A light weight supplement to a medium weight FRE SV

104 thoughts on “A light weight supplement to a medium weight FRE SV”

1. Jedibeeftrix July 16, 2011 at 11:22 pm

   “So, that is my modest proposal for a CVR(T) mk II, based on (half) of an in service vehicle, with excellent tracked driven tactical mobility and a small weight and volume foot print”

   I do like it, and would take in the absence of anything else………… but i still think a stormer30 with the 40mm CTA would be more ‘warry’?

   Cheers Jed, enjoy florida.
2. Gareth Jones July 16, 2011 at 11:40 pm

   What about raiding some tank museums?:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Carrier

   On a more serious note, an interesting idea. Could it retain the ability to have a second unit? This could be various roles such as ground station for UAV’s, sensor masts, etc.?
3. Jed July 16, 2011 at 11:46 pm

   Back in Toronto, literally just got off the plane

   Thanks TD for adding extra pics and videos !

   Apologies to all for spelling and grammatical mistakes, I will have to ask the wife to proof read in future……..
4. Pete Arundel July 16, 2011 at 11:51 pm

   I don’t think that Warthog has any method of skid steering. It’s also tall and, at first glance, it’s L/W ratio would make it a pig to steer as a conventional tracked vehicle. I like the idea of warthog for the FRES-UV role but I don’t think that it’s possible to use the front module as a scout vehicle.

   As for using a 40mm GMG for taking on LAV’s? A 40mm HEDP grenade penetrates far less than an RPG and has a trajectory similar to a rainbow. The chances of hitting a moving vehicle are slim and the puny HEAT round would probably fail to penetrate anything with a modern armour array and even if it di the behind armour effects of such a small round may prove to be less than lethal. Give me Stormer 30 any day!
5. Marcase July 16, 2011 at 11:56 pm

   Um, one problem – both Warthog and BVS-10 both *need* the aft cab, as that’s how it steers. The vehicle uses push-pull rods to literally push the front and back cabs in opposite directions to make it turn.

   Still, nice idea though

   You want to go small, go Wiesel. ^^
6. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 12:02 am

   @ Pete and Marcase- Only a prototype but… “When used on its own, the front unit can be fitted with a number of specialised attachments that include: a propeller for improved amphibious characteristics; dozer with adjustable blade; and even a flail-type mine-clearance system.”

   http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4354.html

   @ Jed – “In addition, the AAV has a semi-autonomous rear cabin. When uncoupled, the unmanned cabin can be steered by remote control for dangerous missions such as mine clearance. The rear unit can be customised for a variety of independent or complimentary roles.

   When operated under its own electric power, the rear cab unit can move silently and stealthily to a distance of about 5 km. In the autonomous mode it can be used for route paving and reconnaissance missions, which are considered too dangerous for the normal manned role.”
7. Jed July 17, 2011 at 1:44 am

   Gareth

   Thanks for pointing out the qoutes from the Army Guide page – that’s why I included it as a reference, but I guess I should not expect people to click on the all the links.

   Pete and Marcase – the standard ATTV / Bronco / Warthog DOES have skid steering and does not require the rear module to steer as far as I can tell. If I am wrong, then as Gareth pointed out, there is a prototype of a variant that fits the bill.

   Pete and Jedi – I understand ref “puny” weapons, but I am not actually advocating this as anything other than a supplement to properly armed, medium or heavy vehicles. I do not actually believe in the requirement for something the size and weight of the CVR(T), that can be underslung by a Chinook, I am just suggesting if people really, really want to fill that niche, then this would give standardisation of spares and training with 100 Warthogs we have bought; and yes I would make the Warthog / Bronco family our FRES Support Variant to replace all FV4xx and CVR(T) variants, so I would procure many more of them.
8. Jed July 17, 2011 at 1:51 am

   Pete

   I am no expert, but I don’t understand this:

   “it’s L/W ratio would make it a pig to steer as a conventional tracked vehicle”- it is my understanding that ‘conventional’ tracked vehicles use skid steering, you stop one track and keep the other moving, so where does length to width ratio come into play ?

   If its a problem – stretch it, add another road wheel, it might still be slightly shorter than CVR(T) and probably would still be light enough for Chinook lift….
9. IXION July 17, 2011 at 10:18 am

   PETE

   Hard won experience form the early days (WW1) led to a rule of thumb that if the length of the vehicle exceeded a certaain ration ot its width skid steering got increasinlgy in effective (From memmory it was 7-1 but I stand to be corrected).

