Light Tanks... de toekomst ?

[Huzaar1]

Allemaal leuk en aardig maar ik zie geen voordeel tegenover een MBT, behalve dat het luchttransport wellicht makkelijker gaat hiermee.

Leo2's zijn goedkoper, beter, en misschien nog goedkoper in onderhoud.
Alsof het spul van deze auto's allemaal gratis is.

[Ace1]

U.S. Army in the Market for 'Light' Tanks

Army paratroopers gave up their tanks in 1997. Now they want them back.

"The infantry needs more protection and more firepower," says Col. Ed House, Army Training and Doctrine Command manager for the infantry brigade combat team.

Even in these times of deep budget cuts and a projected steep decline in purchases of military hardware, senior Army officials believe that a light tank is a high priority that should be funded. In a future war, they contend, Army airborne forces would parachute into a warzone equipped with only light weapons and might have to confront more heavily armed enemies.

Army leaders understand that, after 12 years of war, the infantry brigades have a "capability gap," House says in an interview from Fort Benning, Ga. "The forcible entry forces we put in harm's way lack sufficient protected firepower platform."

The current plan is to provide the XVIII Airborne Corps — a fast-to-the-scene 911 force — a flotilla of light tanks that can be flown by C-130 cargo planes and parachuted into the warzone.

Light tanks existed in the Army's inventory from World War I until the end of the Cold War. Production of the 16-ton Sheridan ended in 1970 after approximately 1,700 vehicles were delivered to the Army. The last unit to operate the Sheridan was the 3d Battalion, 73d Armor Regiment of the 82d Airborne Division, which was inactivated in July 1997 following a wave of cost cutting. The Army considered buying a replacement for the Sheridan, the Armored Gun System, but that program was terminated after the Army had bought just six vehicles.

House says the goal is to replicate the functions of 3-73 although he admits it will be hard to locate a modern version of the Sheridan. "The tough part of this is to find a vehicle that fits in the back of a C-130 and can descend by parachute," he says. "The Sheridan did that pretty well back in the 1990s."

Training and Doctrine Command officials are scoping the market for existing vehicles that could perform a similar role as the Sheridan.

Up to 140 candidates are being considered, says Col. Rocky Kmiecik, director of mounted requirements at the capabilities development and integration directorate.

Even though tanks are tracked vehicles, the Army is open to wheeled alternatives. The vehicle has to be air droppable, must have enough ballistic protection against 14.5 mm and .50 caliber rounds, and be able to drive off road.

"This is not what you would use for patrols in Iraq," Kmiecik says.

Because of the budget crunch and a relatively tight deadline of 24 months, the Army does not intend to spend money on a new design and expects to choose a vehicle from the open market.

Kmiecik says the field of potential candidates will be narrowed down to 10 vehicles. Army officials will evaluate them in preparation for writing a "requirements document" that will inform a future solicitation to interested vendors. "There are a lot of good vehicles out there," he says. "We are not set on a specific caliber gun."

Whichever vehicle is selected will be turned over to the XVIII Airborne Corps for trials.

Air assault forces have made a convincing case that they need their own firepower, especially in urban fights where civilians and combatants are in close proximity, Kmiecik says. Infantry troops can call for fire support from Air Force or Navy strike fighters, but commanders worry about air-to-ground bombs killing civilians, he says. The other concern is that enemies are likely to be concealed in machine gun bunkers or in other covered position where "you can't shoot naval gun fire or drop air force bombs," Kmiecik says. "We do need a capability on the ground to fight localized threats. Light skinned vehicles with machine guns mounted are easier to defeat with a Sheridan."

After a light tank is selected, the Army would buy a handful for testing. The tentative plan is called 4-14-44: Four vehicles at the platoon level, 14 at company and 44 for a full battalion.

The current effort to acquire a light tank brings flashbacks to October 1999 when then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki announced the Army would put its heavy armor past behind and transition to a lighter force. He wanted light vehicles that could be more easily transported to combat zones, which would allow the Army to respond to crises.

