The 6.5 Grendel Forum :: For the Tier One AR Cartridge - Personal Assault Vehicle (PAV) Thread

Grendelizer

"Remember, if you are fighting from an enemy armored vehicle you are fighting 50 PAVs instead of two Bradley's or one Abrams. You really want to pick that fight?."

Solidpoint, wasn't it Lenin, of all people, who said that quantity has a certain quality of its own? I've always been wary of the idea that one Abrams is supposed to handle five T-72s, when they both have similar main guns!

But this concept of a swarm of "jeeps-with-fangs" would take some getting used to!

Do we have any examples from the history of warfare? It took multiple Shermans to gang up on and flank Panthers and Tigers, but they suffered for it. I think it was the M18 Hellcat tank destroyer that was a light tank with a big gun, but I don't think that performed in any revolutionary ways.

Still trying to wrap my mind around the whole concept. Where would a PAV fit in with the mix of vehicles? Do you still keep M1s and Bradleys? Does the PAV replace anything or is it an addition to the current mix?

I guess my concept is basically a "mini-Bradley" urban assault heavy weapons platform (concept like the Ontos of the Vietnam era?) with modular, remote turrets and perhaps two infantry machine gunners in the rear corners.

A swarm of helicopter-transportable vehicles that have a high "lethality-to-weight" ratio is interesting. However, you could argue that China or such would develop its own swarm of PAVs to counter ours, and then you're back to square one — but that happens with any weapon. What's intriguing is that the PAV concept capitalizes on our current technical dominance while perhaps allowing an innovative change in tactical thinking.

This would help me better understand your concept: How would PAVs operate against Iran, North Korea, and China, assuming they field a mix of conventional armies and special forces that adopt an insurgent-style defense or resistance? Are you saying we'd "swarm" their AFVs in both urban and rural terrain with, let's say, 20 PAVs to 1 AFV? How would PAVs be used in a Fallujah-style urban assault? And even if we could overwhelm their AFVs with superior numbers of PAVs, could our PAVs, in turn, be overwhelmed by their superior numbers of infantry dedicated to neutralizing our PAV swarm with massed RPGs or heavy machine guns?

John

Alek

Grendelizer, I'd like to share some thoughts on this.

The PAV wouldnt be a frontal attack vehicle but should mainly serve for transport of soldiers to and around a battle zone, protection from heavy armor/helicopters and fire support.

For example, you drop in a group of PAVs, carrying 6 soldiers each, into a threat zone. 4 soldiers dismount from each PAV and locate enemy positions. Then the PAVs step in with the mortars(or 40mm grenade machine gun) and pound fortified enemy positions. Then soldiers proceed with the clean up. Also the PAV will be able to provide surpression fire with a Grendel MG.
If enemy armored or aerial reinforcements arrive, PAV's TOW, Javelin or Stinger weapons should neutralize that threat. Dismounted soldiers will take care that no RPG will take a clear shot at their PAV.

In this concept the most important thing is a sophisticated "TIITS" (copyright solidpoint) system for communication and threat discovery and engagement.

The concept of mobility is also very well suited for fighting against guerilla forces in the scenario that I described. Apart from carrying heavy weapons for mission support, the PAV's enable high mobility of firepower and live force.

Alek

Yesterday I ran into a great link for the suspension of the PAV.
I think this is the state of the art in military heavy duty vehicles:

http://www.timoney-technology.com/index.html

If somehow this could be scaled down, it would make a very mobile PAV.

Also here are some strong arguments in favor of having a mortar onboard:

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/mortar-munitions.htm
http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Mortars,,00.html

A guided or self-guided smart mortar sounds nice. Also 10,000m2 coverage from a single round is excellent performance.

Zipperhead

I dunno…this all sounds VERY spendy to me: just to double your deployment speed, while putting your armor that far away from the logistical supply system. Look at how much extra work you are giving your UH-60’s and other helis to do this deployment. Look at the extra helicopter fuel that you’ll need to carry such heavy weights. Just using helicopters to deploy, is going to strain your helicopter fleet a great deal, especially if it’s to be used regularly like that or in large formations. And then you are taking airframes away from doing logistic missions, away from troop lift and so on.

Then there is the questionable weight savings that your advanced armor is providing: I searched that site, and I didn’t see a single solid reference to how much weight savings there’d be over a steel hull Vs. composite ceramic. Yet your spending quite a lot more to make it than a steel or aluminum hull. And Titanium just isn’t going to happen at all.

You say 1,200 lbs…but I can’t picture even the suspension/wheels weighing that little. I mean…think about this: that’s 500 lbs less than a Pontiac Firefly! Or 1,200 lbs less than a Honda Civic…or 4,000 lbs less than a Suburban… and NONE of those have any armor of any kind, using just thin sheet metal, not an inch or three of ceramics.

And you want this to be an armored vehicle that can carry 4 guys, AND a 60mm mortar, AND a heavy machinegun, and a remote weapons mount?!

Sorry, I’m just not seeing anywhere near that kind of weight savings at all. Even if the hull weight is reduced by 25%, like many estimates I’ve seen other places, that fraction is going to be reduced once you add the engine, the turret, the ammo…then the wheels (can be heavy on armored vehicles I’ve handled), and the soldier’s rucks, their water and rations (my own ruck often was 100-125 lbs).

Look, much of your concept IS GOOD. But there’s some areas that unrealistic, even accounting for tomorrow’s technology, particularly in the area of weight reduction, cargo/weapons weight capacity and vehicle unit cost. But if you reduce the more unrealistic requirements, you could easily end up with a really good vehicle concept that would fit reasonably well into a wide variety of uses.

http://www.geocities.com/paratroop2000/armoredhmmwvsstrykersfail.htm
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/index.htm

Zipperhead

>>“Same weight as HumVee, 60 years older, 350mph faster, much better armed and a lot more payload.”

First off, there is ZERO similarity between an armored vehicle and a Forked Tail Devil.

Could you illustrate for me how a P-38 is more protected from RPG fire, than say an ordinary passenger car? ‘cause if you don’t need to protect against the RPG’s…why not just have all the troops ride motorbikes? They could all be issued them offroad bikes, each with a diesel motor: fast, low requirements, zero protection…but hey, it would look cool and the troops would have fun!

Secondly, just how expensive do you want to go?! To build a plane, or even an armored vehicle, using P-38 tech today, would carry a pricetag today of perhaps 7 million if it were in large scale production. It’s more if no mass production.

You simply can’t even start to compare the cost of aircraft to armored vehicles, it just doesn’t add up. And if you did…you’d find yourself being “outspent” by your enemy who’s a bit more frugal with the same number of dollars. Budgets are finite after all.

>>“This bird weights less than an uparmored HumVee and can carry over 9,000 lbs of munitions in addition to its two 20mm cannons.”

There is very little stress in a plane flying along peacefully during cruise phase, and when the planes need to dogfight, they invariably dump that munitions or risk catastrophic failure of the airframe. Anyway, the stress is SO small when compared to driving along a bumpy back road, it’s not funny.

I might also point out, that armored vehicles are required to be impervious to 30 and 50cal ammo…something that your P-38 isn’t capable of at all. In fact, once engaged, they’d absorb precious few hits before being toast. And a tini-tiny 20mm shell could bring the plane down right away. But your ground vehicle that’s armored, it needs to stay intact after being hit by a heavy belly-charge (the bigger “roadside bomb” IED). A Stryker stayed together (though damaged for good) and kept it’s occupants alive after striking a 500 lb charge…your P-38 or even an A-10 couldn’t survive that, ever.

It’s an apples/oranges thing, you simply can’t compare aircraft and armor directly. I was a vehicle mechanic in the Army for a while after I was an infantryman, and I also took flight lessons on my own time…still have a great interest in things aviation.

As it stands, you are going to end up with your lightweight PAV’s be the single most expensive army vehicle in history, by a fair margin. Are you certain that you are getting value for your dollar? Is the taxpayer convinced?

Just having some fancy technology in a lab, doesn’t make it practical to deploy widely in an operational environment. The volumes required, mean that costs MUST be low to produce them without exorbitant cost. They also must be designed to be maintained quickly and cheaply, or the cost will skyrocket while actually using the fleet.

>>“...hard on the choppers as compared to what alternative? Is there an alternative?”

YES there is an alternative: stop with this imagined “need” to deploy quickly. It’s insane, you can’t afford it, and it’s not necessary anyway unless you plan on having just a handful of robots deploy with them.

Do you have ANY idea of just how much food, in cost and physical volume, is required to support even a battalion for a week?! Do you plan on deploying this armor WITHOUT food or water? Or ammo? You NEED to deploy with food and water for those troops, and it’s gonna be heavy and bulky.

Case in point that also illustrates an issue with WW2 aviation: did you know, that just the raw weight in defensive 50cal ammo…was actually MORE than the weight of the bombs that the B-17 carried to bomb Germany with? Think about that…more than the bombs.

>
Anyway, the true alternative to going with light armor, is to go with lighter than air transport: that is, you bring your heavy armored vehicles to the warzone using airships, Zeppelins. While not yet ready for primetime, there are advanced plans to create airships that could take an entire Unit of Action from fort to fight direct. That is, take the heavy armor, the troops, their logistic tail, the command center, fire support and all that other nice gear you need, right to any location on earth, be it sand, water, soccer field or tundra. Now there is your rapid deployment.
>

I didn’t want to post this, but see the following post:

Zipperhead

>>“I will repeat again for about the 29th time, if your enemy has anti-armor weapons you would be better off wrapping yourself in a good cotton sheet”

I don’t agree. In fact, I don’t agree at all. There IS a massive difference in crew survivability between a very light armor, and a heavy armor vehicle. There’s no two ways about it. Armor does work, and the more of it you have, the better it protects it’s occupants.

>>“The PAV uses the best available technology to afford protection against small arms up to and including a ZSU-23 at 500+ meters. This is equal to that of an A-10.”

Sorry, but that’s just not true at all: a Russian 23mm is WAY less power than an A-10’s shell, especially if talking about the DU penetrators.

Secondly, anything larger than a .50cal, or can’t be carried by one man, is no longer “small arms”, but is considered cannon or full weapon system.

>>“Added to these tactical ground-based weapons are the top attack weapons delivered by air such as the Hellfire and AGM-154 and MLRS-BAT P3I sensor-fused anti-armor weapons.”

And which of America’s enemies are armed with these weapons?

>>“The technology today CLEARLY favors the construction of very lightweight weapons, not very heavyweight armor.”

Having a lightweight weapon on a vehicle, doesn’t PROTECT that vehicle from a roadside bomb. Look at all the Humvees destroyed.

>>“As a result the mindless drive to "do a lot more of the same" provides no additional protection but by absorbing all possible logistical resources deprives the infantry of "force multipliers" which…”

Ensuring enough armor to stop the plentiful RPG-7 isn’t mindless IMO.

Secondly, just what are these vague “force multipliers” which the logistics wouldn’t be able to handle anyway?

Thirdly, the logistics isn’t constrained by the armor, it’s constrained by the need for ammo, food and water resupply. Changing to a different style vehicle, or going without armor, doesn’t change that.

>>“The technology today CLEARLY favors the construction of very lightweight weapons, not very heavyweight armor.”

>>” We live in a country that uses titanium, carbon fiber and ceramics to make toys for the rich (golf clubs, bicycles & sports cars), and send our boys off to war with weapons made with the same materials used to make farm machinery in the 19th century.”

At what cost??

No, seriously: not that many years ago an Abrams cost just 2 million each. Yet now we are approaching that cost for the Styker (or have we exceeded that?! I heard a rumor that the Stryker is now 3 million, is that right?!?! Geez, a decade ago the Hog and Apache’s were just 10 million…), which is just thin, plain old steel plate. If you start talking about exotic materials like ceramics, fine…

…but that’s gonna add many billions just in R+D to get prototypes: they’ve been demonstrating ceramic tanks since ’82, but so far no one’s made such a hull and proven it in the field driven by Army maniacs. The closest such armor has come, is in the form of HEAVY armor: Chobham in the Abrams.