   Likewise if its too short in relation to its width it can start to pitch badly and becomes harder and harder to keep in a streight line at any speed above walking pace.
10. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 10:43 am

    @ Jed – Found this site about skid-steering, but can’t guarantee its accurate – “Longer, narrower vehicles resist turning more than shorter wider vehicles” (right at the bottom).

    http://www.gizmology.net/tracked.htm

    I vaguely remember reading that separated units of articulated tracked vehicles have a tendency to excessively oscillate back and forth, but I can’t access that site any more. It should be fixable?
11. Jedibeeftrix July 17, 2011 at 11:18 am

    the AAV variant appears to have a lower, and more relaxed profile that its bronco forbear, which does pique my interest particularly given the other innovations coming along.

    i have a lot of time for the bronco, and would happily see the improved version turn up in greater numbers.
12. x July 17, 2011 at 11:33 am

    I would keep both ends. I have wondered about articulated vehicle with the engine and driver low down in the front car and the rear car used to carry a turret. This was when I found out CH53 could carry BV206 inside.

    Now Wiesel may be the way to go. I think they have trialled the chassis with a gun bigger than 20mm; I will have to check. And I don’t think the 20mm Wiesel is stabilised. Alternatively if you wanted to mount a bigger gun but were willing to forego firing on the move and a turret a gun could be mounted rigidly. Like the ASU-57.

    Perhaps what is need is two vehicles? One with a turret mounted big gun a la Stormer, Scimitar. And another vehicle to deal with infantry; a multi-car Bv/Bronco vehicle with multiple weapons to cover all arcs.
13. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    I have read an old article from the US Armor magazine (yank spelling…tsk, tsk ;p) that suggested articulating two weasels to improve cross-country performance but also allow them to act independently.

    While viewing the wiki page for the Universal carrier I linked above I discovered this Belgium vehicle:

    http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number3319.asp

    Now if the supporting ammo vehicle mentioned can join up with the gun armed vehicle to improve cross-country performance…
14. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    x mentioning the ASU-57 reminded me of this page. It suggests a compact vehicle hunter/killer but could it also do scouting?

    http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/ASU.html
15. x July 17, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    @ Gareth J re http://www.military-vehicle-photos.com/picture/number3319.asp

    I don’t know what it is. But I know I want one!

    A lot of my thinking on this was done because I though Javelin at £50k a go was a bit silly. Wonderfully effective yes, but really? I started having weird ideas about direct fire artillery and spent an age looking at various WW2 anti-tank guns.
16. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 2:02 pm

    @ x – I agree but are you talking about Javelin as fire-support in A-stan or anti-tank in general?

    Fighting in A-stan:
    Apparently this Russian gun fires both gun and motar rounds and was designed with their experience in A-stan.

    http://www.artillery-mz.com/en/products/01/120/

    http://www.desert-storm.com/VetPages/SMcDonald/2B16.html

    or theres the old 75mm pack howitzer;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TM-9-1320-75mm-howitzer-M1A1-carriage-M8-2.jpg
17. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 2:03 pm

    In general:
    This page suggests mixing ATGW with modern anti-tank guns, their pros/cons being mutualy supportive;

    http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/atg.html
18. x July 17, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    @ Gareth J

    As fire support. I know Javelin does the job well. But I am sure there must be a better way.

    The reason why I mentioned WW2 anti-tank guns was range and accuracy nothing to do with tanks.

    Look at the pictures bottom here and for the snow imagine it is sand……..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_BAT_recoilless_rifle
19. S O July 17, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Back in WW2 there were mediocre bombers and there were great bombers. It turned out that the mediocre bombers were meant to take off, fly, drop bombs, fly, land – while the great bombers were meant to do more than just that.

    Now what’s the point for a Bronco armoured reconnaissance vehicle other than driving and having a hard shell? What’s the concept, is there a unique selling proposition?

    By the way; 18 tons is usually in the “medium” category, not in the “light” category.
20. jed July 17, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    I ion and Gareth – many thanks for the education on skid steering, you learn something new every day………

    So as the front module of Warthog is shorter and wider than CVR(T) then it should be OK?

    X – I am sure Weisel 2 would be the way to go if we really wanted to introduce yet another vehicle for an incredibly niche role; hence my modest proposal to use something we already have.

    SO – “what is the concept or unique selling proposition” – did you actually read the article Sven ?