Shinseki's vision resulted in the Future Combat Systems, a projected $200 billion modernization plan to equip the entire Army with high-tech vehicles, robots and communications systems. FCS suffered from technological overreach, cost overruns and its inability to deliver a vehicle that could survive roadside bombs in Iraq. It finally got the ax in 2009.

Asked whether the light tank program picks up where FCS left off, Kmiecik insists that is not the case. "This is absolutely not FCS," he says. "This is not the end-all be-all combat vehicle of the future."

While it seeks a light tank for the infantry, the Army continues to pursue a replacement for its heavy armor under a separate program called Ground Combat Vehicle.

Although the light tank is not meant to fill in the FCS void, Army officials acknowledge that there is still an unmet need for a powerful gun that can be transported by C-130 and move fast in all types of terrain. The Iraq War and the advent of the improvised explosive device put that pursuit on hold. To survive in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. vehicles were loaded with tons of armor, at the expense of speed and off-road mobility. "Over the last 12 years of conflict, on the materiel side, we've been moving to protection, protection, protection. And justifiably so, given the environment we've been in," Kmiecik says. "We are looking at going back and achieving that balance among protection, mobility and lethality."

House cautions that the light tank program only meets a niche requirement. "Let's not confuse this discussion as some sort of Army modernization effort or modernization strategy," he says. "This is going to be a very deliberate process. This is an opportunity to provide a capability in support of a specific mission. It is not some huge undertaking to change the ICBTs [infantry brigade combat team] in the Army," he adds. "We do not see every IBCT riding around in light tanks."

One of the vehicles that might be considered a light-tank candidate is the eight-wheeled Mobile Gun System, a 105 mm tank gun mounted on a light-armored Stryker vehicle made by General Dynamics Land Systems.

The current MGS, however, would have to be hardened with additional blast protection and upgraded with a new suspension to make it more mobile, Army officials say.

General Dynamics spokesman Peter Keating says the company could make those modifications to the vehicle at the Army's request, but will have to wait for the final requirements. To save time and money, he says, the Army should make an open call to vendors and have a shootout. If a suitable vehicle is found, Army officials have to "be disciplined enough to not modify it, as that is what drives cost up," he says. "You are not going to find a light tank out there with MRAP [mine resistant ambush protected] like protection. Someone could build one but it's not available now."

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7-cbb4-4018-baf8-8825eada7aa2&ID=1294&Source=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Enationaldefensemagazine%2Eorg%2Fblog%2FLists%2FPosts%2FAllPosts%2Easpx

[Ace1]

Wat meer info over de Stingray Light Tank

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/stingray_light_tank.htm

[Ace1]

Wat meer info over de M8 Buford Light Tank

http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m8_buford.htm

[dudge]

Nee niet bij de eenheden.. ik heb het over Amersfoort.

Ja, had eigenlijk moeten schrijven de landmachten operationeel commando's. Net als het onderwerp van dit topic, het is niet alsof eenieder het vergeten is. Maar het is geen prioriteit op het niveau waar het geld wordt verdeeld. Nog niet....

[Ace1]

With Russia in Mind, BAE Revives Light Tank from the '90s

U.S. military brass say Russia is the top threat, so companies are pitching arms for a new European battlefield...even if there is no money to buy them.

As the Army steps up the complexity of its combat training, companies are looking at new, futuristic arms tailored for high-end war with Russia and China. But some old ideas are being revived as well.

That's how a small tank, built and tested in the 1990s, found its way back to the exhibit hall at the largest military trade show in the United States.

"The intent of what we have out here is a conversation starter," said Deepak Bazaz, BAE Systems' director of New and Amphibious Vehicles, standing by his company's M8 Armored Gun System.

Army leaders of yesteryear envisioned a tank that could be dropped onto the battlefield by a C-130 cargo plane. Now Army brass is considering a fleet of lighter, more agile vehicles that could reach the battlefield faster, from the sky instead of from ships.