Then there is the brute strength of ceramics from blunt force: how well will a ceramic hulled vehicle stand up to the blast of a roadside bomb? Will it hold together, or will it shatter like a dropped soup bowl?

Titanium? Never in the next twenty years is that going to be used to make an armored vehicle. It’s rare, it’s VERY tough to cut/machine, it wears toolbits at an astronomical rate, not even sure if it can be welded (and if it can, it’s certainly not at all easy). It’s exceedingly expensive due to it’s rarity, may as well make the General’s staff car out of gold.

Adding a small 2 inch plate of titanium to a golf club that’s gonna be more expensive than a Glock is a VERY long ways away from making several thousand armored vehicle hulls at a price the taxpayer will agree with. Never mind delivery times.

I suggest you look at the Herculean effort that was required to make the handful of SR-71 spy planes back in the day, it was made mostly of titanium. They only made like 32 airframes…

Which gets to my point: how much does your PAV cost? 2 million? 15 million? 50 million? Half a million?

Zipperhead

>>“Added to this is the ability to move PAV platforms intra-theater with even the smallest helicopter (AH-6 Littlebird)…”

Sorry, but that’s not gonna happen. The best you could hope for is that an EMPTY PAV, which means it’s basically useless, with crew could deploy perhaps 50 miles, slung under a UH-60L. At best.

But under a Littlebird? No way, not gonna happen, full stop.

>>“It seems to me absurd in the extreme that we build aircraft where every pound is scrutinized and billions are thrown at the problems of weight and fuel efficiency and then we load those planes with armored vehicles made by tractor and farm machinery companies using the same materials John Deer and McCormick used before the Civil War.”

It may seem absurd to you, but there’s some very real fundamental reasons why aircraft are built differently.

First off, no plane can be heavy. In fact, to perform even in mediocrity, they need to be built like race cars, not like tractors or transport trucks. But to fly like today’s F-16 or F-22, they NEED to shave that weight…and it cost HUGE dollars to do. Suddenly you aren’t being built like ordinary race cars, but like Indycars or Formula1. Have you SEEN how fragile those are? Or how insanely costly they are?

By contrast, armored vehicles should never be built that way, that’s not strong enough to handle a bumpy road for a year, much less a roadside bomb.

>>“MOUT is not going to be a common expeditionary combat mode as the bad guys are going to head for the hills not city hall when the precision guided air munitions and PAV launched mortars start raining down on them.”

Afghanistan demonstrated what happens when the enemies stay in the hills… and Iraq has demonstrated some enemies do the exact opposite, staying in the cities just as the Somali gangs had done a decade ago. In fact, Canadian troops in armored vehicles (Grizzly and Cougar 6 wheeled early version of the later Stryker) chased what insurgents were out in the hills and desert, into the cities where they surrounded Rangers and shot down Black Hawks (which in your scenario might have been even more vulnerable when sling loaded with an armored vehicle underneath). And that regardless if it’s ideal or not, your troops have to sometimes crawl in the ugly places to surgically cut out the cancerous growth that is extremism.

>>“The PAV gets protection against RPG, TOW, Koronet direct-fire weapons and anti-armor indirect weapons by employing .338 Lapua, 408 CheyTac Intervention type sniper weapons to kill the person guiding the anti-armor weapon while still in flight.”

Sorry, but that’s just not realistic at all. You don’t expect to protect armored vehicles using snipers. While you MAY be lucky enough to tag one or two that way, you simply can’t protect vehicles like that.

>>“The vehicle is steered by rudder peddles by either driver or WSO so that both have hands free to nail the bastards before the missile hits them.”

If the steering is done by the feet….then how are you controlling speed and brake application? And will these vehicles be safe for operation in traffic on public roads?

>>“I do NOT see the PAV as a covered vehicle, except for the 26-36”x5' slab over the driver and WSO,…”

So this vehicle would be vulnerable to a child throwing a grenade or satchel charge over the side armor?

Or vulnerable to some insurgent spraying his AKM or RPG from the 2nd or 3rd floor window?

I don’t get it. That’s exactly the opposite of what’s needed for urban warfare, which the US is right in the middle of as we speak. And won’t be ending anytime soon.

This even doesn’t make any sense considering that even the most backwards of our enemies in Afghanistan can top attack you with mortars, and RPG’s using the 900m self-destruct airburst…no, you HAVE to cover the roof with just as much armor.

autobahndriver

I've had some thoughts about the PAV idea:

1. Go cart style frame with large off-road wheels rather than ATV frame to keep profile lower.

2. Light armor only needs to stop 5.56 & 7.62x39. The vehicle should rely on it's speed and small profile to avoid hits by RPGs and other anti-tank rounds. Just try hitting a small moving target with a RPG!

3. Titanium sheet armor backed by poly or aramid composite. The poly or aramid creates lightweight spall protection and helps against larger rounds. The titanium sheet keeps the armor from being damaged by lighter hits. With a low profile you can also make the armor at a 45deg+ angle to help deflect attacks.

4. Armor sheets can be bolt on by having titanium bolts (available from aircraft construction) welded to the titanium sheet prior to the composite under-layer being attached. This design should help avoid the bolts from spalling. The armor panels would then be easily replaced.

Coolhand77

Two points, and one question.
Titanium has to be vacuum welded, or welded in a 0% oxigen atmosphere (if I recall correctly).

The Russians use Titanium in thier body armor because they have some of the largest deposits in the world. I knew a guy that tried to import the stuff. Got the first shipment out on time, but when the Russian workers got thier paychecks, they were so excited they went on a one month drunk. The next shipment didn't happen, the backers pulled out, and the project was officially scuttled.

What are we using for the disposable armor plates in military body armor right now? I thought it was a ceramic composite.

autobahndriver

Ceramic plate is much more expensive than Titanium sheet.

The high cost of titanium comes in with the welding and forming.
If you go with pre-made aircraft bolts that have the v shaped heads then you can drill holes in the Ti that let the bolts sit flush with the surface and still back with spectra-shield.

I think Ti is better than ceramic for the outer armor because it can survive light ammo hits and not degrade. Ceramic defeats rounds by shattering - hit in the same place a couple of times even with light calibers and it will fail (good for single hit per location stops then needs to be replaced - very expensive).

What do you do about crowds throwing rocks at your ceramic outer armor causing it to shatter and requiring replacement?

Titanium only will need to be replaced when hit by a large caliber causing spalling or penetration into the spectra-shield or other backing.

Titanium is also resistant to the elements and will not rust!
There is titanium sheet and plate production in the US and you can even buy it on eBay! It is only about 2 to 3x the cost of steel in basic sheet or plate form.

Coolhand77

Hell, I live in the Texas hill country...we get flooding and stuff up here ...I'D want one...sans the weapons package of course;)

...Though the armor would be good for those rough areas of San Antonio :D

autobahndriver

I was born in the Texas Hill Country!
I am trying to convince my wife (from NC) that it is a good place to retire.

Coolhand77

just remind her that we don't get earthquakes OR hurricanes, that might help. ;) Not to mention that the prevailing winds an lack or targets would keep any fallout from a nuke exchange going away from the hill country (kinda joking, thats one of the reasons my father, who used to write for american survival guide from time to time in the 80s decided to settle down out here). :D

hmmm, that brings up an interesting point about rad shielding...how well would the PAV handle radiation levels...or more appropriately how well would it shield the crew? If I am not mistaken, one of the reasons that we use the kind of heavy steel armor that we use, is that it DOES cut down on the amount of rads that would get through the hull during a tac nuke strike. Admittedly the chances of that now are slim, but it would suck to not be able to use your new, high tech PAV cause someone blew a dirty bomb, you had to go back to the heavy armor cause of the rads, and Johnny Jihad didn't care about getting rad poisoning. Just a thought...its early and it just popped in my head.

Zipperhead

Is this gonna be what it’s like boarding a PAV?
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/gogogo.html
:D

If you need to deploy light, maybe just get a Gator and put some kevlar sheets up around it like an old Jeep!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>“In terms of zipper's long posts I think until he makes a matrix of the levels of armor protection at all quarters for armored vehicles as I suggested, the weight of the vehicles, and then another matrix of anti-armor threats, we have no basis for discussions.”

That’s easy:

Target weight of 25-30 tons. Driver, commander, radioman, gunner, mortar man, secondary machinegunner, and three more riflemen, with a seat or two to spare (gear, or swell capacity, prisoner carriage, translator, liason).

Protection:
Primary Hull of steel, or hardened/pressurized aluminum (see the “3 lb assault rifle” thread here), or titanium since some of you feel it could be practical (certainly would have very nice properties for this job, I’m just not convinced it’s cost effective). Exterior of hull is 3 inches of ceramic/polymer composite (impact/heat resistant) on sides, rear and bottom of vehicle. Inside of vehicle has kevlar spall liners (loose to catch more of the spall fragments), but also the addition of kevlar curtains to help contain some penetrations

-You NEED to withstand stacked mines/500lb roadside bombs, as this tactic has gone from testing in Chechnya to enemy SOP in Iraq. That means you need a strong metal bottom V-shaped underside (I think you already specified that, didn’t you?). It needs to be metal, because I just don’t see ceramics as having enough flex to absorb the blast, while still retaining structural strength.

-You NEED to stop each and every RPG-7 (standard projectile) cold. My recommendation is to have most of your “general logistic stores” be stowed in storage boxes that are physically located outside the main armor hull, along the sides of the vehicle: this gives standoff and also the contents provide baffling to absorb and set off tandem charges before getting to the main armor. These boxes would be two feet of standoff, at a minimum. Examples of stuff I’m talking about are: water and diesel Gerry cans, ammo, munitions boxes (remember, although they could ‘cook off’, it’s better for it to cook off OUTSIDE your hull than when you are inside it), spare wheels, radio batteries, spare radio, food, repair tool box, maintenance fluids, tents, shovels for digging trenches, excess first aid kits, individual soldier’s rucksacks. All that gear would basically become part of your armor, in effect. This is actually already proven itself to be VERY useful in halting RPG’s effects, even without a strong metal box (that would be aluminum armor in our case), on the road during OIF. When a box is hit, once the fight is over, you can salvage what remains, and either easily repair/patch the box, or just unbolt it from the armor hull. Many boxes would be on each side, each independent and compartmentalized. Any explosives stored, would be placed close to the outside door of each box, shaped charges facing outward in case of sympathetic detonation. These boxes would be accessible from outside the vehicle normally (but locked to prevent theft by locals) similar to that of a firetruck, but a couple of these boxes could have the armored hull have an access hatch, for access to munitions while in a fight: low on ammo? Just open the armor hull to the boxes, take what you need and close it tight: a risk, but a very short duration risk, much like the shell storage on an Abrams tank. If a box is on fire, or cooking off, it can be discarded from inside, on the fly, so as not to do too much damage.

-Rooftop protection: stop .50cal fire (DSHK or an anti-material rifle in the hands of insurgents) and common RPG-7 fire from 3rd floor, meaning less protection than needed on the sides, but still more than typically found today.

Passive detection of threats, by optical contrast flash, acoustic signature. Color video cameras all around the vehicle, displays all around inside, so everyone’s SA remains high. Prevents trolls from creeping up on you, allows you to see enemy RPG gunners and engage them before they do damage. Better video visibility enables faster, better driving, and navigating. WASP MAV for an top down view of the area.

-rear doors open like a barn door: large, two piece opening on either sides, providing area partly protected while doing messy functions like casualty/stretcher loading during battle. The troops, not just the driver, have control of the main doors (a ramp is only controlled by driver, and has problems with spaced armor, and driving with the ramp down, among other things).