    It is a response to those who think we need an armoured recce vehicle that can be underslung by a Chinook, or multiples can be carried by A400 or C17. I will repeat that I personally do not view this as a valid requirement BUT if we must fill this niche then the unique selling point is using a MOTS piece of kit we already own – does that make sense?
21. x July 17, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    @ Jed

    What makes it bad idea is the lack of helicopters. As I have said before I could see how being able to drop a vehicle patrol anywhere within a hundred miles or so of say Bastion would have some worth. 12 well armed Bv206 that could could be anywhere within an hour. (In my head we fly CH53. ) Remember with armour it is how it used as much it is about what platform. In 1940 the German tankforce was made up of light tanks with small guns. Compared to the French heavily armoured and big gun vehicles.
22. S O July 17, 2011 at 4:34 pm

    @Jed:

    I see only amphibiousness (rarely used in the event of war with non-amphibious invasion-specific AFVs) and potential for some electronic kit in it.

    I cannot see HOW it is supposed to find or fight OPFOR, other than stumbling into it. 40 mm HEAT is of marginal effectiveness – comparable to a shotgun shot on a soft vehicle. It’s not well-suited for hitting moving targets at reasonable distances and if it hits it does very little. 40 mm shaped charges can only penetrate thin armour, and thin armour doesn’t produce much spall, nor is there usually a great amount of sensitive munitions behind it.

    In short; a 1930′s BA-10 is a better fighting machine.
23. Think Defence July 17, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    Welcome back Jed, hope Florida was good

    I like this idea a lot; it appeals to my commonality likes. The link Jed and Gareth provided shows a variant that is designed to work alone and I wonder with some modern electronics if the steering jitters because of its dimensional ratios could not be eliminated.

    As for armament, one of the limitations is its height, which makes putting a turret on it difficult but with a spot of redesign and accepting a less boxier superstructure could we not lower the silhouette?

    If not, then the space allows for dismounts and mission kit, accepting lower levels of protection as the trade off.

    Would like to see better sensors though and its size would allow a decent telescoping or articulating mast for EO/Radar/Acoustic sensors.

    Weapons; not a fan of the metalstorm stuff but it would be possible to mount a wide variety of kit, 20mm Nexter cannon or 30mm ATK M230LF for example gives you a bigger punch

    What I like more than anything though is its mobility, soft ground, snow, marsh and littoral environments become accessible. It’s a worry I have, Afghanistan and Iraq have shaped our perceptions of what mobility means.
24. Jedibeeftrix July 17, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    “As for armament, one of the limitations is its height, which makes putting a turret on it difficult but with a spot of redesign and accepting a less boxier superstructure could we not lower the silhouette?”

    the AAV variant appears to have a lower, and more relaxed profile that its bronco forbear, i don’t see why it couldn’t be lower if a different mission required it.
25. S O July 17, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    You wanted it off-the shelf. Have MoD require a lower version and the development bill will exceed GBP 500 million.
26. Jedibeeftrix July 17, 2011 at 6:16 pm

    good point Sven, though i wonder if the AAV version is already lower; it appears lower already but that might be nothing more than the more steeply raked windscreen and bonnet of the new version.
27. Jed July 17, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Sven – I understand the critique of the 40mm GMG – again, off the shelf in an already developed RWS from the same manufacturer as the vehicle – if we wanted to fit something else, like a 20mm that is fine, as long as TD et al accept the logistical impact of introducing a new weapon and its ammunition. Personally I would rather add the pair of Javelin (or Euro-Spike) for armoured targets, using 40mm air bursting munitions against infantry or soft targets, but we can argue all day about the weapons fit

    How does it find opfor, same way CVR(T) does – visually, hence the EO / IR sensors on the RWS. For sure take off the MetalStorm Redback and fight a light weight mast mounted EO and / OR Radar sensor. Probably room for the Laptop sized processing element for an accoustic sensor, etc etc.
28. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    As this variant will be supporting light infantry, would a secondary fire support role be useful and give it the the ability to fight for info or survival?

    The 75mm pack gun or a recoiless rifle?
29. Jed July 17, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    I wonder if I write to STK citing this article as a reference if they will send extra info on the AAV ? I will give it a try.
30. Gareth Jones July 17, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    I’ve just remembered TD’s mammoth article about CVR(T) and the search for its replacement. It had a model of an early concept with a 120mm semi-automatic recoilless rifle.

    The Yanks also developed a reloading turret for their 106mm RR:

    http://xbradtc.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/armored-recon-wrong-turn-with-the-acrc/v45404_us-m114-t114-with-an-autoloading-106mm-recoilless/
31. Phil Darley July 17, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    @Marcase “You want to go small go Weisel”

    Yep, can’t argue with that. If you can’t undersling by Chinook, then I suggest it adds nothing to the mix.

    If it gas to go by road then it mat as well be 28 tonne as 18!
32. Jedibeeftrix July 17, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    To paraphrase you Phil:

    If you can’t undersling by Chinook, or pack it in a 20ft ISO container, then I suggest it adds nothing to the mix.

