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

US Army looking to build air-droppable armoured vehicle (ULCV project)

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
385
Points
880
Just drop an armored hovercraft from the air with it's engines on full.
 

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
0
MCG said:
  I think somewhere a requirement is going to have to slip.

Sure enough... the US Army realizes tradeoffs have to be made:

Military.com

Army Considers Trading Armor for Speed

For the past decade, enemy forces in Iraq and Afghanistan relied heavily on improvised explosive devices -- roadside bombs that wreaked havoc on U.S. military vehicles. The tactic forced the Pentagon to rely more on heavy armor protection, sacrificing mobility of ground forces.

(...)- SNIPPED/EDITED

Heavy armor works well in heavy brigade combat teams, but it has no place in the light infantry formations of the IBCT of the future, said Lt. Col. Kevin Parker, branch chief of Light Systems in the MCoE's Mounted Requirements Division.

(...)- SNIPPED

Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

"Dismounted infantry move by UH-60 because that is the vehicle that the tactical commander can get his hands on, so you want to make sure that the vehicle that is supporting that dismounted infantry can also be moved around by that platform," Parker said.

The only way to achieve this weight and meet the capability is to trade armor protection for speed and mobility, Parker said.

Currently, IBCTs can still move only as fast as a heavily burdened infantryman can walk.

"The guy has nothing right now; he's walking at four miles an hour, vulnerable, on his feet," he said.

The ULCV would also be air-droppable from C-130 and C-17 aircraft in combat configuration. It would have to carry up to 3,200 pounds, which is equal to a fully equipped, nine-man squad. It would have a range of up to 300 miles on internal fuel. Maneuver officials are also interested in the vehicle performing on high-altitude terrain such as ridges and summits.


(...)- SNIPPED
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
134
Points
680
One of the key bits in the article is this:
"I am not trying to refight Afghanistan and Iraq," Parker said. "With any high-speed avenue of approach, particularly a road, it's a very easy thing to target. ... If I am gonna drive down the road, I probably want to be in MRAPs because that is where [the] enemy can target me with IEDs."

The ULCV instead would be designed to travel 75 percent of the time across country and on rough trails.
Given the US size/budget, they have more options than we do when juggling the speed-protection-firepower Venn diagram.... as discussed elsewhere *cough* CCV *cough* with the attendant logistic tail and training bill that comes from mixed fleets.  It would be wonderful to have a lot of options, but let's not get too focused southwards, and try and keep our LAV and B-vehicle fleets running.


I now return you to discussing US stuff.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Journeyman said:
One of the key bits in the article is this:Given the US size/budget, they have more options than we do when juggling the speed-protection-firepower Venn diagram.... as discussed elsewhere *cough* CCV *cough* with the attendant logistic tail and training bill that comes from mixed fleets.  It would be wonderful to have a lot of options, but let's not get too focused southwards, and try and keep our LAV and B-vehicle fleets running.


I now return you to discussing US stuff.

It may have a use for the LIB's...

There are not enough LAV's - and it could be a decent tool for the Light Infantry elements of the Regiments.
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
56
Points
530
I am not holding out much hope on this.We couldn't even build an air deployable Mobile Gun platform without uparmoring the thing to the point where it almost didnt fit on a C-130.
 

lestock

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
I can't figure out why everyone is bringing up equipment like the Sheridan, CCV, Mobile Gun platforms etc when clearly the vision is more of an 'Argo on 'roids'.
4500lbs empty, 3200lbs of cargo, no armour (I picture a "coat rack" that you hang your body armour on before you mount up, just like the shields on a Viking boat), neither article mentions anything about it being a weapon(s) platform, Tank, BMD3, Wiesel etc.  It's just a high mobility Sect/Squad taxi/truck.
I think there's a real place for it in AirMoble, Airborne, and LIB's.

Cheers
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
287
Points
880
tomahawk6 said:
I am not holding out much hope on this.We couldn't even build an air deployable Mobile Gun platform without uparmoring the thing to the point where it almost didnt fit on a C-130.