Armament:
Varied and modular, according to needs and threat type, but all can launch and operate WASP micro-UAV’s while on the move :

-Conventional enemy tank engagements? Then your remote turret has four Javelin ATGM tubes, and the ability to do instant fire support calls. A 19 round launcher for 2.75 inch rockets is also featured, but they are the laser guided APTK CRV-7 combination, enabling killing MBT’s from maximum standoff distances, or a panic engagement at point blank ranges (unguided, just point and shoot) in a semi or full automatic burst mode.

-Iraq insurgency/ WOT? You have a stabilized remote turret on a 30 foot cherry picker, with a GAU-19/A 50cal gattling gun, giving either 1000 or 2000 RPM. That ammo is stored in an aircraft-style drum (1500 rounds or more)on the top roof of the vehicle. Perfect for thunder runs, for urban combat (the 50cal has proven itself to be nearly ideal for urban combat, the right mix of penetration without OVER penetration in multiple buildings), breaking ambushes, dealing with thin skinned vehicles rapidly, fast moving fleeting targets thanks to it’s high rate of fire. The 19 round rocket system would be retained for hard targets, fortifications, unexpected armored tank threats and very long distance engagements. This turret would also feature an automatic pointed 60mm mortar tube for indirect and direct fire. A second micro-turret (unpowered, mechanical, like the ones on the Achzarit APC) for a GPMG (say an MG-3/MG-42) is added for the rear of the vehicle, as second defense to the primary remote turret. Also, an independent simple roof mounted breach loading 60mm mortar system is operated manually by whoever sits in back (backup for the primary 60mm).

-Fire support system: a full turret 120mm AMOS system, rapid fire, for both direct and indirect fire. Could be employed as a urban direct fire support vehicle/APC, while carrying some troops and just a few shells…OR do just direct or indirect fire full of shells and no troop carriage…whatever is more suited to the attack. No cherry picker, but retains a GAU-19 50cal gattling

-Convoy escort: twin GAU-19’s for either side (one on cherry picker, the other not), and two GPMG remotes on either side as well.

Zipperhead

Power train:
twin small diesel powerplants, separated into different compartments. This does several things: you can save fuel while just driving down the road (accelerating to speed takes most of the horsepower, while just cruising steady doesn’t take as much), or sitting at a road block. It also enables better redundancy under fire: if an RPG pierces one engine, the other can keep you limping back to friendly lines. Better than waiting to be extracted, or recovery to tow you home. Also, it keeps the designer from putting the poor driver far up front, vulnerable to a stacked mine strike.

Small transmissions:
Possibly even electrical versions like those on ships. Airbag suspension could enable wheels to be extended or retracted according to need: on a highway at speed, just use the outermost ones, saving on road friction loss. In urban combat, the computer retracts the outer wheels from contact with the ground, to do a “pivot turn” on the spot (not yet able to be done by any wheeled army vehicles I know), aided by all wheel steering (computer controlled by context).

Not required:
-do not need to swim/float on water. If it can do that, fine, but I wouldn’t spend much money on it: fording modest streams is just fine with an elevated snorkel. But actually swimming armor is just too risky for everyone involved, is too slow. Better to either find or build a bridge thanks to combat engineers than messing about with loosing multiple vehicles in a strong current. The problem isn’t buoyancy, the problem is door seals leaking, and being too top-heavy, being too easily swamped and sinking rapidly, despite straining bilge pumps. If the marines need swimming APC’s for modern recreations of Tarawa, that’s fine, but that’s a very uncommon requirement, and even the Marines haven’t really done a anphib assault while under fire…well since WW2. And they have good vehicles for that today, yet they still bought the Abrams and M-60, neither of which can swim. Also, since most APC’s have limited swimming capability, this isn’t a unique thing. Actually doing so…yea, that would be unique! You need to bring extra tubs of grease for the door seals, pack 95 or more sandbags to the rear interior of the troop seats, to balance the engine weight in front, and keep the center of gravity stable. It takes time, and there’s no guarantee you’ll make it to the other side: many troops have been lost to rapidly sinking APC’s even in peacetime training.

-Surviving enemy MBT hits from modern ammunition (say an APDS) shouldn’t be a prime goal, as enemy armor is easily detected and destroyed from a standoff, and tank battles are increasingly rare, much like aerial dogfights.

-not required to deploy in a C-130. C-17 is fine, for those very few times it would be needed that desperately. If you need to deploy lighter than that, maybe just get a Gator and put some kevlar sheets up around it like an old Jeep!

Future development:
-Airship cargo carriage for the DARPA’s “Fort to Fight” concept.

-direct integration of the Netfires concept “Rockets in a box”

-expanded development of 60mm mortar system, to include mini-GPS guidance and laser designation, stingball “cannister” load for non-lethal crowd control, recon sensor deployment, tandem warhead for roof penetration after effects in urban combat, increased payload and fragmentation (and better composition)

Alek

Solid, just to remind you the Avenger vehicle weighs 4.3 tons. And that's the realistic weight you can expect for any wehicle that has even a little armor and decent armament.
I dont see how a PAV can be made to weigh below 2-3 tons (~5000lbs).

A suggestion: I think the perfect main weapon for a vehicle like the PAV would be the 30mm Mauser autocannon. Check this:
- dual feed
- penetration 68mm/1000m/60deg with APFSDS-T ammo
- airburst ammo with 162 tungsten projectiles
- weight 200 Kg
- rate of fire 700rpm!
- muzzle velocity ~1400m/s
This baby can do it all :)

http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1501&action=pd
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1520&action=pd
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/puma_tracked/

Alek

Alex,

Thanks for the tip. Where did you get the penetration number from?

I got it from http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/corrections.html
But apparently the penetration is 58mm, not 68mm as I wrote.

Work continues on providing new loadings for the 30x173 cartridge. As well as the Nammo APFSDS (see Page 132 note below), Oerlikon-Contraves is offering FAPIDS-T, APFSDS-T and ABM loadings. The FAPIDS-T weighs 235g, is fired at 1,385 m/s and claimed to penetrate a modest 31mm RHA at 1,000m. The APFSDS-T (developed in conjunction with Mauser) has the same weight and muzzle velocity but penetrates 58mm at the same distance. The ABM (Air Burst Munition) round employs AHEAD technology, with a time fuze programmed as the shell leaves the muzzle, and an adjustable stand-off distance for attacking particular targets. The first two are also offered in the Russian 30x165 calibre.

There is also a recoilless version(Recoilless Cannon RMK 30) of the 30mm gun which should be excellent fit for an extremely light vehicle.
http://www.rheinmetall-detec.com/index.php?lang=3&fid=1501&action=pd

Coolhand77

Just had a thought.. that new "shear thickening" liquid used in that new prototype bodyarmor might be an interesting match for your liquid filled armored hull. First of all, the suspension liquid is polyethylene glycol...isn't that like anti-freeze? Not only would it "cool off" HEAT warheads, but it would add ballistic protection, and if the holes are small enough it might even patch itself (think "Slime" in a bicycle tire).

Just me thinking outside the box again

Alek

In case you havent seen this report:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/ammo/williams.pdf

Its packed with great info.

Warbucks

Guys,

This thread is getting silly. If you're going to mount a cannon on a golf cart, there is the small matter of the weight of the ammunition. Recoiless cannons produce backblast, which is a big no-no.

The prototype liquid armor work by the fact that the material in question hardens under pressure. So if a bullet smacks into the armor, the armor hardens almost instantly.

HEAT rounds do not in fact use heat to blast through armor. Rather, the hot copper is moving so fast that it punches through the armor. No golf-cart sized armored vehicle will have enough armor to stop a HEAT round unless you make the think so damned heavy it's ridiculous.

If you're going to build an armored golf cart, then all you want is a machinegun or grenade launcher for anti-personnel and something like LOSAT missiles to engage armor or buildings. Even then, you still have to have dismounts to clear buildings, etc.

Coolhand77

Actually they do use heat, in the form of the "plasma jet" created by the "High Explosive Anti Tank" warhead. If you use a fluid medium in a double hulled rig or the afore mentioned "honeycomb" might be able to cool and slow down the plasma jet enough to impare its capabilities in imparting energy to the armor plate backing. Basically a HEAT uses a shaped charge to cut through the armor...the copper that usually goes through is the shaped charge focusing cone. If the plasma jet doesn't cut through the armor, the copper is just going to dent it.

APFSDS is the kind where the heavy metal penetrator actually punches through on its own. Usually its made out of Depleted uranium or tungsten, because copper is too soft.

Warbucks

You can't have pumpable armor, beacause the warning time for any attack could be a fraction of a second, so you couln't possibly move enough fluid in that time frame, even using a massive turbo pump.
Read up on the electric armor the Brits are developing to stop HEAT rounds. I think it's technology they'll perfect over the next 5-10 years.
As for the cannon, think about how a recoiless cannon works. You fire a recopiless weapon, you create a huge backblast signature when you fire. Besides, why bother with a cannon? All you need is something to kill people and something else to kill armored vehicles and buildings. FWIW, the Bushmaster cannon is unbelievably heavy. Though the Rheinmetall cannon weighs less, its ammo still comes in at one pound per round.
You want something light, I'd use a .30 Cal machinegun with a coax XM312 25mm grenade launchers and 4 single shot LOSAT missiles to blow up armored vehicles and buildings.

Coolhand77

hey Warbucks, do you have a link for that electric armor? I'm curious, partially because the latest incarnation of Star Trek (Enterprise...yes, I'm a closet trekker) used something called "Polarized hull plating". Any connection there or was Star Trek talking out of its exhaust as usual? ;)

Anyway, it would be a good link to post for those of us who don't even know where to start looking. :D

Warbucks

Google is your friend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F08%2F19%2Fnmod19.xml

The system works by having an inner plate inside a tank's or APC's armor. When the RPG jet breaches the out armor, it forms an electrical connection with the inner plate, which causes a massive electrical charge to flow throw the copper jet and disrupt it. So far, an experimental APC equipped with the technology has had RPG rounds which would normally rip the APC to piece fizzle on impact.

autobahndriver

The primary methods that are currently used to defeat the newer shaped charges are:

1. Standoff grates - these have been applied to many Strikers and cause the round to detonate at a further distance from the main armor.

2. Reactive armor - add on modules of reactive armor explode outward when hit and disrupt attacks by applying an opposing force to the attack.

When the PAV was first mentioned, I thought it was a good idea based on being a one or two person vehicle smaller, lighter, and less expensive than an unarmored HMMWV yet having some basic armor protection. Being small was what I saw as the primary protection against RPGs and anti-tank rounds. Make it like a ping pong ball, not only does it deflect the blast from a IED but it is lightweight enough that it is thrown off the ground a bit rather than the armor being penetrated. just need a good harness seat system to help protect the individuals inside (ever watch professional race cars go tumbling across the ground, pieces flying everywhere, yet the driver unstraps and walks away unharmed?).

All the recent talk pushes it up in size and I don't see it as a new concept or anything better than what is already out there.

Warbucks

The best design for anti-mine is the South African Rooikat APC. It looks like an upside down pyramid with the point facing down and the flat part on the top. When a mine goes off, the blast wave hits the sloped armor and deflects down to blast off the wheels. Since the drive shaft and axles are easily replaced, this means the Rooikat can be back ion the road in a few minutes.

Coolhand77

When the PAV starts looking more like an APC...thats too big. I think squeezing it down to a two man crew (without the outrigger) and a coax cannon/machine gun or machinegun mortar system for your primary unit would be optimal. I'm thinking something like the front end off an Apache or Comanche on wheels, with more armor, and a "V-hull" under it...probably something in the 3 to 6 wheel range, dune buggy suspension. Driver in front, gunner in back.

Just an idea and opinion

autobahndriver

Not really like a ping pong ball - but I like that saying that.

If an object moves some with a blast it's surface does not buckle as easily as if it were held in place. Look at blast confinement technology used for aircraft containers or for EOD. Air containers that are made to bulge outward while venting blast energy through predetermined channels do not rupture while if they had stiff walls they would rupture.