    Stormer30/40 should do both.
33. x July 17, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    BMP1/2 had very low turrets.

    http://www.defensedatainternational.com/html/bmp-1.jpg
34. Jed July 17, 2011 at 8:56 pm

    Phil et al

    This is my issue with the whole “we need a light CVR(T) replacement” story:

    With an absolute max Chinook fleet of 58 (if we actually get 12 new ones), so maybe 30 available for ALL ops (taking out maintenance, reserve, OCU etc) being fought over by all parties for ALL tasking, why does anyone think there will ever be Chinooks available to deploy a light armoured vehicle by air TO THE EXTENT that we need to introduce a new vehicle into the inventory ?

    Personally I think Foxhound WMIK is your underslung air mobility candidate.

    If the terrain is too crappy for wheels, then just use Helo’s for the “fight for info” role, the 67 x Longbox Apache AH1 are ideal aircraft for this role, with excellent sensors, datalinks and comms fit.

    Otherwise, a Warthog / Bronco front module is just a compromise suggestion that prevents the need to introduce a new vehicle to the fleet. Far from ideal, but that is the nature of compromise !
35. jedibeeftrix July 17, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    “Otherwise, a Warthog / Bronco front module is just a compromise suggestion that prevents the need to introduce a new vehicle to the fleet. Far from ideal, but that is the nature of compromise!”

    An acceptable compromise provided a useful weapon fit can be accomodated.
36. Pete Arundel July 17, 2011 at 10:08 pm

    I think the Foxhound skateboard would be more useful as a scout vehicle if it was driven backwards . . .

    The rear wheels already steer and the hull can be made much lower if you don’t have to carry infantry or, more importantly, look out over the engine.

    Something like this if you can interpret my rather cude drawings – a more IED survivable Fennek.

    http://www.panhistoria.com/Stacks/Novels/Character_Homes/homedirs/14117images/Foxhound%20scout.JPG

    (automotive components – skateboard and engine – are grey. Detachable pod is green and the sacrificial suspension and wheels are red . . .)
37. jed July 18, 2011 at 3:03 am

    Nice art work there Pete

    Looks like the crew would be quite reclined though?

    I think a full height recce Foxhound would be fine if it included a mast mounted sensor array – still we are back to wheels versus track and tactical mobility ……….
38. Pete Arundel July 18, 2011 at 4:47 pm

    Not necessarily, Jed, since they can sit on the centreline, inside the V of the hull rather than on the outer edges as the dismounts do. The driver may want to be reclined to reduce height further . . .
39. Mr.fred July 18, 2011 at 6:59 pm

    I’ve had a similar idea regarding a low profile Recce Foxhound. However, rather than reverse it, the driver is reclined behind the engine and drives via top hatch/periscopes over a wide arc.
    Behind him in tandem and with a slightly higher position/cupola is the commander, fitted out with a defensive RWS and high/mast-mounted optics. Behind him is either stowage space or room for a third crewman for UAV/comms operation. The vehicle can be augmented with stowage panniers either side of the thin body. These could also serve as hardpoints for ATGW if more firepower is needed.
40. x July 18, 2011 at 7:13 pm

    I have always struggled with low profile. If I stand on hill with a panorama below me surely it is my aspect to the vehicle that dictates whether I can see it? And surely a yard diminishes to nothing a few miles out? And surely you are looking for shape so if the bulk is hidden? What about natural cover? For example hedges are a lot taller and broader than most of us think. And then there is the built environment. I am not saying make these things as big as pantechnicons but does chopping a foot or two off the height of a vehicle going to help that much. Surely this parallels discussions on small arms calibre? If you can see it you can shoot. But as the range extends there is more and more to see. Just sayin’.

    Anyway I thought all these tankers stood on the hull bins to their eyes scanning the horizon…
41. Pete Arundel July 18, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Makes a real fifference when you have to dig the bugger in, though . . .
    I think that a tall vehicle is also easier, statistically, to hit at long range – read that somewhere. Will try to find where lest I am taken for a fool and a mountebank.
42. x July 18, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Well I don’t think on the modern mobile battlefield the crews hasn’t really time to dig in. And I doubt the wedgeheads would have time to dig them in either. Of course it easier to hit a Transit over say an original Mini. But if you scan the spec’s of these various vehicles they vary so little. There can’t be much that difference in size because 8 + 3 soldiers and engine and transmission to move them can only result in a vehicle of a certain size. There is a reason why Spartan is smaller than FV432 because it only carriers half the bodies. And there is a reason why Wiesel is size below that; if size was everything wouldn’t all (non-MBT) AFVs be that size? But if you study terrain, the folds, the re-entrants, the ridge lines I think vehicle concealment and movement is more about good “fieldcraft” just as it is on when on foot. As I said I am not on about making them as big removal vans. Just saying sacrificing a foot or so isn’t going to make difference.
43. Mr.fred July 18, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Low profile benefits, all else being equal:
    * Reduced centre of gravity, so has greater mobility – steeper side slopes can be traversed and corners can be taken faster without falling over.
    * Reduced frontal area so less of the heaviest armour on the vehicle.
    * Reduced frontal area vs. regular dispersion
    * Reduced height also makes a target harder to hit because any ranging errors increase vertical dispersion. At longer ranges the drop increases relative to the distance travelled so a ranging error is more significant, plus it is harder to range accurately over longer distances.
    * Makes it harder to get a clean range with a laser rangefinder. As the beam is closer to the ground, there is a greater chance of spurious reflections from intermediate objects or the ground.

