$5 Million To Put A 30Mm Gun Turret On Stryker

[Chris Werb]

I found this online:

1. Type 13:
   20x139 Armour piercing discarding sabot –tracer DM63 (APDS-T)
   The projectile is made up of three main components;
   -the aluminium base, housing the driving belt and the core
   -the tungsten carbide core with an aluminium ballistic cap
   -the nylon sabot.
   After leaving the barrel, the sabot rips open over four weakening lines and is blown away.
   An endless spring fixates the tungsten core in the aluminium base, only after firing will the centrifugal force widen the diameter of the spring enabeling the core to seperate from the aluminium base piece.
   Weight complete cartridge: 0,31 kg.
   Weight of projectile: 0,108 kg.
   V0.: 1150 mtrs/sec.
   Penetration: 35mm armour steel plate at 1000 mtrs. @45 degrees
   Length of complete cartridge: 212 mm.
   The cartridge has been manufactured in Holland (NWM).
   
   Type 14:
   Experimental 20x139 Armour piercing discarding sabot –tracer (APDS-T)
   The projectile is made up of three main components;
   -the aluminium base, housing the driving belt and the core
   -the tungsten carbide core with an aluminium ballistic cap
   -the nylon sabot.
   After leaving the barrel, the sabot rips open over four weakening lines and is blown away.
   An endless spring fixates the tungsten core in the aluminium base, only after firing will the centrifugal force widen the diameter of the spring enabeling the core to seperate from the aluminium base piece.
   The cartridge has been manufactured in Holland (NWM).
   The cartridge differs from the DM63 in the length of the aluminium piercing cap on top of the tungsten penetrator. The cartridge has not been taken into service.
   The cutaway model is a factory cutaway model.

http://www.wk2ammo.com/showthread.php?3203-20x139-shells-for-the-HS-820-(Oerlikon-KAD)-amp-Rh-202-gun

[Chris Werb]

 

 

What a hog.

 

Makes some sense on a tracked vehicle such as Bradley.

 

Chris' idea of training wheels to reduce the flopovers? +1

 

Anybody think it might be a step backwards to have the commander operating the turret?

 

The problem is with internal space and US Army infantry squads organization. The squad have 9 soldiers so 9th sits just next to vehicle commander/gunner. If US Army would reduce squads soldiers number to 8, then the 9th guy becomes a crew member and can be for example a gunner. This is how LAV(CRV) for Australia is configured.

 

So there is something for something. Maybe it could be solved by making Stryker longer, but then again, this would require new build hulls.

 

BTW here is one of prototype Bradleys with unmanned turret interior.

 

The only thing I would complain about is lack of space for commander hatch/cupola with vision blocks.

 

And to compare, interior of standard M2A3.

 

 

It gives a good idea how much space inside vehicles is taken by manned turrets.

 

 

Uh, not exactly, because the camera angles are different. The interior with unmanned turret seems higher for one thing.

 

 

It does make your crew safer in a hull down position and protect them from main gun ammo explosions in the event of a hit even if it isn't great for situational awareness (to put it mildly). Would make clearing a jam manually in combat on either weapon well nigh impossible though. Also protects your crew from hangfires which are a problem with externally fired guns.

[Ken Estes]

I don't know how happy a mounted infantry squad becomes when the vehicle commander is dueling with opposing tanks and IFVs.

 

The USMC infantry did not like the armament proposed for the EFV/AAAV, thought it too tempting to play tank. Ironically, this same concept caused the AAV7 project to dump the 20mm [which was not working well anyway] for the M85 .50 Cal.back in 1969.

[Damian]

Well it's a constant battle between APC and IFV concept.

 

Tough IMHO IFV heavier armament is worth a shot, and a "fighting like a tank" behavior can be fighted with a proper training.

[johnr]

Minor question, what is the purpose of the frame extending from the seats in the picture of the Bradley with the unmanned turret?

 

Regards.

[kaikaun]

Minor question, what is the purpose of the frame extending from the seats in the picture of the Bradley with the unmanned turret?

 

Regards.

They are footrests. In the event of a mine going off under the vehicle, the passengers' ankles or legs may be broken by the force transmitted up if they put their feet on the floor. The entire seat and footrest are mechanically isolated from the vehicle to prevent that.