A nearby blast can throw an unprotected person off the ground and they may suffer concussion effects but the acceleration effects on the body are minimal. Making a light PAV should allow some of the blast energy to be transferred to momentum of the vehicle.

Alek

From the current vehicles that can be used as a PAV, I think the French VBL is the most appropriate.

Here it is with a 20mm cannon:
http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/France/vehicules_a_roues/VBL/VBL_canon/VBL_canon_20mm_France_diaporama.htm

Here are some other neat photos and specs:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/vbl.htm

Great page in French (use babelfish translator) :
http://www.ifrance.com/ArmyReco/europe/France/vehicules_a_roues/VBL/VBL_France_description.htm

It need to lose some weight (below 3 tons) to be transportable by standard helicopters, but otherwise I think its pretty good.

Coolhand77

If you change the armor out to foam metal or honey comb instead of homogenized steel plate, that would probably really improve the weight.

I liked the one with the 20mm turret...replace that with a CROW mounted Grendel minigun and an XM109 auto cannon and you are all set ;)

Alek

Engineering is the art of making good trade-offs. I like those embodied in the VBL much better than those of the Weisel. http://www.nasog.net/datasheets/armour/4/Panhard_VBL_Scout_Car.htm

The PAV philosophy is to offer great protection over a small surface area and train the crew to take max advantage of that protection. For example...

Lying prone across the top of the PAV's flat top with the slab armor skirts up to provide 12-18 inches of protection on both sides, and maybe with a ballistic blanket rolled into a log, gunners would enjoy great protection from mines and small arms. A 5x9 surface is suficient to allow 2 gunners to operate with reasonable comfort. I think that is an area bigger than a California king matress so unless you have a don't ask, don't tell problem you should be very happy with this configuration.

The VBL encloses the crew, and in dusty and wet conditions this appears to be an advantage. I think this advantage is largely an illusion as the crew is unprotected from al but 7.62x39 at pb ranges (max is 11.2mm steel), but tends to get them cozy and sloppy about protection when inside of the vehicle. It also means the crew must stand to fire its main weapon out the top of the vehicle "turret", which leaves them terribly exposed to fire inside an unarmored vehicle. This is the unarmored HumVee problem and led to the development of 12,000lb HumVees and ROSSAM turrets. Of course such a turret on the VBL still leaves the crew unable to fire their personal weapons from inside the vehicle, so you have the Bradley disease all over again from inside an UNarmored vehicle. (although you are only encumbering 2-3 men not 8-20)

The PAV would be fitted with a soft-top using currently excellent well insulated convertable car top "cloth" technology over fiber poles. This maintains the low radar cross-section, protects the crew and weapons from the weather, and still makes it clear what is armor protected and what isn't. In the summer this is replaced by a double layer of shade cloth. White on the outside and black on the inside allowing the crew to see out and no one to see in. It also allows the crew to fire through the "skin" of the vehicle if necessary. The crew kayak of course is just much better protected on the PAV as its "pyramid chopped in half" triple sloping shape and thicker armored walls gives its crew about the same protection they would have riding in the back of a BFV.

Its hard to imagine the kayak type open roof vehicle. I need to see a rough sketch to get the feel of it. It could perform well, however it for now I cant say anything as I dont have a clear picture in my mind.

Having a solid roof on a vehicle means that apart from protection for the crew, you have a place where you can put an remotely fired cannon, a MG and a launcher. I dont see how you can include those weapons in a vehicle that has a cloth roof, while providing solid protection for the crew while driving or firing. Just think what an airburst round can do to the crew if it explodes over their head. I know that the opposing forces do not employ that type of ammo, but with the progress of technology it is likely that they will in the future. Also, the vehicle can have hatches on the side and the rear which will allow the crew to fire their personal weapons, just like in many other existing armored vehicles.

I understand what you mean when you say that the roof will "get them cozy and sloppy about protection when inside of the vehicle", but there is a logical solution for that. As the vehicle is supposed to employ state-of-the-art technology, great situational awareness can be achieved with various cameras, IR scanning and imaging, etc. Also reinforced glass will be used carefully to aid awareness.

There is a lot to like about the BVL, and the RMK Mauser's zero recoil cannons will make it even better. The one thing I never thougth when I started designing an ultra-light was that it could ever hope to have the same punch as an IFV. With the RMK-35-350 it would actually have more firepower than any existing IFV in the world. I don't know what its range would be, but I did notice that the lighter and slower Bushmaster MK44 was given a range of 5,600 yards. On a good stable platform this gun should be able to exceed the 3.5km range of the TOW and 2.5km range of the Javelin. Only the LAHAT ATGM's 8km range could outrange it - and that would be an excellent weapon for a PAV as well as the missile only weights 38lbs and launch tube 165 lbs. It has a top attack profile for ground engagement and frontal for destroying helicopters. (Alex, this is the missile you were looking for, right?) It also costs only $6,000. With 800mm penetration it will kill ANY armored vehicle in the world, including the Abrams.

It is becoming more clear to me each day that light is were the future is.

What I like about the VBL is its compact size and general concept. Its just 4 meters long (12 ft). However with thorough modifications of the concept its capabilities can be greatly enhanced.

First of all, the engine used is a big 2.3L old generation turbo diesel that has 95hp at 4150 RPM and 180NM at 2000RPM. This is 23 years old antique technology(from 1982), that compared with todays diesels provides laughable performance. Today's little 1.5 liter 3rd generation common-rail turbo diesel (from Renault) provides 100 hp at 4000 rpm and the same torque, with much better fuel economy.
Just changing the engine with a smaller one would mean that the front hood will be decreased in size from the current 2/5ths of the vehicle to a 1/5 length. This translates to plus 2 feet of usable passenger compartment space and also a useful weight saving. You can use this weight/space gain in any usefull way: ammo, weapons, passengers, electronics, fuel, armor... or if the current space is enough, just chop the vehicle length by 2 feet, to create a tiny 10 foot vehicle.

Next comes the armor and the weight of the vehicle. Its current 3.5 ton weight is a bit too much. As the armor is just a steel plate (11.5mm), smart combinations of materials can be used to reduce weight and increase protection. The basic protection would include a multilayer steel/kevlar/ceramic combination that could cut the total weight to 2tons. If this protects agiainst 7.62x54 AP rounds, it should be enough. Also anti-personell mine protection will be included , along with run-flat tires.
Additional ceramic/composite armor upgrade that protects against 14.5mm/500m, 30mm/1500m, shell splinters and increases crew survivability against AT mines, should increase the weight by one ton. Also a steel-cage armor is a good idea for a simple upgrade.
It should also be possible to include active protection systems, like the russian Shtora/Arena/Drozd or the US system that is currently under development, depending on weight and budget constraints.

Now to the weapons package(my favorite part). First of all to categorize the types of threats that will be engaged:
1. Infantry and manportable ATGMs.
2. Buldings and bunkers
3. Armour
4. Helicopters and slow planes

I would settle for the following systems as a maximum weapons configuration:

- Missile Launcher. Mounted in the back of the roof(like the current Milan system), remotely fired, breach loaded manually from inside the vehicle. This covers threats 2,3 and 4 in most scenarios. Ammo load 10+ missiles, depending on mission and configuration.
- two types of missiles supported:
1.Lahat laser guded (thanks Soldpoint)
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/lahat.htm
The laser-guided missile is especially convenient in cooperation with dismounted laser designators who will be able to sneak in and allow the PAV to engage a target(NonLineOfSight) from relative distance and safety.
2.IR fire-and-forget rocket (recembling a Stinger with a tandem charge and a proximity fuse.
This missile will be usefull for engaging multiple armored or aerial targets. It will allow a higher firing rate, as the 15+ seconds that are spent for guiding the Lahat, can prove too much in some scenarios.
(EDIT) I found the ideal fire and forget missile: TRIGAT LR. It can engage ground and aerial targets, has 7km range, thrust vector maneuvrability, IR/CCD tracking, tandem shaped charge warhead.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/lr_trigat/

- OCSW(XM307). This lightweight weapon will mounted to the front part of the roof with a 360 rotation. It will cover threats 1,2(airburst) and 3(light armor). The vehicle should be able to carry 1000 rounds of 25mm ammo (500lbs).

- Grendel MGs. One coaxial with the OCSW, and fired remotely, plus one in the rear fired manually. They should help with fending off human wave formations and in the cases when a 25mm grenade is too much. Add 3000 rounds of ammo, and the dismounted soldiers will be gratefull for the ammo reserve.

In this configuration the vehicle can be served by a 2 man crew, with room in the back for possibly 2-4 passengers or equipment/ammo/weapons.
The driver will have user friendly driving commands (steering with one hand), so that he will also be able to use the top-mounted OCSW/Grendel. This will be aided with the IR/CCD tracking and engagement system for the OCSW/Grendel, which can be put in auto-mode to engage hostile targets (IR/CCD signatures). I think a similar system is used in the russian Mi-24 helicopters for the 30mm cannon.

This vehicle seems possible since it is based on current state-of-the art tech. These sub-systems exist, only a rich subcontractor has to asemble them into the ultimate PAV.

Warbucks

autobahndriver

Solidpoint,

Let's pretend that I'm the defender against your PAV scenario. Can I field effective weapons systems that can hurt you? The answer is yes.
An RPG is going to blow your PAV to hamburger meat, unless of course the US can work out the anti-missile system. Even then, a simple DU Slug fired from an RPG will destroy your PAV, anti-missile system or no (kinetic weapons are a real bitch).
Then there's the issue of cost. Your PAV is going to cost a nillion bucks a pop or more. Where are you going to get the money to replace a 4 million dollar Abrams with fifty million dollars worth of PAVs?
Then there's the issue of electronic warfare. If you depend entirely on networked communications to fight, then the enemy will field EW systems to defeat the links. Read up on what OPFOR has been doing at Irwin to the Blue Force guys and IVIS.
I think the US will stick with largely conventional forces and move to larger aircraft like the Pelican to deliver them. I also don't see FCS as being viable because it's too bloody expensive, offers little cross-country olbity, is tooo heavy to fit into most C-130s AND is crunchy.
Hell, if you're going to go the PAV route then why not powered infantry (a la Starship Troopers)? Wirdly enough, DOD is working on such technology.
Consider what happens to a PAV force is the other guy has electronic armor and anti-missile technology. Ooops, you're dead.

Try hitting the PAV with an RPG if it is small and moving!

My reasons for saying a PAV by definition should be small and light.
Worry about small arms with some blast protection for mines.
Keep it light with a soft footprint for non-command detonated mines.
Keep it inexpensive.
Field it in huge numbers - every foot soldier has one.

How about keeping width small enough to allow entering doorways?
Length only slightly longer than width.
Basically a light armored 4 wheel ATV.
One person with a pack can fit inside.
Have strap on points front and rear for additional equipment if moving from one base of operations to another.
Small enough that you can load a couple inside a Blackhawk or a dozen in a Chinook.

Warbucks

Solidpoint,

A water balloon cannot penetrate the armor an make an electrical connections across the insulating layer. Tandem charges do not work either, because it's possible to have multiple capacitor banks.

Wet walled armor adds huge amounts of weight. Calculate what a one foot thick well walled container would weigh when full of water.

An open topped AFV is foolish. Any type of artillery airburst is going to rip right through a kevlar top.

You cannot make something heavily armored but light, unless you have a very small vehicle.

You still haven't addressed the cost problem. A PAV is not going to cost 1/50th of a tank. It'll cost a lot more.

As for hitting a PAV, well, let's see, put a ranging site on the RPG launcher, or use a laser guided weapon of some kind. Why do you assume your enemies will stay still technologically?

Alek

Try hitting the PAV with an RPG if it is small and moving!

My reasons for saying a PAV by definition should be small and light.
Worry about small arms with some blast protection for mines.
Keep it light with a soft footprint for non-command detonated mines.
Keep it inexpensive.
Field it in huge numbers - every foot soldier has one.

