The Armoured Trials and Development Unit

An interesting presentation from the Armoured Trials and Development Unit (ATDU), especially slides 8-10 that describe the difference between UOR acceptance testing and that carried out for Reliability Qualification.

The move from the simple Protection – Firepower – Mobility trinity to the diagram below is also illustrative of the increasing complexity of combat vehicle design.

Vehicle Design

Interesting stuff

 

 

19 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
May 13, 2015 7:31 am

I hazard a guess on the key attributes:
– compatibility is about similar platforms and whether their key bits of kit (e.g. armour, different guns, sights, comms) can be fitted, if desired? Other components shared, etc?
– interoperability is whether you can load “it” on a HET, Herc, A400M, LCU, or, whether new kit being installed will work with existing pieces that are likely to appear in the various tactical scenarios?

Chris
Editor
Chris
May 13, 2015 7:54 am

TD – can’t activate the presentation so can only see the front page. But the image below is interesting – in April 2013 I pitched to ATDU; as part of the introduction I put up a page showing the trinity of Armour design (Protection, Mobility, Firepower as an equilateral triangle) then introduced a slightly smaller triangular trinity that filled the gaps of Stealth, Durability and Ease of Maintenance. It seems at least some of the presentation was taken to heart then. Personally I prefer my adjuncts* as there is much less ambiguity. For example what does Survivability include – just protection, or protection and reliability and repairability and crew fatigue factors? Similarly Capacity may cover just pax or may also include stowage and ammo and water and fuel, or may just be an internal volume factor with no discrimination as to the usability of the space. (Cynicism warning!) It would look like science has been applied though when it appears in a debrief.

But its clear that there are far more factors than Protection Mobility Firepower, and always have been. Sometimes the less obvious factors have been given requirements, sometimes they have been a formal part of the downselect criteria, sometimes just matters of preference within the selection team. To a degree taking subjective assessment factors and turning them to rigid quantifiable comparators makes them weaker; the assessor(s) once having made the decision what value to apply remove the ability to discuss and weigh such factors against other contenders; similarly if there is a preference from further up the chain of authority the values may be decided with foreknowledge of the desired outcome.

My preference has always been for open discussion throughout the design development and trial process; hearing first hand criticism and the associated rationale allows efficient and timely rework to improve the end product. Being handed a scorecard that states ‘Compatibility’ was poor is not at all useful.

*Well I would wouldn’t I?

Test
Test
May 13, 2015 7:58 am

Test comment

And an edit

Opera browser

To edit a comment you hover your mouse over the time remaining part and then the option to edit or delete appears

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
May 13, 2015 8:54 am

Chris,

Survivabilty as an attribute has been decomposed on one of those 10 slides
… unfortunately some of the others depend on the voice over (recommended presentation technique; just that we did not get that part with the slides)

They are v good (common sense has prevailed, and has even been staffed by two platoon’s worth).

– Voila! added this line with the edit button. And it is instanteneous, of legible font size etc… one of my pet hates seems to have been seen to with a mercy killing)

Tukhachevskii
Tukhachevskii
May 13, 2015 10:31 am

The old trinity represents the combat function required of an AFV. The new starburst adds logistics/sustainment to the mix. But IMO they both have utility. One for effectiveness in combat and the other for product development.

monkey
monkey
May 13, 2015 11:15 am

I liked the spiders web of attributes a particular vehicle should/does meet ( obviously to be quantified by environmental and OPFOR aspects ) . When describing verbally or in writing the operational abilities of machinery you can struggle to get over the performance but such a graph , supported by the descriptive aspects , as they say tells as much as a thousand words when understood. To be applied to all our present kit hopefully and our Landrover replacement?

Secundius
Secundius
May 13, 2015 1:16 pm

Your giving us a Jig-Saw-Puzzle map to work with, and no Starting Point…

Brian Black
Brian Black
May 13, 2015 1:25 pm

Shouldn’t the spider web also include endurance, ergonomics, and coolness?

Observer
Observer
May 13, 2015 4:05 pm
Reply to  Brian Black

Price. Important factor left out. :)

I keep getting “duplicate comment” errors from wordpress.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
May 13, 2015 5:46 pm

Glad to see that Stealth now has recognition. But then again, ATDU was in the last decade commanded by an old Regimental mucker for three years, and he was even more of a stealth nut than I was.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
May 13, 2015 5:47 pm

….I meant Signature. But really I meant Stealth, as it is the same as Signature.

Secundius
Secundius
May 13, 2015 8:23 pm
Reply to  Observer

@ Observer.

You too…

a
a
May 14, 2015 12:22 pm

Patrick Wright’s book “Tank” (very good) includes an interview with Israel Tal, who IIRC rejected the idea of a firepower-mobility-protection tradeoff; he said that instead of an outcome, protection was a system, like the gun and the engine and the sight and so on, which contributes to the outcomes of firepower and mobility. So if a tank is better protected, it’ll be able to approach the enemy more closely, which improves the accuracy and thus the effectiveness of its firepower. Also talked about the importance of focussing on protecting the crew rather than the tank, and building every part of the tank so that it contributes to crew safety as well as fulfilling its primary function.

Secundius
Secundius
May 15, 2015 5:16 pm
Reply to  a

@ a

I’m kinda confused here, but wasn’t Major General “Talik” Tal, referring to the Tal Tank Doctrine of the Merkava MBT…

Secundius
Secundius
May 15, 2015 5:38 pm
Reply to  monkey

@ monkey.

There are four system that readily come to mind.
1. XM-7 RED (Remote Explosive Device) Mine.
2. The Russian T-80U MBT.
3. The ChiCom PLA “Spider Walker” Tank.
4. The Darpa’s Agile GSV-T, Ground X-Vehicle Technology Tank.

monkey
monkey
May 15, 2015 5:54 pm


Here’s a video of the T-15 APC having issues getting back on board a transporter. There are three horizontal tubes midway along splayed forward and outwards , again like the ones on the T-14 not in the normal passive defence positions to dispense smoke,chaff etc.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D5YDCyRT7Luo&sa=U&ei=YzFWVdaAMOiI7Qbc6oCwAQ&ved=0CAsQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNE0gd5TL3AnUKawxctBHNVoNWXfQA

Chris
Editor
Chris
May 15, 2015 6:19 pm

monkey – lots of clicking and clonking under the engine covers – more fancy transmission issues? It didn’t struggle to get as far up the ramp as it did so absolute slope performance wasn’t exceeded. Taken in conjunction with the failed T-14 that couldn’t be towed but which drove itself away after several minutes of no visible maintenance, it looks like the transmission controller could do with a bit more work.

T-15 doesn’t have a name yet does it? I vote for Namur-ski.

monkey
monkey
May 15, 2015 6:41 pm


I like it , Namurski !

barbarossa
barbarossa
May 19, 2015 9:56 pm
Reply to  monkey

I reckon half-way through the driver made a quick call to IT….who said (all together now):

‘…have you tried turning it off, and turning it back on again?…..’