    There are probably more, but I’m too lazy to think of them. It is worth noting that MBTs are large, but they are also designed to be low profile. Reclined driving positions mean that the Challenger is substantially lower than a Tiger 2, roughly the same weight and massively more mobile and better protected (although developments in armour and automotive help the last two)
44. x July 18, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    All I am saying is for a foot or six inches or what ever on top of a turret it isn’t really worth worrying about. And thank you I have a grasp of why low is better.

    To be honest I am not sure looking at the turret of a Chally2 they could have put the driver in a sit up and beg position because of the turret. At the other end of the room I can see my Chally2 and T34/85 models. Now the latter’s driver sits up. And the former is reclined. And the biggest difference between the two? The turret which on a Chally2 is huge. Now both vehicles are the same height. But the T34 looks taller because its basic shape is triangular. But the Chally2 (side) is definitely huge. Of course increasing lengths by small increments leads to large increases in volume.
45. Jed July 18, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    Mr.Fred

    On the wheeled front a ‘recce module’ for the Foxhound makes perfect sense to me, 3 crew, use of the rear equipment area over the rear axle for mast mounted sensors, RWS, active defences etc.

    A Panther CLV replacement with 4 seats, more space for Bowman IT / Comms kit and an RWS would also have a limited recce ability using the sensors on the RWS.

    Even a Foxhound WMIK version might have utility in a scouting role.

    My Warthog / Bronco suggestion is to provide a niche light weight tracked capability to operate alongside the “family” of light protected wheeled vehicles
46. Mr.fred July 18, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    x,
    1 ft = 300mm = 0.3mrad at 1000m. Also 0.3/2.5=12%. Big enough to make a difference on the percentages as to who gets hit first.

    0.3m x 3.5m = 1.05m^2. 50mm of steel is 390kg/m^2, so if you have 50mm frontal armour 300mm less height saves 0.4 tonne on frontal armour alone. Obviously that’s pretty thin for an MBT, so you’ll save more weight, before you account for sides and rear.

    Sounds worth it to me.
47. x July 18, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    @ Mr Fred

    Scan up the thread. And have a look at the nice picture of a BMP1/2 I posted. Look at the silly unworkable but quaint turret because I am talking about turret height. I know about frontal armour etc. You are preaching to the choir.
48. Mr.fred July 18, 2011 at 9:24 pm

    I did caveat the benefits of low profile as “all else being equal”

    Low profile is desirable. Perhaps it isn’t the most important thing to which all others must be sacrificed, but it should be high on the list for any tactical vehicle. The BMP 1 turret is poor, but then it is a one man turret with too many complicated weapon systems.
    I’ve not been able to see a BMP2 turret, but it isn’t inherently flawed unless, like many of the later T-series tanks, the low roof limits main armament depression and hence prevents use of some hull-down positions.

    Soviet vehicles are never helped by the Communist view of things where “Human Factors” would simply be party members willing to provide cheap workers.
49. x July 18, 2011 at 9:46 pm

    @ Mr fred

    I just didn’t want you wasting time on me matey.

    BMP1 had a low pressure 76mm gun in a tiny turret.

    While the BMP2 has a 30mm cannon in a larger but still flat turret.
50. Dangerous Dave July 18, 2011 at 10:19 pm

    @x jul17-13:11hr
    Looks like a local variant of a carden-lloyd carrier as built by Vickers in the 1930s. Ours all had 2 crew and a vickers HMG in the front. The Italians called theirs CV-22 tankettes.

    Although, on second look it’s one of these (look at the exposed front axle):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_carrier

    Bought second-hand from us and converted to mount a light A/T gun in Sturmgeschultz-style.

    Definately a lash-up dating from early post-WWII until better vehicles could be purchased.