How about keeping width small enough to allow entering doorways?
Length only slightly longer than width.
Basically a light armored 4 wheel ATV.
One person with a pack can fit inside.
Have strap on points front and rear for additional equipment if moving from one base of operations to another.
Small enough that you can load a couple inside a Blackhawk or a dozen in a Chinook.

Autobahndriver, I mostly agree with your points except for a few:
- Every foot soldier has one.
I'd make it a 2 man served vehicle, size 10x6 ft. or 12x6ft. In the larger vehicle 2-4 passengers can be carried. It it fits only one person if will still have to be quite heavy in order to provide adequate protection, and a single person could hardly drive and operate weapons effectively at the same time. I would make it possible for the driver to use weapons but only in a critical situation.
-load a couple inside a Blackhawk.
This is too small. I'd settle for lifting one vehicle that weighs <2 tons battle ready.
-to allow entering doorways.
It would still be too slow and awkward, and much slower than a marine with a heavy vest.

My baseline targets for the vehicle would be:
- two versions: 10x6 (crew 2), 12x6 (crew 2 + 2)
- weight 2 tons with basic armor (7.62 and AP mines protection)
- upgrade heavy armor optional
- airtransportable by medium lift helicopters and planes
- unprepared fording
- NBC protection
- Integrated Battle Management System (awareness, communication, target engagement)
- mechanical weapon override for manual aiming & firing of main gun (OCSW&Grendel)
- packs serious firepower, capable of destroying threats from infantry, bunkers, armored vehicles, helicopters (listed in my previous post)
- 500 miles range, 60mph speed
- run flat tires for 50 miles at 30mph, wider profile for lower ground presure

Alek

The 5 ft width is a very important target to hit as the width of a C-130's cargo bay is 122 inches, almost exactly 10 ft.
All new systems must be designed around existing systems because of various constraints (such as transportation in this case).

Foot steering could be a solution, but Im thinking of a more conventional system which would require less training and would be more familiar to everybody.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/bmp-3/images/bmp-3_10.jpg
Also the driver should control a weapon only in exceptional conditions. The weapon systems (OCSW, Grendel, Trigat missile) will have automated IR tracking and lock on to specific IR signatures, which would enable the driver to use defensive measures in exceptional conditions (i.e. the weapon officer is down).

Weapons officer station(from EFOGM HUMVEE):
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/efogm/images/efo6s.jpg

Crew coordination is very difficult in a tandem configuration.
Id put the WSO slightly behind the driver(1 ft), so his seat can rotate and he can be more effective in controlling different systems, while still having access to the various displays in the dashboard.

Reginhild

Warbucks

Actually, it's the speed of the target that determines hit or miss. If you're shooting at a stationary vehicle, then you can hit it with just about anything.
My point about laser-guided rounds was that the PAV relies on speed not to get hit, which is fine as long as the other guy doesn't use precision guided weapons. I mean, seriously, if the other guy has weapons like the TERM, your PAV is going to die anyway.
The US Army is extremely allergic to casualties, so they want to have strong protective equipment. A crunch APC is not going to cut the mustard. Now, it's possible active defenses could neutralize the RPG, but what do you do when the other guy uses hyper-velocity missiles.
IAC, I think Solidpoint is focussing too much on technology for his novel and not enough on the story. He should come up with a compelling story that could or will happen in the real world. Also note that by going the PAV route, he's deviating significantly from the real world strategy of going to the FCS.

Warbucks

The most expensive part of the vehicle is the electronics and sensors, followed by the gas turbines. Unless you are going to substantially change the design of a PAVs sensors to make them very sheap at lower capability, then you will pay the same for IVIS and its ilk on a PAV as you would on an Abrams.
I don't agree that the heavies are a target. If I'm an insurget, I'd target a Bradley full of infantry before I target an M1 Abrams. Why? Because the Braldey is more likely to be killed if I hit it and it will cause more casulaties if I do. Of course, if the Abrams is going to present its ass to me, then I'd take the shot.
FWIW, Autobahndriver's new handle is Reginhild. He's from Germany. I'm not.

Warbucks

A laser guided weapon can be as cheap as $10K per shot. See the guided 2.75" rockets the US Army is developing for their attack choppers.

A PAV is going to cost you anywhere from half a million to a million dollars a pop. Hell, even an ASV-150 Armored car goes for 3/4 million.

Laser guidance is NOT frontal attack only. The TERM rounds for example are designed to attack from above.

Stingers are guided, they are not a ballistic werapon like the RPG. There is no reason you can't get laser-guided or other guided warheads for an RPG.

The truth is, the US Army is going for increase long range precision attack weapons and a hopefully lighter weheeled vehicle. I think the weapons/sesnor technology is a good idea, but the lightweight APC type vehicle is nuts for direct combat.

Me, I'd just write the story using weapons the US has or is going to develop. If you get too far off into fantasyland, the story might not sell. OTOH, who knows what the editos really want, since they have a terrible record at picking which stories actually sell (85% failure rate), so who knows?

Reginhild

I still believe in a PAV as a PAV - something different with emphasis on the "P"

A one to two man small vehicle - If it were based on an existing ATV with light armor you would be looking at $10,000 to $15,000 per vehicle. One would belong to each soldier or two man buddy team. Special Ops has already proven its worth without the light armor.

Yeah you could take one out easily with a RPG if it were sitting still - but this would change enemy battle tactics. Now you can't fire on foot soldiers from a decent range and you have to resort to a slow reload, less accurate, more cumbersome weapon. Our soldiers gain the small arms range advantage and are hard to kill if they are not sitting still. Such a small vehicle also gains an advantage of being able to take advantage of more cover and concealment than a large vehicle.

The military not being satisfied with light armor is BS. I recommended placing light armor on all Army trucks (HMMWV on up) back in 2001. The Army didn't decide to do so until a year into OIF. We are only talking steel plate on these vehicles - nothing fancy.

At a cost of $10-15K each, it could reasonably be accepted by the Army at less than half the cost of a HMMWV. Two to three PAVs replacing one HMMWV would be cost acceptable.

Being a Personal Assault Vehicle, I would see the PAV as change in the way dismounted light infantry operate. If you go larger, you might as well call it an APC.

PS: not "from" Germany -> stationed "in" Germany but returning home

Warbucks

Reginhild,

Assuming you're going to make the go-cart capable of withstanding a .50 bullet, you'll need 3/4" of Brinnell 600 armor plate. Using a rough swag of a 5'x5' cube,@3/4" thick plates, you get 9.375 cubic feet at 490 pounds per cubic foot, that's a whopping 4,593 pounds, or nearly two tons of armor plate.

There's a reason the Armored Hummers use fancy ceramics for their armor design. Or are you assuming a two ton ATV will be able to move around at anything above a snail's pace?

Assuming you go to a ceramic type armor, you're looking at perhaps $30K worth of armor per PAV. This assumes that a PAV would require roughly 1/3rd of the armor of a Hummer, which costs roughly $100K for the armor alone.

No, how is your infantry guy going to fight from the PAV? Are you going to have turreted weapons? FLIR sensors? GPS IFF technology? You'd have to answer YES, otherwise you'd be unable to fight effectively at night or on the move.

Figure at least another $150K for all the fancy electronics (just look at the cost of the M1A2SEP to see how really scary electronics can cost) and you end up with a minimum quarter million dollar PAV. Not such a bargain anymore.

Then consider what happens if the other guy has TERM style rounds for his tanks and you find out that crunchy expensive go-carts are just not that effective.

It's easy to design something that Abdul the Camel Drive can't destroy with his AK-47. It's not so easy to design something to fight Red China whose tech level is rapidly approaching the US.

Reginhild

For the armor I was thinking 3/8" 6AL4V Titanium Plate backed with Spectra in a shape that has the outer surfaces angled back from the vertical midpoint of the vehicle. The Vertical center would have a square of 3.5 ft x 5 ft and it would angle back (vertically rising 2 ft) to the top of the vehicle at 2 ft x 2 ft and the lower plate would be possibly 2.5 ft x 3.5 ft (again 2ft below the midpoint). This would be better armor than the steel plate used currently for upgrading HMMWVs.

This may not stop all .50 BMG rounds but should stop AP rounds of a lesser caliber. Cost for the armor raw material should be under $10K including small armored glass windows on all 4 sides. Titanium and spectra along with the size help keep weight down. You could put a gun port on the front, back and each side and have a hatch top that opens in two pieces to give partial protection for firing a mounted MG or MK19.

I would not go with a turret for additional expense. If you wanted to throw a small amount of additional money at the project, I would have a mechanical linkage to control the roof mounted weapon. An automotive industry standard backup video system could be used with the ccd camera mounted behind the weapon sight instead of on the rear bumper.

No ceramic armor as it has to be replaced each time it is hit with anything (including possibly rocks). No fancy electronics, soldiers drive vehicles now with night vision goggles when needed (although Raytheon does make a vehicle mound IR turret sight for emergency vehicles for $12K).

P.S. Titanium is half as dense as steel, is half as stiff as steel, stronger than steel, more expensive to work with and repair, wont rust. Titanium is not a good material for bearing components (parts that slide or rub against each other) as titanium will gall (Titanium nitride is another story). Spectra is lighter than Kevlar at the same strength and has reached large production quantities now.

Compared to your 5' cube mentioned my design's armor weight is less than 1000lbs including mounts/ports/hatch. Plate thickness is 1/2 that of 3/4" steel plate. Titanium weighs 1/2 that of steel of comprable thickness. Surface area is less than 1/2 that of a 5' cube.
1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/8th

I think of the PAV as a PERSONAL Assault Vehicle not some large vehicle that has a crew and crew weapons.

Reginhild

http://www.deere.com/en_US/ProductCatalog/HO/media/images/photogallery/hpx_series/2col/hpxtrail4x4_110415_2col.jpg

Think of one of these with the crew and engine area armored and solid foam filled wheels.

Or something like one of these illustrating armored area vs. total area:

http://img.engadget.com/common/images/2982211666608644.JPG

http://www.thecarconnection.com/images/gallery/tmb/7431_image.jpg

Alek

I think the purpose of the PAV is somewhat unclear. Which threats is it going to engage?

Since it will have light armor protection only against small arms fire, it will be unsuitable for combat in the open. Also if you eliminate the heavy weapons that were suggested (cannon or missile launcher) it will only be able to fight infantry.

So its main roles would be:
- Transport (of ONE person)
- light skirmishes from a concealed position(it will be shredded in the open)

I'd rather give the soldiers a sheap (5000$) cross-country motorbike than a tiny light armored cage without big weapons.

On the other hand if the vehicle is slightly bigger and has a bit more armor and a lot more wepons, if would be very usefull in the following scenarios:
- anti-tank defencive measure
- anti-tank offence (in some cases)
- anti-helicopter defence
- bunker buster
- infantry sewing machine
Even if it costs 250,000, its a good price/performance ratio.

Warbucks

If all you're going to stop is 7.62 NATO rounds, you may as well just armor the soldier and forget about armoring the motorbike. You also don't address the issue of how you expect to hit anyone with shoulder-fired weapons when you don't have a stabilized weapons mount.

Coolhand77

Not much besides full tank armor can reliably deflect or stop a .50 BMG anyway. Even armored Hummers, after a few rounds in the same area, will start to take penetrating rounds...and thats assuming they arn't using AP ammunition. Basically you have to design your armor to defeat two types of threat, KE or Kinetic Energy, and SC or shaped charge. The double walled, metal/polymer/whatever foam core may be the best combination of light weight and stopping ability given the proper materials. The exterior should be hardened plating of some sort, using angled plates to reduce "biting angles", possibly a Titanium alloy/ceramic composite for the best deflection properties. Behind that, should be the liquid/inert gas filled foam, to assist in defeating any warheads that penetrate the outer shell. The interior layer should be hardened plate again, with a Kevlar "spall curtain" to help contain any fragments that actually get through. Like all armor, effectiveness depends on thickness, so some areas and applications may or may not be armorable with this type of technology, but I would like to see what our tests would come up with. Untill we have empircal data that says it wont work, this subject should continue to at least be explored.

