30mm Bushmaster fit in the LAV6.0 turret? Or does the turret have to be changed?

And do we have sufficient stocks of 25mm in inventory to worry about the cost of the changeover to 30mm?

I guess the question is which solution could be fielded fastest at the least cost (recognizing we might be sacrificing the best solution).

The IM-SHORAD already has a 30mm Bushmaster M230, Stingers and Hellfires (which in the RiWP turret can be swapped out to a pretty large variety of alternate missiles, rockets and loitering munitions). Why re-invent the wheel? Mount the IM-SHORAD turret on a LAV6.0 and you have commonality with the US Arrmy. Same turret can likely be mounted on the TAPV as well.

 

[GR66]

Back to "infantry vehicles / future armour" and the chain gun.

First - I don't know enough, and it isn't my butt, to have a hard position on the M242 25mm. I have been inclined to follow the prevailing belief that bigger is better.

But...

I also see the point about the dangers of a more effective gun encouraging people to close to distances that the vehicle was never intended for.

Also...

Miniaturization is causing targets to become cheaper, more plentiful, smaller and harder to hit. Which has resulted in 57mm and 40mm 3P and 35mm AHEAD ammunition for taking on "swarms".

So, I will persist in my obtuseness. What can be achieved with the existing Bushmaster 25mm by simply (I use the word carefully) adding a Programmable Air Burst Munition to the magazine and revising the fire control system. Can the rate of fire be increased beyond 200 rounds per minute? Can the slew rate be increased?

My thought is to ask what are the optimizing opportunities that can be implemented in the immediate term.





Udder thought

Future armour - Robotics

The difference between Infantry and Armour, by one definition, is that one fights at 4 MPH while the othe fights at 40 MPH.

I don't know if robotics are ready for the 40 MPH fight but they are certainly ready for the 4 MPH fight. I can see robotics having a major impact on the infantry Combat Support Company in terms of manpower, capabilities and impact on the defensive battle.

By putting all the support weapons on light tracked carriers, that can be remotely operated, then you can bring any weapon into the field, you can keep the operators under cover, you can more easily co-ordinate the weapons plan, and you can keep the weapons under cover, under overhead protection, until you want them to run out into battery and expose themselves.

Those moves would certainly twist the effort to favour the defence.

Milrem Robotics’ THeMIS Combat Unmanned Ground Vehicle on Display at DIMDEX

The European leading robotics and autonomous systems developer Milrem Robotics will exhibit their THeMIS Combat Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) during D

www.businesswire.com

Germany to Provide 14 THeMIS Unmanned Ground Vehicles to Ukraine

The German Ministry of Defense has contracted two defense and technology firms to manufacture unmanned ground vehicles for Ukraine.

www.thedefensepost.com

Another problem with mounting Light Infantry support weapons on UGVs is that now when the Light Infantry moves they need heavier transport in order to move their support weapons (as well as techs to maintain them, additional fuel, etc.). Makes them inherently less light.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Another problem with mounting Light Infantry support weapons on UGVs is that now when the Light Infantry moves they need heavier transport in order to move their support weapons (as well as techs to maintain them, additional fuel, etc.). Makes them inherently less light.

I used to carry 100lbs of heavy stuff but now I carry 100lbs of light stuff

Reducing the Infantryman’s Load

By Anthony G Williams A guest post by Anthony Williams who is a writer on military small arms, automatic cannon and related subjects. Tony has been the Editor of IHS Jane’s Weapons: Ammunition for …

uklandpower.com

 

[dapaterson]

LAV 6.0 is already at or beyond weight limits; adding weight to the turret which is already poorly balanced...to say nothing of system integration work; modern weapons need integration with the fire control systems.

Not impossible, but more work than just dropping in a new turret.

 

[Kirkhill]

Bush master II 30mm

Mass	344 lb (160 kg)
Length	134.05 inches (3,405 mm)
Barrel length	94.88 inches (2,410 mm)
Width	13.5 inches (340 mm)
Height	15.43 inches (392 mm)

Bush master 242

Mass	119 kilograms (262 lb)[4]
Length	2,672 mm (105.2 in)[4]
Barrel length	2,175 mm (85.6 in)
Width	318 mm (12.5 in)[4]
Height	373 mm (14.7 in)[4]

Apologies for the annoying alternate units. I blame wiki. 25 mm probably is at the end of its useful life, still very effective an it’s primary job of perforating IFV hull but to small to take next gen fusing. My sense in terms of C-UAV is that Bn / BDE level AD guns that can be pushed down would be the most expedient option.