The Army does not a formal requirement yet for what it calls a mobile protected firepower unit, but it could soon, prompting BAE to bring the unit to the Association of the U.S. Army annual gathering in Washington.

The Army suspended work on a similar project in the mid-1990s, "but the need really remains," Bazaz said. "It's emerging again with the changing world that we live in."

Next to the tank, a flat-screen television played grainy two-decade-old video clips. Unlike armored vehicles and tanks now on the battlefield, the light tank here has no bells and whistles yet. The plan is to put modern electronics and sensor gear on after the Army figures out what it wants.

"There's a lot of interest that's starting to form," Bazaz said. The "82nd Airborne still sees this as a very valid requirement that has remained unmet."

The tank essentially would replace soldiers on the battlefield. It could destroy enemy tanks or larger vehicles that can withstand handheld weapons.

"The intent would be to drop this behind enemy lines to take an airfield," Bazaz said. "[Then] you could start bringing in your heavier equipment."

The Army practiced this type of combat assault of a guarded airfield during a major exercise at the National Training Center in August.

BAE built six of these tanks back in the '90s. They all still exist, but the condition of each prototype varies with the testing they received. Some have been dropped from cranes, others C-130s to make sure they could withstand the force of an airdrop.

The new tank, the M8, is similar to the Sheridan tanks that the Army used in the Vietnam War.

The tracked tank sports a 105-millimeter cannon, carries a three-man crew, and weighs 35,000 pounds. With additional armor, its weight can pass 50,000 pounds. It can speed along at 45 miles per hour. One can fit in a C-130 airlifter; three can fit inside a larger C-17.

Company officials say more modern equipment could reduce the tank's weight. For example, the M8 has an older-model 500-horsepower Detroit Diesel engine. A more modern engine could free up hundreds or even a thousand pounds, Bazaz said.

The Army has asked companies how they could fill its needs for a light tank. But whether it could afford the project is a different story.

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/10/russia-mind-bae-revives-light-tank-90s/122731/

[Huzaar1]

It's cheap and has a punch.

[Harald]

CIO consortium presents world premiere of Centauro II

Eurosatory 2016 will give the Iveco–Oto Melara Consortium (CIO) the opportunity to display the latest and most innovative achievementsin the field of armoured vehicles.

CIO will present in Paris its newly developed Centauro II, the latest evolution of the Centauro Family. The Centauro having been the first 8×8 wheeled antitank vehicle in the world with a high-pressure gun. The Centauro II represents the logical evolution, being armed with a third generation 120/45 mm gun, with integrated muzzle brake and semi-automatic loading system. The weapon system provides a fire power equivalent to that of most modern main battle tanks, and is capable of firing all latest generation 120 mm, NATO APFSDS and multi-role MP munitions.

To ensure unequalled mobility a new-generation engine, upgraded transmission, braking system and control electronics have been adopted. While maintaining the H-drive architecture, the Centauro family hallmark, the chassis was rearranged to further improve protection against mines and IEDs, state-of-the-art add-on ballistic packages fitted to the hull ensuring high level protection against kinetic energy and hollow charge projectiles. The same applies to the turret, which also follows the add-on armour kit concept. Ammunition stored in the hull and in the turret are hosted in compartments separated from the crew section by explosion-proof doors, pre-carved panels and dedicated anti-explosion systems ensuring further crew safety.

The Centauro II turret is fitted with latest generation optronics for the commander and gunner and with a suite of communications and command and control systems ensuring maximum situational awareness. The turret can be fitted with aHitrole Light RCWS, that increases flexibility in other-than-war scenarios while ensuring maximum crew protection.

http://defence-blog.com/army/cio-consortium-presents-world-premiere-of-centauro-ii.html


http://www.iveco-otomelara.com/wheeled/centauro8x8.php

[StrataNL]

Doorontwikkeling van de Marder zo te zien.