Warbucks

A .50 BMG can be stopped by 3/4" of Brinnell 600 armor plate, which is definitely not tank armor levels. The problem is that this stuff is heavy. As you point out, ceramics are lighter but they shatter under impact. TANSTAAFL.

Coolhand77

Thats why I said ceramic/titanium alloy composit. The exposed surface would probably be titanium alloy with the harder ceramic adding stiffness to help deflect glancing blows and smallarms fire. When there is no one material that does the job, start looking it layered materials of different properties. Kinda like steel reinforced concrete.

Warbucks

Titanium dioxide IS a ceramic. The problem with any type of ceramic is that it shatters under repeated blows. If you use pure titanium, then the armor is thicker compared to steel and weighs roughly the same.

You could of course have armor thick enough to stop .30 bullets with ceramic plates behind the armor to stop .50BMG, but then you still have the problemn that the ceramic will not stand up to repeated hits. Of course, this might slow down the .50 enough so that the ceramic could handle it, but I have no data either way.

Armor vehicles are heavy, unless you go for ceramics that can shatter. There is no substitute for the heavy armor which is why armored vehicles use the heavy material. If you look at armored limousines, they use ceramics, kevlar and plastics like Lexan, which can stop a few hits but are not designed to withstand sustained fire. Then again, the idea is to give the limo enough time to escape the kill zone. For a combat machine, you HAVE to be able to withstand repeated hits or your vehicle becomes useless as soon as it's fired upon.

Coolhand77

Thats why I said Titanium, ceramic, metal foam/honeycomb, titanium/ceramic, and kevlar, layered in that order. A PAV isn't supposed to have to stand up to sustained fire from a .50 BMG, because as soon as the .50 opens up, the PAVs buddies "lay the smack down" with .50s, 25mm, 40mm, AT weapons of whatever flavor, and basically reduce the hits coming in. "The best defense is a good offense". Look at it this way, a dozen PAV's are doing thier thing when someone opens up on them. They will be moving, dodging, and hopefully firing back, presenting a more difficult target, even to multiple aggressors, than a big brick of an APC, that cannot engage multiple targets at once. If your PAV is getting hosed with a .50, you arn't using it right. It will probably catch the occasional burst, and you might lose a few troopers, but they would have a better chance of survival than they would on foot with just body armor, and packing hand held/shoulder fired weapons. or all cooped up in one nice big Juicy target that any Johnny Jihad with an RPG can disable, and/or distroy.
Your Tactics with a PAV should be more like cavalry and footsoldiers than heavy armor combat. And if you DO wind up engaging heavy armor, keep moving and present a hard target till the air assets can get there. Which would survive longer, 12 PAV's running rings around a bunch of tanks and keeping them occuped from a distance with a plethora of armament, or 2 Bradleys trying to "Hull down" under cover and hope they can get a shot off on a soft spot with the 25mm or the TOW and get thier troops deployed before one of the tanks pegs them? My money is on the PAV's either keeping the tanks buisy till the Aircover gets there, or even taking them out with a constant barrage of 25mm and morter fire.

Alek

Coolhand I agree with your scenario for usability of the PAV. But I'd like to stress that a tiny vehicle like that can also carry some serious anti-armor weapons. For example, the french VBL(closest to my idea of a PAV) has the Milan ATGM system on board.
With this weapon, its small size and mobility, the PAV can be a great for setting up ambushes for tanks and convoys.

Also in the tank/heavy APC Vs. half a dosen PAVs, scenario, I would gladly trade one destroyed PAV per one destroyed enemy tank.

Regarding the PAVs armor, i think in a basic confoguration it's enough if it can endure 7.62 sustained fire, a few .50 shots or a grenade shrapnel.

Grendelizer

I think tactics specifically geared to a PAV "swarm" would be the key to making it work.

However, for an urban attack like Fallujah, I'm still more interested in the concept of a "miniaturized" Bradley, or something the size of the German Wiesel with a two-man crew, modular, remote turrets, and armor that has more in common with the M1 Abrams than anything else. This would be a bulldog of a support vehicle for the dismounted troops who are going in and out of buildings all day. If they're fired upon by heavy weapons, they can back off and this support vehicle suppresses with a 30mm cannon turret module, or if it needs to destroy a house, it blasts away with a 120mm mortar/gun turret module, or if tanks show up, it launches ATGMs from that kind of module.

Since it has space for four troops in back (two of whom are usually manning MGs in hatches at the rear corners), if you've got a guy down in the middle of the street that's being swept by fire, the assault support vehicle races up, opens the back door and pulls the wounded in, and races away.

It's basic purpose is to carry heavy support weapons' modules dedicated to the support of an infantry assault. It's weight limit would echo the planned Future Combat System vehicles at about 20 tons, except I'd make it smaller so the armor can be thicker. It wouldn't be designed to slug it out with other tanks in the desert, but would pop out behind a wall to hose down a window in an apartment building from which sniper or RPG fire is coming from.

I guess my underlying theory is that nothing is as efficient in urban combat as heavy armor, but to make heavy armor manageable, you've got to greatly reduce the size of the vehicle. Now, if speed Ń as a general principle Ń is found to be more of a necessity in urban combat than heavy armor, then the foundational principle of my concept is in question.

John

Coolhand77

True, they could mount heavier anti-tank weapons...I was just giving an example of PAVs decked out for scouting and infantry suppression, running into an unexpected armor threat. Armed and supplied properly, a dozen PAVs would probably decimate a similar number of tanks...if used properly.

Yah, urban is a different ballpark all together. You are restricted to pretty much "straight line" driving from intersection to intersection, which makes you pretty vulnerable. I could see hanging additional armor plating on the PAV in that kind of situation if you were using it as a "Patrol car" or scout in advance of the APCs. Exposure to .50 bmg type weapons and anti-tank weapons could range from limited to "running the gauntlet" depending on the buildings and streets. Of course, that is where you would use the PAV as a "scout" (better chance of surviving an ambush than a squad of grunts) for the heavier "battlefield Taxis" and support artillary (APCs and Tanks).

I'm not saying do away with "conventional armor" I'm saying, deverisfy your unit distribution to minimize weeknesses. A PAV theoretically would be small, fast, hard to hit, and have better situational awareness, where as your heavies would be slow, easier to hit, but could take the hit better...and using the PAVs like "scout drones" or "Wiskers/feelers" would improve THIER situational awareness.

Coolhand77

hmmmm, anyone see the new Batmobile? From what I've seen, its close...though at 1.7 mil a pop, and 2.1 tons, it may be a little on the overdone side

Zipperhead

Here's your PAV! No armor needed :D

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=717

Coolhand77

Hey, my aforementioned "wiskers"...With guns! Me likey

Zipperhead

And it's buzzbomb cousin...

http://www.gizmodo.com/archives/dragonfly-uav-now-equipped-with-metal-storm-technology-015778.php

:D

Coolhand77

Hmmm, one of those covering each PAV and a few for the APC, plus some of the track units running anti infantry patrol around all the armor units...why am I getting flashbacks of the battle scenes from the future in the Terminator movies?

Coolhand77

here we go..good looks like some good ideas to apply here...and check out the composite armor...woot!
http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=744

solidpoint

Disappointing on so many levels, and an impossible requirements list. To generate 1MW one needs 1,350 hp... in a 3 ton vehicle??? Insanity!!! You're going to have 4-5 PAVs around anyway to carry the general's tea set so just put a hydraulically driven 1MW generator on the electronic system and let the PAVs jack in and drive it. Light, simple, flexible, effective… Duh.... Designing a vehicle to be powered primarily with batteries makes it too heavy to lift with.. .well, pretty much everything. It's the reason the hybrid tech is all incorporated in the boom chariot on the PAV.. you can bring it if you want/need it, or just burn a bit more diesel if weight is more important. Simple, light, flexible, elegant, effective.... Duh... these people are pretending to be engineers? Toilet paper diplomas!

There isn't an angled surface on the vehicle, no V-hull, 4 wheels so one mine and its dead in the water, as likely would be the entire crew. There is nothing even remotely innovative about this thing - a complete and total waste of taxpayer dollars... AND... the existing VBL is a much better design. It looks like having identified the requirements fairly well their heavy ties with the entrenched suppliers obliterated any trace of creativity. This is a total and complete cluster-fuck…too bad, because they identified some promising technologies and one would think Lockheed, desperate to find anything useful for the C-130 to do, would be a little more creative.

As soon as I hear back from the patent office I'll have to give them a heads up. I doubt they will be interested. They already have funding for this brain-devoid abortion. All anyone has to do is spend 10 minutes looking at any SADF vehicle - products of 3 decades of mine warfare - and they’ll see all the design elements needed for a great ultra-light platform. Even the existing fastback HumVee uses better geometry than this awful piece of chit. Any vehicle that has a flat surface on it should be suspect. This has nothing but flat surfaces. This junk is going to get a lot of people killed. Mostly this just convinced me that Georgia Tech is an institution of ass-kissing losers, of, by and for losers. (I worked with a few GT grads in Florida... this explains a lot! Uuuugh.... )

The 6.8SPC is self-serving and useless and wastes the funding needed to create a significantly better solution like the Grendel… which is why I am here. Add dangerous to that list of sins and you will likely have the same disgusted feeling of impending disaster that I do about the Ultra 3T.

Have any of these idiots ever been to Kosovo? Zipperhead, send them some mail quick before they start killing platoons in this death-trap. This thing is stupid, wasteful, and more ominously, very dangerous!
:mad:

Grendelizer

Solid, tell us how you really feel! :D

John

solidpoint

… like over a year of research and head-scratching and some quality input from all of you is being pushed aside because some very stupid, greedy, and uncaring people with deep pockets and political connections would rather line their pockets than provide Americans in uniform a decent chance of coming home in one piece after a year or two in harms way. That one of the nation's largest universities would not only go along with this but lobby for those dollars is obscene and criminal. Worse yet is the performance of the government weapons labs. Take any system they create and drop it off at a bicycle shop and let a bicycle mechanic work on it for a month and it will come out weighing 20-30% as much and will perform better. I have done a lot of bike touring in my day and trust me, when you are staring up at a 9-11,000 ft pass and all you have to get you up there are your lungs and legs you learn about lightweight structures and materials pretty damned fast.

The current posture of the military-industrial comlex reminds me of the electric fuses on US torpedoes at the beginning of WWII. They didn’t work for almost 2 years because the idiots at Naval Ordnance refused to subject them to proper testing - in spite of endless and vehement testimony from submariner crews and command. For this reason alone the submarine fleet in the pacific was rendered useless until the last 14-16 months of the war. When Congress finally got the gov't weapons labs out of their way industry responded with a flood of massively better equipment for hundreds of systems. Sound familiar? If not for Rumsfeld & SOCOM we'd be throwing stones at the Talliban from donkey carts. My hope for the SCAR is precisely that when given a choice warfighters will of their own accord choose the Grendel over all other offerings.

Trust me John, until you have lived in the South and rubbed elbows with those self-serving pompous asses you just have no idea how insignificant and expendable they see you to be and how important it is that they be able to demonstrate to all of their 'ole boy friends how right it all is that they are the masters of the universe. It's a very unpleasant part of old England that dug in like a tic and never died in the Deep South. A perfect demonstration of this can be had by looking at Armored Holdings (AH) in Jacksonville, Florida. Those bufoons floated over 100 million in long term (30 yr I believe) bonds to ramp up production of armored HumVees while paying themselves a salary of 5 million plus a year.