So a large AD battery for each battalion? Perhaps using the same AD cannon as the RCN uses on its CSCs? I think they are planning on the 30mm Oto-Marlin WS.

My concern with tracked weapons carriers will always be how they actually get to the fight, and what kind of maintenance / operator bill they take up.

Legit. They would need a weapons carrier carrier for long hauls - which could mean limiting the weight and size of the carrier to something that could be lifted by a UTTH or VSTOL or dragged on a gooseneck by an F550. In other words they need to be transportable in the same rigs that transport light infantry over long distances.

For me the US Army is starting way too high on the weight scales if the RCV-L is a 10 tonne machine (presumably replicating the JLTV)

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11876#:~:text=The%20RCV%20is%20a%20vehicle,Light%2C%20Medium%2C%20and%20Heavy.

To me the light, at 10 tonnes looks more like a medium.

Robotic Command Vehicles – Light (RCV-L)

Search and reconnaissance efforts in battlefields and other compromised environments have always carried inherent risk. To mitigate safety concerns, the testing and use of unmanned robotics solutions is providing new avenues to tactical advantages.

www.qinetiq.com

These, in the 2 tonne range, look more like an RCV-L that would be compatible with an infantry team.

Maybe it is kind of like light bulbs.

Light bulbs used to be sold by the watt. More watts meant more light.
Now they are sold by the lumen equivalent to the watt.

Am I the only one that looks at a 13 watt LED and a 60 watt socket and does a Tim Allen? How do I get five of those 13 w lamps in that one 60 w socket. Night Star levels of illumination are possible.

What weight of vehicle do I need to carry a 30mm (see I can change) and a pair of Javelins? If I don't need to carry an operator and I don't need any armour and it only has to move at double time?


As for the LAVs - Maybe the correct answer is to supply 60 tonne cocoons for the infantry and engineers, and the CPs, and lighten up the weapons carriers (120mm/155mm) and mix in more UAVs.

Actually, @KevinB had a point about too many CPs relative to the ISCs. Maybe the CAF is just ahead of the game on the Robotic side. Use the CPs as masters to all the slaved weapons carriers.

 

[GR66]

It's also interesting to note that the structure didn't go fully asymmetrical but left the light companies distributed to each battalion rather than concentrated. Personally I think that's a weakness to the system albeit that a) it keeps the infantry regimental mafias happy and b) its not really a big issue if your aim is truly to build and deploy battlegroups and not brigades.

In the article you posted in the Future Armour thread it talks about the evolving need for composite force structures. Maybe this type of mixed structure actually suits the evolving nature of dispersed warfare. Having the light "sense" elements more intimately tied to the heavier "close combat" elements (as well "strike" elements in the CS Company?) would allow you to shorten the kill chain.

If having this mix at the Battalion level is too far down the structure then maybe keeping our existing Infantry Brigade structure (1 x Light "Sense" Battalion, 2 x Mech "Close Combat" Battalions and an Artillery "Strike" Regiment). Similarly you could have an Armoured Brigade with 1 x Cavalry Regiment and 2 x Tank Regiments.

Food for thought.

 

[McG]

Interesting. ACSV is outrageously tall

It is was designed to replace the Queen Marry and then pressed into roles that do not need the extra foot & a half of armoured hull height. It will make a great A2 echelon ambulance, but in the A1 echelon the ambulance will be tied for tallest vehicle in the combat team (the engineer section carrier potential being the other tallest vehicle).

Someone never saw the hierarchy of A veh survivability that includes don’t be seen and don’t get hit.

 

[Kirkhill]

In the article you posted in the Future Armour thread it talks about the evolving need for composite force structures. Maybe this type of mixed structure actually suits the evolving nature of dispersed warfare. Having the light "sense" elements more intimately tied to the heavier "close combat" elements (as well "strike" elements in the CS Company?) would allow you to shorten the kill chain.