[Simon Tan]

The IFV drives the troops up to the kick-off line and supports them going forward. See the Syrian Republican Guard. Textbook.

[Colin]

Well it's a constant battle between APC and IFV concept.

 

Tough IMHO IFV heavier armament is worth a shot, and a "fighting like a tank" behavior can be fighted with a proper training.

Always wondered why not have a mix, the APC's carry the most and the IFV's protect the APC's

[Chris Werb]

The IFV drives the troops up to the kick-off line and supports them going forward. See the Syrian Republican Guard. Textbook.

 

Also to take the heat off your tanks and vice versa, but you need the IFVs to be lethal enough to enemy tanks that they themselves pose a threat for that to work. It's going to be interesting to see what the impact of networked N-LOS capable ATGW mounted on IFVs and APCs will be going forward.

[Damian]

 

Well it's a constant battle between APC and IFV concept.

 

Tough IMHO IFV heavier armament is worth a shot, and a "fighting like a tank" behavior can be fighted with a proper training.

Always wondered why not have a mix, the APC's carry the most and the IFV's protect the APC's

 

 

Well, soon US Army gonna get APC variant of Bradley, so who knows.

[Dark_Falcon]

 

The IFV drives the troops up to the kick-off line and supports them going forward. See the Syrian Republican Guard. Textbook.

 

Also to take the heat off your tanks and vice versa, but you need the IFVs to be lethal enough to enemy tanks that they themselves pose a threat for that to work. It's going to be interesting to see what the impact of networked N-LOS capable ATGW mounted on IFVs and APCs will be going forward.

 

 

Assuming that the networks can function in a modern jamming environment.

[FlyingCanOpener]

 

The IFV drives the troops up to the kick-off line and supports them going forward. See the Syrian Republican Guard. Textbook.

 

Also to take the heat off your tanks and vice versa, but you need the IFVs to be lethal enough to enemy tanks that they themselves pose a threat for that to work. It's going to be interesting to see what the impact of networked N-LOS capable ATGW mounted on IFVs and APCs will be going forward.

 

 

At that point, you'd almost just as soon ditch the infantry (Even if they are an AT team) and get a light tank. Just for example, an M8 AGS can plink AFVs, be a credible threat to MBTs with something that isn't susceptible to APS, and provide large calibre gun support for the infantry. However, you'd be in the position to have something on tracks with a turret and a big gun, which means your commander would make it act like an MBT when it most certainly isn't.

 

But if you want to ditch that temptation before it starts, there's always the option of sticking an AFV-killing turret on an existing chassis like the Begleitpanzer 57 that was tested. 57mm kills everything with a soft-skin outright and a TOW missile for the tougher stuff.

Edited July 25, 2016 by FlyingCanOpener

[Stuart Galbraith]

Russians have already been experimenting with a 57mm on BMP3. There has also been speculation on Russiadefence.net of a return to 57mm for AA applications.

http://www.russiadefence.net/t4074p275-kurganets-boomerang-discussions-thread-2

 

At which point you are r wondering, why why not ditch the tank and go all IFV? Sustained hits from 57mm are probably going to be just as effective as a bit 120mm can of HE for fire support. Cheaper to operate too.

[Chris Werb]

 

 

Well it's a constant battle between APC and IFV concept.

 

Tough IMHO IFV heavier armament is worth a shot, and a "fighting like a tank" behavior can be fighted with a proper training.

Always wondered why not have a mix, the APC's carry the most and the IFV's protect the APC's

 

 

Well, soon US Army gonna get APC variant of Bradley, so who knows.

 

 

New builds?

[Damian]

 

 

 

Well it's a constant battle between APC and IFV concept.

 

Tough IMHO IFV heavier armament is worth a shot, and a "fighting like a tank" behavior can be fighted with a proper training.

Always wondered why not have a mix, the APC's carry the most and the IFV's protect the APC's

 

 

Well, soon US Army gonna get APC variant of Bradley, so who knows.

 

 

New builds?

 

 

I would not be surprised if yes. Production capabilities for M1's and M2's and vehicles based for them are still present.

[Panzermann]

Assuming that the networks can function in a modern jamming environment.

That is the weak link. Surprisingly Russia has modernized its electronic warfare capabilities. I bet the PRC too.