Do you believe that business will continue at anywhere near the rate it was running at last year? No! The company will be bankrupt in a few years, the bonds will be defaulted on, and those self-agrandizing asses will have made over 20 million dollars of personal income out of this ponze scheme while (and better-suited M113s sat idle) defrauding shareholders and bondholders alike. I find it cynical and offensive that people respond to their country's cry for help in an hour of need by awarding themselves obscene windfall profits (5 million a year is what 200 Marines make) while providing a product they know is hopelessly inadequate. If this doesn't offend you I don't think we have many common points on our moral compasses. I was born and raised within a few miles of the Minn border and I think you and I are both make of better stuff than that.

Zipperhead

>>“There isn't an angled surface on the vehicle, no V-hull,”

Actually if you look closely at the first one up top, it does have a V hull for protection. I kinda like that one, reminds me of the British Ferret recon vehicle.

But you are right…I just don’t understand what the point of the bottom one is for…doesn’t make any sense to me either!

>>“All anyone has to do is spend 10 minutes looking at any SADF vehicle - products of 3 decades of mine warfare - and they’ll see all the design elements needed for a great ultra-light platform.”

No kidding! Just pick from the SADF’s inventory as if it’s a catalogue! Every shape, size and job, they’ve got one that’s mineproof. All we gotta do now is add some RPG protection and some overhead remote MG’s and we’re really cooking.

>>“They didn’t work for almost 2 years because the idiots at Naval Ordnance refused to subject them to proper testing - in spite of endless and vehement testimony from submariner crews and command.”

I’d forgotten about that! My grandfather was in the Canadian Navy during that time, but he’d heard of it too and told me and me uncle about it. Downright criminal negligence bordering on treason…I mean, sooner or later you HAVE to do field testing for military gear…there’s just no other way.

>>“My hope for the SCAR is precisely that when given a choice warfighters will of their own accord choose the Grendel over all other offerings.”

Totally agree: As long as it meets AK reliability levels, a SCAR/Grendel should be THE infantry standard full stop.

>>“Zipperhead, send them some mail quick before they start killing platoons in this death-trap.”

I’m on it.

Coolhand77

Yah, I didn't read through that whole article :o
The only thing that really caught my eye was the composite armor, and the "crew pod". Most of the rest of the vehicle could get blown to pieces, but theoretically the crew compartment would be the "armored ping pong ball" and just get blown off the frame. I was thinking something similar, but with a narrower profile and reconfigured for our PAV concept ideas

okay, thats my 5cents
oh and come now, we all know that academics can't stand warmongering soldiers and think that the human race should be above warfare by now. :D
"If you are young and conservative, you have no heart. If you are old and liberal, you have no brain." (Paraphrased from Mark Twain)

solidpoint

Yeah, the JP8 did have a few nice features, but that wasn't the "ultimate GT vehicle", it was the short-term kludge. So much for "ultimate". If they were designing this in 1970, OK, I might give them a pass, but after thousands and thousands of innocents have lost their lives in vehicle mine explosions over the last 30 years it just infuriates me that this kind of nonsense can get funding. If I lost a loved one in one of these things I would sue the living crap out of GT and the Naval Ordnance people.

Btw, I was working on a bullet design that would allow me to test advanced concepts and stumbled onto something really significant. I need to get a patent application in before I say too much but it has one very nice feature. Like a snowboard or other spring-return energy systems, it allows the bullet to travel forward very quickly/easily during the first 3-5mm - especially in conjunction with driving band bullets - which lowers chamber pressures by expanding the volume the propellant has to burn in during the first critical millimeters/microseconds. I will need better modeling tools to determine how substantial the results are, but will file the patent first and work out the particulars of performance later. My guess is using this and driving bands will increase velocity by 15-25% depending on the load, bullet weight, and muzzle velocity of the bullet. It should also lighten recoil somewhat. I hit on the idea while working on a bullet that would create a large wound channel AND penetrate body armor without wasting the energy needed to accelerate a sabot down the barrel. Now I have to find a reliable source to make the bullet so I can test it. It’s pretty exciting to me. (You may recall my numerical speculations that using the existing VLD bullet design and base-bleed technology I would be able to exceed the ballistic performance of the .50BMG) My goal is to give the Grendel 144 the ballistics of a .50BMG ball, and if possible, do it without resorting to base-bleed technology which would also be a “mass bleed” round and diminish terminal effects significantly. Of course the terminal effects will be much different for a Grendel round than a .50bmg, but for suppressive fires and counter-battery fire perhaps good enough. Of course the terminal effects will be diminished, but then so will the recoil, weapon weight, AMMO weight, and mount/vehicle weight needed to safely operate the weapon.

Zipper,

I got the idea for a Grendel round that would mimic the ballistics of an M2 after reading http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-65/toc.htm on the operation of the M2, and was also inspired by Arne's ACOG project. This read also sparked another idea - to write an article for this site that discusses the merits of a Grendel round vs the 5.56 and 7.62x51 in terms of time saved by being able to lay the gun on target, and using strictly traversing fire as opposed to traversing and then searching fires due to the Grendel's flatter trajectory. There may also be some benefits to having a longer grazing fire range, but not having to resort to searching fires seemed to offer the biggest time and ammo savings while dramatically reducing enemy reaction time and therefore proving much more effective over the short-legged 5.56 and 7.62. I am not a qualified machinegunner and asked John if he would write the article or ask autobahndriver to. It now occurs to me that you may be very well qualified to write such an article. My hope is that when discussed in detail, in the native language of the professional military, the case for the Grendel will be driven home with a forcefulness that has eluded us to date. Think about it. I will be happy to wordsmith such an article if you want the help.

Zipperhead

Ok, just so we are clear though… “JP8” is actually not the vehicle name as that’s actually a grade of aircraft/military/diesel fuel. That particular vehicle is actually the Ultra Armored Patrol or UltraAP. Personally I think it would be really mine survivable, and in fact does closely match several vehicles from South Africa (Mamba) and one from Rhodesian war (the “pig”? I don’t remember it’s name…).

I would venture that the heavy bits, like the engine block/tranny and the armor, would be designed to stick bolted to the frame…but that the hood, and some of the other bits would go flying after the blast. This would give the troops a fighting chance against the very largest IED/roadsidebombs.

But I’m in agreement that the other one…so it’s got a built in generator…so what?!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Solidpoint, that idea of yours sound uber-cool! I’ve got a few ideas of what you might have cottoned onto. Have you seen Corbin Swage company? I dunno if they are still in business, but they used to make equipment to produce bullets in all sorts of configurations.

As for your idea about an article, could you expand on what specific issues you’d want addressed in it?

But yea, I’d be totally into helping out. I totally believe we need this cartridge as the general purpose combat round. Meaning, all infantrymen, security specialists, SOCOM, airborne troopers, armored corps troopers (because they get out of their tanks a lot these days, in close prox to terrs, for urban building searches and so on), designated marksmen and so on. The ‘rear guard’ troops, which form the other 90% of the modern military, can make great continued use of the 5.56 rifles and SAWS, due to the cartridges’ lowered cost, lowered recoil and vast investment we’ve made for them already.

solidpoint

Zipper,

Humm, I thought that watermark was the vehicle designation, but looking more closely I see you are right, it is one of the listed features, all in different fonts and weights and in no particular alignment to make that clear... but hell, you are right about the correct name.

Taking a look at Chapter 6: Combat Techniques of Fire http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/23-65/ch6.htm#s2

I thought it might be useful to discuss the advantages that extended range provides in terms of plunging vs grazing fires, overhead fires with the required saftey margin, and the added benefit of range in enfilade where the gun can simply be layed on the target and fired into the beaten zone. (since a beaten zone is optimal and likely has great depth, an extra 400-600 yards of range makes a huge difference... my guess... your experience)

Even more dramatic I suspect is the advantage of simple traversing or swinging traverse fire as opposed to the very costly and slow traversal and search fires where the enemy can only be engaged by traversing AND then firing searching fires for depth - and hoping the enemy hasn't ducked for cover by then. This would also apply to linear targets with depth, where long-range bullets require very little if any change in muzzle elevation due to changes in depth. (I am now VERY sure the M240 should be fielded in the .338... the effectiveness of the .50BMG in terms of gun operation with logistics much closer to the 7.62 x 51).

You might also want to discuss the advantages when engaging deep targets of not always having to start in the middle of the column, but rather engaging the rear of the column first since those targets are most able to find cover as the distance makes TOF long and gives them too much reaction time leaving you chasing the targets once the initial volley is completed. In short, it allows one gunner to do the work of two. (The Grendel paired with the .338 in a M240 & M249 pair would be VERY effective with the .338 taking up the back and the Grendel the middle forward!)

You might also want to discuss how, as with longer range arty, longer range fire, especially MG fire, is a substitute for maneuver. This is because greater range allows you to engage more targets without changing positions as the gunfire can change position instead.

You could discuss the ability of range to allow mutually supporting fires at greater ranges, so a Fallujah-style condon operaton can be more thinly manned and still be equally effective. (Rate of fire might be important here too - can you say MG-42 in Grendel?)

It is my assesment that the discussion of range has been limited to "you only need 100-300 yards in MOUT" and "you need lots and lots for sniping and engagements in mountainous or vast open spaces" and this overlooks all of the important details of how MGs are acutally used in combat. Once we get down to the particulars the MASSIVE potential of range to conserve bullets and increase effectiveness just jumps right out at you. It has got to take 10 times as many bullets and give most of the enemy time to get to cover when you have to both traverse and search - while simple traverse only requires you fire into the target and make a single adjustment for "the" range. If you have time to set up the range on a heavy tripod all you have to do is move the gun back and forth between the traversal stops as the gun has already been registered. This is commonly done for night ops when denying the enemy use of a road or other fixed terrain feature.

Give this a read and think it over. I think this range issue is very compelling when put in a more detailed context.

Coolhand77

Wasn't the Minimi slowed down when it was adopted as the M-249? I seem to recall somone mentioning the rate of fire was somewhere around 1200 to 900 untill the brass decided it was too fast.

Actually going with .338 in the mg42/mg3 would be close to its original 8mm loading wouldnt it? (Lessee .338 x 25.4 = 8.5852) Okay, a little bigger than the original loading...hmmm, well, bigger is better for these applications anyway.

I'm in total agreement with the load change. Use the .338 in the M240s and bump the M16/M4 family and M249/Minimi up to 6.5G. And take the damn limiter off those 249s. Higher rate of fire is what a machinegun is all about.

Zipperhead

Solid, it sounds to me like you have a strong handle on that aspect, why not just write it up? I could contribute by talking about other related issues...

solidpoint

Cool,

Could your run down the ballistics on the 7.92 round? I found so many loadings for it I couldn't decide which was actually used in the MG-42. My tentative conclusion was that the .338 round generates about 35-40% more energy than the 7.92 round, but again, not sure of my basis for comparison. Also, could you run down the rate of fire on the minimi? This is the first I have heard of it. I'll bet you will find anxiety about barrel wear the crux of the issue - stupid, since driving band bullets solve that problem and ADD dramatically to performance and reduced fouling at the same time. BTW, barrel wear on the FNL 15.5 x 115 was solved precisely this way so why not adopt it universally... and progressive twist barrels along with them...both of which increase velocity, and reduce wear while making our bullets worthless to the badguys. Finally, the 6.5 Grendel gives us the diameter to use driving bands and still have a 6mm+ bullet size with the required weight. How is the drafting coming?

Ziper,

Thanks for the reference to the swaging method. It would solve some other problems quite nicely and allow me to innovate at will. I'll have to see how much they want for the 6.5 system. As for the MG discussion, I am just not qualified to write the article. In particular, I don't know how much time it takes under various conditions to have to add searching fires to traversing fires. If you asked me to speculate on how it would affect the shot-clock if NBA teams were required to execute in-and-out offenses by bringing the ball into the paint first before kicking it out to 3-pt shooters I could make a very good guess and conduct such a discussion with comfort - being a 20 yr NBA fan. But discussing how much longer it takes, or how many more rounds it takes to operate short-range vs long-range MGs I have no basis to operate from. Do you or someone you know have a contact that is a proficient, seasoned machinegunner who could provide such a basis?