This plan looks a lot like the Commando 21

Commando 21 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If having this mix at the Battalion level is too far down the structure then maybe keeping our existing Infantry Brigade structure (1 x Light "Sense" Battalion, 2 x Mech "Close Combat" Battalions and an Artillery "Strike" Regiment). Similarly you could have an Armoured Brigade with 1 x Cavalry Regiment and 2 x Tank Regiments.

Food for thought.

I'm a fan of plan A. Especially if it leads to the LAV's being grouped in the CS Coy.

 

[markppcli]

So a large AD battery for each battalion? Perhaps using the same AD cannon as the RCN uses on its CSCs? I think they are planning on the 30mm Oto-Marlin WS.




Legit. They would need a weapons carrier carrier for long hauls - which could mean limiting the weight and size of the carrier to something that could be lifted by a UTTH or VSTOL or dragged on a gooseneck by an F550. In other words they need to be transportable in the same rigs that transport light infantry over long distances.

For me the US Army is starting way too high on the weight scales if the RCV-L is a 10 tonne machine (presumably replicating the JLTV)

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11876#:~:text=The%20RCV%20is%20a%20vehicle,Light%2C%20Medium%2C%20and%20Heavy.

View attachment 75806

View attachment 75807

View attachment 75808


To me the light, at 10 tonnes looks more like a medium.

Robotic Command Vehicles – Light (RCV-L)

Search and reconnaissance efforts in battlefields and other compromised environments have always carried inherent risk. To mitigate safety concerns, the testing and use of unmanned robotics solutions is providing new avenues to tactical advantages.

www.qinetiq.com

These, in the 2 tonne range, look more like an RCV-L that would be compatible with an infantry team.

Maybe it is kind of like light bulbs.

Light bulbs used to be sold by the watt. More watts meant more light.
Now they are sold by the lumen equivalent to the watt.

Am I the only one that looks at a 13 watt LED and a 60 watt socket and does a Tim Allen? How do I get five of those 13 w lamps in that one 60 w socket. Night Star levels of illumination are possible.

What weight of vehicle do I need to carry a 30mm (see I can change) and a pair of Javelins? If I don't need to carry an operator and I don't need any armour and it only has to move at double time?


As for the LAVs - Maybe the correct answer is to supply 60 tonne cocoons for the infantry and engineers, and the CPs, and lighten up the weapons carriers (120mm/155mm) and mix in more UAVs.

Actually, @KevinB had a point about too many CPs relative to the ISCs. Maybe the CAF is just ahead of the game on the Robotic side. Use the CPs as masters to all the slaved weapons carriers.

Probably not a large AD battery; something like 4-8 vehicles in the M-SHORAD vein, even if just the gun. An AD Regiment to provide 3 Bty’s of 3 Tps ofor alternatively a platoon of 3-5 … but I’d still want the regiment for coordination aspects.

 

[Kirkhill]

This applies to my first tangent on the Light Infantry Weapons Company. Not directly to Mark's point above.

Rheinmetall Unveils the Armed Recce Mission-Master Robot - Defense Update:

Rheinmetall Defence unveiled today a new armed reconnaissance mission module for their Mission-Master Autonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicle (A-UGV). The new mission module includes an intelligence-gathering multi-sensor pack and a remotely controlled weapon station. The system takes the Mission...

defense-update.com

The electrically-powered Mission Master platform weighs 1,100 kg, including batteries, carrying up to 600 kg of payload. All Mission Master variants, including the Recce vehicle, can be transported on rail, transporters, and sling loaded under CH-53 or CH-47 helicopters. Rheinmetall has also developed a transportation cage that enables heavy transport helicopters deploying two vehicles on a single airlift. The platform is also amphibious, able to swim at 5 km/h, carrying 300 kg.

Kongsberg RWS LW30

PROTECTOR RWS LW30

The PROTECTOR RWS LW30 is an extension of the existing PROTECTOR RWS family providing enhanced operational capability by use of a low-recoil 30mm cannon.

www.kongsberg.com

RS6 - 342 kg
M230LF/XM914 - 73 kg
M240G - 12 kg
Javelin - 23 kg

Total Mass = 450 kg

Leaves a 150 kg allowance for ammunition.

This is broadly in the weight range of the MRZR4 and the Iltis.