 

All those fancy remote operated vehicles are pretty useless when the connection is lost and all those nice digital radios that transmit data are useless too. Back to messengers, doves and flag waving.

[Ken Estes]

Digital has a lot better chance to get through jamming than analog voice.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Ken Estes

[shep854]

'Near-Peer' problems are being considered after years of effectively unopposed operations:

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20160724.aspx

Murphy's Law: The Scary World Of Near Peer

"For one thing there is the prospect of electronic jamming that would disable, if only temporarily (hours or days) GPS navigation systems and a lot of satellite based communications. So troops, including some senior NCOs and officers who entered the military right after 2001 and got all their experience on a non-conventional battlefield, had to learn how to do things the old-fashioned way."

Edited July 26, 2016 by shep854

[Ken Estes]

The USN has resumed training navigators in celestial nav with sextant, clock and tables.

[TOW-2]

 

 

The IFV drives the troops up to the kick-off line and supports them going forward. See the Syrian Republican Guard. Textbook.

 

Also to take the heat off your tanks and vice versa, but you need the IFVs to be lethal enough to enemy tanks that they themselves pose a threat for that to work. It's going to be interesting to see what the impact of networked N-LOS capable ATGW mounted on IFVs and APCs will be going forward.

 

 

At that point, you'd almost just as soon ditch the infantry (Even if they are an AT team) and get a light tank. Just for example, an M8 AGS can plink AFVs, be a credible threat to MBTs with something that isn't susceptible to APS, and provide large calibre gun support for the infantry. However, you'd be in the position to have something on tracks with a turret and a big gun, which means your commander would make it act like an MBT when it most certainly isn't.

 

But if you want to ditch that temptation before it starts, there's always the option of sticking an AFV-killing turret on an existing chassis like the Begleitpanzer 57 that was tested. 57mm kills everything with a soft-skin outright and a TOW missile for the tougher stuff.

 

 

I'm tellin' ya man, tracked Stryker variant + AGS turret. Ultimate light tank!

[Dark_Falcon]

 

Assuming that the networks can function in a modern jamming environment.

That is the weak link. Surprisingly Russia has modernized its electronic warfare capabilities. I bet the PRC too.

 

All those fancy remote operated vehicles are pretty useless when the connection is lost and all those nice digital radios that transmit data are useless too. Back to messengers, doves and flag waving.

 

 

The US Army really should configure the Multi-Type Missile Launcher to fire Anti-Radiation Missiles. Such missiles, modified for surface to surface, could prove of critical importance for anti-jamming work.

[rmgill]

HARM Type seeker functionality on Javelin type missiles for a support role? What about re-using older model ATGMS with that function swapped in for the older less useful guidance/seeker function?

Edited July 26, 2016 by rmgill

[Dark_Falcon]

HARM Type seeker functionality on Javelin type missiles for a support role? What about re-using older model ATGMS with that function swapped in for the older less useful guidance/seeker function?

 

That sounds like a viable idea. It could also be theoretically used on helicopters, which would give them an extra tool against radar-equipped SAM units.

[2805662]

Well, LAV6.0 & the remote 30mm is out of contention in Australia.

[Chris Werb]

I would like to see a lot more done with the Multi Mission launcher too. A DGPS/INS guided 122mm surface to surface rocket with a warhead based on the GMLRS "Alternative" warhead would turn it into a potent indirect near precision weapon system even with GPS denied. A self defence capability for the launcher would be good too in the form of Javelin or MMW HELLFIRE. I'm not sure about the anti-jamming concept as the enemy could deploy cheap remote antennae for their jammers in large numbers. An anti GPS jammer missile could be cheaper than AARGM, but it would still potentially be 100x more expensive than the transmitter it was targeting.

 

I'm not sure what the target set would be for a Javelin equipped with a ARM add on system - are we just talking 2S6M etc.?. Its max range is around 4.5km. You might get more range out of it if is could aquire targets post launch - that would require automatic target recognition for its seeker which the missile doesn't presently have. We are probably talking around $200,000 a pop for a non reusable system with very short legs though. Instead why not deploy a small piston-engined UAV with an ARM seeker backed by a simple thermal camera for target localisation - it could have a return to base if no target found functionality. Alternatively good ESM linked to 120mm mortars firing VT fused, tungsten fragment ammo would cope with all but the most persistently mobile targets.