[Harald]

Rheinmetall's New IFV, the Lynx: Firepower, Force Protection, C4I, Manoeuvrability, Versatility



Brochure Rheinmetall Lynx KF31 en KF41:
http://dtrmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Lynx-IFV-Special-Supplement.pdf

At Eurosatory 2016 Rheinmetall presented its new Lynx infantry fighting vehicle today to the international public for the first time. Agile, hard-hitting and highly protected, this state-of-the-art tracked armoured vehicle is destined to dominate the modern battlefield, lending itself to operations from peace enforcement to high-intensity combat.

Ben Hudson, Head of Rheinmetall's Vehicle Systems Division, said "Lynx is an advanced new modular family of vehicles that offers our customers the highest levels of survivability, mobility, lethality and capacity while utilising proven technologies to deliver a compelling value proposition for our global customers. Lynx delivers the capabilities that will allow our customers to fight, survive and win on the battlefields of today and tomorrow".

Cutting edge capabilities

Four core capabilities characterize the Lynx infantry fighting vehicle: firepower, force protection, situational awareness and mobility.

Firepower:
Lynx features a Rheinmetall LANCE turret armed with a stabilized, externally powered, airburst-capable automatic cannon (either 30mm or 35mm). This enables Lynx to effectively engage targets with high precision at ranges of up to 3,000 metres – even on the move. Lynx can also be equipped with an antitank guided missile launcher and a secondary weapon station linked to the main optics (main sensor slaved armament). Not only does Lynx have hunter-killer capability, it can operate in killer-killer mode, since the commander and gunner can observe and engage targets independently of each other.

Force protection:
With the diesel engine mounted in the forward section and a modular armour concept, the vehicle architecture offers a high degree of protection. The vehicle's ballistic armour shields Lynx from antitank weapons, medium-calibre ammunition, artillery shrapnel, IEDs and bomblets. In addition, a spall liner in the vehicle interior protects the entire crew. Mine and IED protection packages, decoupled seats and the optional hard kill Active Defence System (ADS) significantly boost the vehicle's survivability.

Situational awareness:
The commander and gunner both have access to the Stabilized Electro Optical Sight System/SEOSS, a digital TV - IR optical system with an integrated laser range finder and fire control computer. In the fighting compartment, displays provide the crew with a seamless 360° panoramic view. Rheinmetall's Situational Awareness System (SAS), featuring automatic target detection and tracking, enhances the hunter-killer capability and minimizes crew reaction time. Emerging threats can be swiftly engaged with Lynx's main or secondary armament. Laser warning sensors and the Acoustic Sniper Locating System (ASLS) likewise form part of the sensor suite. A combat management system and intercom for tactical communication round out the array of on-board equipment.

Owing to the manned turret, the commander can still lead from the hatch. The gunner and driver each have hatches, too, while two soldiers in the rear of the fighting compartment can also observe the area around the vehicle from an open hatch.

Mobility:
Lynx features an excellent power-to-weight ratio and can handle gradients of up to 60 degrees and lateral inclines of more than 30 degrees. It can cross ditches up to 2.5 metres wide and ford bodies of water up to 1.50 metres deep. Furthermore, it can climb over one-metre-high obstacles. The vehicle can run on either rubber or light metal tracks.

One vehicle family – one logistics system – one supplier: Rheinmetall

Another characteristic of Lynx is its versatility. For example, the new IFV comes in two versions: the KF31 and KF41 (KF stands for 'Kettenfahrzeug', or tracked vehicle in German). Weighing up to 38 tonnes, Lynx KF31 on display at Eurosatory and can seat 3+6 soldiers. Lynx KF41 is slightly larger and can carry 3+8 soldiers.

Both vehicle classes – Lynx KF31 and Lynx KF41 – can be configured for other roles include a command & control, an armoured reconnaissance, repair & recovery and an ambulance.