I cannot for the life of me figure why we design a vehicle, then decide to up armor them after.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
419
Points
880
For a billion or 2 I have a combat proven option for you

IMG%2Bcopy.jpg
 

lestock

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
10
As functional as a Universal Carrier was it weighs in at 7000lbs empty and would be hard pressed to carry x6 kitted out Infantrymen. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the UC and I've tried many ways to imagine a 21st version. Probably larger, longer, modern powerplant (re-located) etc. But I think it's been under appreciated as to its achievements.

Cheers 
 

Shrek1985

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Gods, more proof never to buy into US weapons programs...

Wuh? time for one of these again? Oh yes, of course, we DID just cancel the last one!

Shit! Aren't we due LET ANOTHER expensive circle-jerk "replacement" for the M16/M4? It's been...4 years(?), since the last one got canned?
 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

Carry 9 (I will assume adults with bullets and water) and weigh less than a standard pick up truck; and be armoured?  :rofl:
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
287
Points
880
GnyHwy said:
Carry 9 (I will assume adults with bullets and water) and weigh less than a standard pick up truck; and be armoured?  :rofl:

I do believe the Incredulous Idea Fairy is at work.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
89
Points
530
Recceguy ..... congratulations.  You may have solved the problem.  Take one Bradley and pump it full of Helium. 

The only down side would be the Mickey Mouse Voice Procedures........
 

Matt_Fisher

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
ULCV has no requirement for armour.  The concept of operations is for it to be primarily used off-road/cross-country so as to avoid likely IED emplacement areas (i.e. roads) and provide a mobility platform for light infantry.

James Hasik has probably the best synopsis which I've come across so far:
http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2014/01/the-ulcv-vertical-motorization-for-the-us-armys-light-infantry.html
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
89
Points
530
I'm attaching a table that I recently created on the air transportability of your vehicle fleet.  I included some ancients, some moderns and some commercial.

I was amused to discover that given the flavour of the month for light troops (side by side ATVs) and the multi-million dollar Internally Transportable Vehicle the CF already had that capability covered.  But then we ditched it.

The Iltis matched the footprint for the ATV and the ITV and was comparable to the ATV in capability.

Other interesting observations:  The commercial Jeep and the Milverado both appear internally transportable in the Cormorant (CH-149) and the Chinook (CH-147) as is the Bv206.

Meanwhile the CH-148 comes up short (or should that be narrow) as a Tactical Transport which greatly limits its utility.    Perhaps another reason why the Merlin won its position the first time out.

Looking forward to the corrections.  :nod:

 

GnyHwy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Matt_Fisher said:
ULCV has no requirement for armour.  The concept of operations is for it to be primarily used off-road/cross-country so as to avoid likely IED emplacement areas (i.e. roads) and provide a mobility platform for light infantry.

James Hasik has probably the best synopsis which I've come across so far:
http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2014/01/the-ulcv-vertical-motorization-for-the-us-armys-light-infantry.html

That is good.  The original article's title is misleading "armoured vehicle" and the first sentence "armoured chariot", eventhough later it states "The ULCV would provide a base level of protection through high-mobility to avoid enemy contact and soldier personal protection equipment", which doesn't imply any armour at all.

His article states "off the shelf".  So what are talking about then.  Based on these requirements, what current off the shelf truck does it.

Carry a squad of nine troops, their equipment, and their body armor (about 3,200 lbs.)
Survive a rollover
Drive off-road with ease (that’s 75 percent of the foreseen usage profile), up to ridges and summits
Carry at least a machinegun, and ideally a “medium-caliber weapon” (unspecified)
Ride internally on a Chinook, sling under a Blackhawk, and drop out of a Hercules
Cruise at least 250 miles (though it’s not clear if that’s on- or off-road)

Off the shelf seems like quite the stretch.  Seems like horsepower, storage space, and light frame are the only real measure's of performance.

Maybe a really long dune buggy?
 
 

McG

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
71
Points
530
Kirkhill said:
I was amused to discover that given the flavour of the month for light troops (side by side ATVs) and the multi-million dollar Internally Transportable Vehicle the CF already had that capability covered.  But then we ditched it.
It does look like we were closer than we might believe.  The secret to success might be not redesigning it ourselves.

 
Top