A high degree of commonality in parts and components is another prominent feature of the Lynx family of vehicles. This simplifies logistic support and has a positive impact on training. Furthermore, customized service support is available worldwide – ranging from training and logistics to in-theatre repairs and technology transfer.

The Lynx family of vehicles highlights once again Rheinmetall's role as a high-tech enterprise for security and mobility.



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/174672/rheinmetall-unveils-new-lynx-armored-vehicle-family.html

[Huzaar1]

Ja, bij de eenheden zal het zeker op de radar zijn, maar in het grotere verband is er gewoon geen prio voor dit soort oplossingen, en er is alleen ruimte voor Prio's. En niet alleen hier, maar denk ook aan artikelen over de USAF die zijn EW niet op orde heeft bijvoorbeeld.

Nee niet bij de eenheden.. ik heb het over Amersfoort.

[dudge]

Daar zijn ze echt wel bewust van, in Amersfoort hebben we het er vaker over gehad.
Het is enorm duur. Het zal ooit geleidelijk worden ingevoerd en ik mag hopen dat het met het voertuig komt en we niet zelf gaan lopen klooien ermee.

Ja, bij de eenheden zal het zeker op de radar zijn, maar in het grotere verband is er gewoon geen prio voor dit soort oplossingen, en er is alleen ruimte voor Prio's. En niet alleen hier, maar denk ook aan artikelen over de USAF die zijn EW niet op orde heeft bijvoorbeeld.

[Elzenga]

Ik betwijfel dat eigenlijk. De Israeli's hebben een directe operationele noodzaak. Echter, dit is tegen Hamas en Hizbolla. Een tegenstander van dat niveau kunnen 'wij' ook makkelijk tegen ons krijgen. En hadden we ook, in Iraq. De noodzaak wordt minder gevoeld, maar bestaat wel degelijk. Niet inzetten op APS is gewoon onmogelijk. En ja, het is niet feilloos of zonder nadelen. Maar als we nu gaan meedoen aan een serieus conflict, dan moeten we het gewoon hebben. En er wordt dus wel wat aan gewerkt, maar het daadwerkelijk deployen gebeurt te weinig.

En om weer een beetje on-topic te komen, het is ook een absolute vereiste voor een light tank. Als aan deze randvoorwaarde niet kan worden voldaan, laat dan maar.

+1

[Huzaar1]

Daar zijn ze echt wel bewust van, in Amersfoort hebben we het er vaker over gehad.
Het is enorm duur. Het zal ooit geleidelijk worden ingevoerd en ik mag hopen dat het met het voertuig komt en we niet zelf gaan lopen klooien ermee.

[dudge]

Inderdaad...wij hebben op dat vlak een achterstand en ook niet dezelfde operationele behoefte en noodzaak als de Israëliërs. Het systeem is daar al tijdens gevechtshandelingen in Gaza ingezet en voldeed zover ik las. Het zal inderdaad niet lang duren voor er weer systemen komen die zullen proberen deze actieve beschermingsmiddelen te omzeilen..zagen we ook tav ERA. De wapenwedloop staat immers nooit stil. De ironie met de huidige grote defensiebedrijven is dat ze soms beiden ontwikkelen en in de markt zetten.

Ik betwijfel dat eigenlijk. De Israeli's hebben een directe operationele noodzaak. Echter, dit is tegen Hamas en Hizbolla. Een tegenstander van dat niveau kunnen 'wij' ook makkelijk tegen ons krijgen. En hadden we ook, in Iraq. De noodzaak wordt minder gevoeld, maar bestaat wel degelijk. Niet inzetten op APS is gewoon onmogelijk. En ja, het is niet feilloos of zonder nadelen. Maar als we nu gaan meedoen aan een serieus conflict, dan moeten we het gewoon hebben. En er wordt dus wel wat aan gewerkt, maar het daadwerkelijk deployen gebeurt te weinig.

En om weer een beetje on-topic te komen, het is ook een absolute vereiste voor een light tank. Als aan deze randvoorwaarde niet kan worden voldaan, laat dan maar.