As an example, lets say you set up your PAV's chariot gun to provide night-time protective fires from a low rise off to one side of a curving road with shallow ditches on each side. You register your gun to various staked markers on the road to deny the enemy use of the road to infiltrate friendly positions during the night. Any discussion of the benefit of range should be informed by your night visioning capabilities, weather, and the range of counter-battery fires. What happens if this is done during daylight hours, what if there is rain or a dust storm, or if you have visioning systems that can penetrate such visual obscurants and your enemy doesn't. Does the case for the effectiveness of added range decay to nil, or is it even more potent?

Unfortunately, I don't even know the simple things, like how long and by what factor (3x, 5x, 10x 20x ???) does ammo consumption rise when you have to search AND traverse. In the given scenario you can't just kill a few and call it a day, you have to kill, wound or drive off all of the enemy to hold the point and protect your own troops - your mission statement. Given that searching fires require that you have to adjust your elevation while firing and observing tracer fire, assuming your enemy can also observe your tracers and take evasive maneuvers, how much more ammo is required because your gun doesn't have the range to fire flatly through the entire depth of the enemy formation? (IR tracers offer an interesting point of discussion when we have IR visioning systems and they don't)

The US arsenals should be conducting this research, and they pretend they have and keep reporting that new weapons have no significant advantages, while barrels for the M2 are being bought by the Army by the 10s of thousands even as we speak - somebody is talking out of their ass on this, that's for sure. My hope was that some old machinegunners could speak from their experience and try to quantify the many advantages of range for an MG, and then we would have a much better idea of the actual experience gunners would have when using the Grendel instead of the 5.56x43 and 7.62x51. My end goal would be to construct a table or chart which would have modes of fire down the side and bullet ranges across the top, and bullet counts/hit probabilities in the squares. For each firing mode we could have sub-ranges where mutual or one-sided visual obscurants existed. (humm, I wonder if the US arsenal report that came out last fall might have such a chart... will have to hug Google especially tight to get that one I bet... :D )

This all sounds very complicated doesn't it? And you know what? I'll bet beans to bullion that this is EXACTLY the composite assessment that real-world experienced machinegunners form with experience on the field of battle! Once again, the real value of the SCAR would be in allowing this experience to arise in actual combat conditions. We can only hope!

Zipper, please beat the bushes and then make a suggestion as to how we can crack this nut. As a last resort I could write this up as a series of questions for consideration, perhaps with a blank matrix as described and with footnotes taken from the field manual, but it would be so much more effective if an assertion from an expert than as a bunch of rhetorical questions.

solidpoint

I just had an epiphany, what happened after WW-I, where gunfire was from machineguns and at relatively longer ranges - calibers got heavier and longer. What happened after WW-II ? Calibers got smaller and shorter, why? Because the Russians developed the concept of the assualt rifle based on their doctrine of closing with the enemy - AT ANY COST!!! The Russians lost more men in the 3-month campaign for East Prussia than the US and UK lost in the entire European theater of war - combined!!! .

This reinforces two important points. Range and maneuver can be traded off, and 2nd, if you want to use short range weapons you have to be willing to incur large losses. With the advent of PAVs there is NO infantry, all riflemen are mounted, engaged at all times, and with a very deep logistical support capability at their disposal. If you want to keep losses to a minimum then, use longer range weapons... duh! The USAF has spent billions on stand-off weapons as a result of this very observation, the Army needs to do the same. (and perhaps defacto has, choosing the M2 over shorter ranged weapons even when its terminal effects are overkill, simply becaue they need the range)

solidpoint

The PAV is doing much better in MOUT than expected. This provided there are enough to begin a Fallujah style assault ( a case where political consideration constrained the military to limit structure damage ) by putting one at the intersection of every street in the city. Begin the assault by inserting large numbers of RMK-cannon equipped PAVs using helicopters into open areas such as parks, parking lots, stadiums, etc, even if you have to use a few BLU-82s to get the job done.

After thinking it over it seems the only constraint on flooding a city with armor is the enemy's ability to choke off approach corridors using debris and rubble or perhaps vehicles. By inserting dozens or even hundreds of PAVs from the center of the city and having them fan out (assumes suppression of enemy fire by helicopter gunships and AC-130S... in what would likely be a pre-dawn operation as the Specters don’t fly in daylight) As soon as the defenders attempt to shift and redeploy to engage the infiltrated PAVs, hundreds or even thousands of PAVs flood the city in a broadside assault where all roads are flooded at the same time so that every intersection in the city has a PAV in it in 15-30 minutes. The bubble guns on 15-18ft cherry pickers provide the missing link between ground fire and CAS and provide security and suppression fires to both - while TIITS supplied targeting info from their elevated vantage point allows ground and CAS to engage with close-in intel. The 800 rpm Mauser 27mm recoilless anti-aircraft gun is perfect for the bubble gun and it is obvious what a big gap not having that leaves in the current weapons compliment. The Apache 30mm M203 would also be great, but the recoil is a bear and degrades accuracy.

PAGE 203: from http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/corrections.html

Mauser RMK development continues. There are now four electrically-powered models, as follows:

RMK 30/2: 30x230 round, 280g at 1,050 m/s (round 44mm diameter, 500g), 4-chamber revolver, 300 rpm, 95 kg weight, 2.2m long (1.7m bbl)

RMK 30/1: 30x280 round, 280g at 1,350 m/s (round 50mm diameter, 655g), 3-chamber revolver, 300 rpm, 125 kg, 3.0m long (2.4m barrel)

RMK 35/1: 35x300 round, 400g at 1,250 m/s (round 50mm diameter, 900g), 3-chamber revolver, 300 rpm, 152 kg, 3.2m long (2.8m barrel)

RMK 35/2: 35x350 round, 430g at 1,480 m/s (round 63mm diameter, 1170g), single rotating chamber, 200 rpm, 280 kg, 3.5m long (2.8m barrel)

All of the easy kills in Fallujah were when the enemy had to maneuver across open areas to redeploy. By flooding the entire city at once, after a few intense minutes, all enemy maneuvers are observed and engaged. Unlike heavies, dead PAVs do not block the full-speed deployment of others behind, they can crawl up over piles of rubble, and have so much firepower they can defeat nearly any ambush. Happily, their V pointed crew kayaks are great at ramming parked vehicles and spreading them to open approach corridors. Hot spots where PAVs must fight thru ambushes are automatically subject to flanking counterbattery fire from other PAVs brought towards those positions to reinforce - while follow-on PAVs take up those PAVs original positions.... just like the Blackhawks in Blackhawk Down did to cover for damaged ones.

It is once again the ability of the PAV to be infiltrated by helicopters that allows this unstoppable strategy to succeed. (In calm winds, and with sufficient clearing space, PAVs could also be airdropped... 12 each from a C-130J, 51 each from a C-17, and 88 from a C5. Not everyone will come out without a scratch, and some crew members would likely be killed, but its 4 parts spread out along 45 feet make it very likely that enough of the PAV system will survive that even combined attacks like mines and small arms will not defeat it and it will survive to maneuver, protect its crew and continue to engage with devastating fire.

Given that EVERY PAV mech infantryman will be able to engage the enemy at all times, instantly, without dismounting, with full situational awareness, and employing HEAVY weapons fire at all times, the system will give the PAV the edge over all other vehicles - provided they are used in appropriate numbers to overwhelm even heavy armor. It looks to me like 5 PAVs will defeat any IFV in the world, and MBTs up to and including T-72s, provided sound tactics are used to include liberal use of Javelin and TOW weapons and MK-19 or other Gatling or Gast principal GLMGs. As best I can tell, by redeploying the 11-man crew and mech infantry into PAVs one gets about a 4-5 fold increase in firepower, the ability to respond en'masse in an instant, and the ability to overwhelm defenders by presenting so many threats at once there is no viable defense. Considering that current mech infantry are in vehicles that have thin top, side and rear armor, and they have to dismount and give up all vehicle armor, the PAV will provide AT LEAST as much protection as current vehicles when all phases, not just the approach phase, are considered. All of this is even more true for the 24 man crews in AmTrac USMC amphibious assault vehicles.

I am almost convinced that once the tactics for PAVs are fully developed they will become the gold standard and we will all wonder of the present mix "what were we thinking"? In another perspective, I think I have done nothing more than invent the Cavalry's horse all over again. Above all what the PAV supports is autonomous action on the part of intelligent, thinking infantry who can exploit split second tactical advantages without having to have an election or 10 minute discussion with the vehicle or higher command. It draws inspiration from the NBA, where 5 man teams work together so smoothly that millisecond maneuver and position are exploited in the sought after holly grail of "flow" to perform amazing feats of skill. An Army of such highly coordinated crews would be stunningly effective and would have much in common with the very tight WW-II bomber crews who fought any crew substitutions vehemently as a life & death matter.

I never intended the PAV to be a real world vehicle, it was just an invention to make an interesting story, but each night as I watch the evening news tally up the body count I feel I own it to them to patent this and then get it into production. Given that Willy’s and Hummer never made much money on their creations I doubt I will make any money on this thing, but if it saves lives it will have been worth the trouble.

PS: I just read "Generation Kill" ... about the USMC 1st Division’s recon in OIF, the tip of the tip of the sword... in unarmored, open-topped Humvees. When charging through cities they fired full auto in a zoned fire plan with M2s and MK-19s the heaviest thing they had. When they waited they waited for arty. The PAVs DragonFire addresses this problem. They would have traded up to PAVs in a heartbeat as they were scared shitless in unarmored vehicles racing through large cities and getting shot to pieces.

PS:
In open country 4 PAVs to a heavy is a good mix. The heavy plays an interesting role, it draws the fire of the opposing armor which allows the PAVs to flank and fire on the thin side and rear armor. Without a heavy to focus their attention on the PAVs will lose one of their own for each enemy heavy, the first one the heavy fires on….assuming they are out of Javelin and TOW missiles. Anyway, it was interesting to see how this mix presented itself so forcefully. For long enemy columns one could go with up to 5 on each side while one heavy confronts the column from one side of the road/trail/approach route. The RMK’s lack of recoil is wonderful for side fire and general accuracy. The PAVs “floating stabilized” suspension is also very helpful for general accuracy of the CROWS and most importantly, the Javelin and TOW operators firing sideways from across the top of the PAV. The cleats/running board at the bottom of the armored slabs gives the missile operators a toehold so they can lean against the angled 3ft slab and then flop across the top of the PAV’s rear deck to fire while on the move at up to maybe 30mph. They can raise the slab on the other side as needed to protect them from return fire.

With the heavies getting the bulk of the attention, and 120mm mortars, GLMGs and RMKs providing suppressive fires, and perhaps using smoke to protect them, they make an impressive open-country assault vehicle, but they need a heavy to anchor the team. If the enemy column is not protected from the rear, long columns of PAVs can engage from behind into the rear and side quarters of enemy heavies from both sides of the road simultaneously in a run and gun drive-by-shooting. Like the MG interrupter gear on WW-I biplanes, TIITS is providing the capability for firing all around such flanking PAVs by “dismounted” DragonFire and chariot assets deposited temporarily at strategic locations. The chariot’s battery and hybrid electric motors give both of these assets limited mobility for several hours to evade counterbattery fire or respond to changing battlefield conditions without having to encumber or distract the base PAVs on their missions making max use of maneuver. So far I keep finding more and more pleasant surprises and few shortcomings, so I am sticking with the described design.

Coolhand77

Haven't had a chance to get to the drafting. Still need to reload CAD on my home PC and I have been dealing with "CAD burnout" from work.
The MG-42 was chambered for 8mm, the MG-3 (currently in use) is chambered for the 7.62x51 NATO round. I'll double check, but I belive its close to the M80 144 grn projectile mentioned in other threads. I will see if I can look this up over the weekend, but I'm a bit swamped at the moment.

Coolhand77

Oh, I DO know that the .338 outperforms the 7.62x51 as far as in sniper rifles, I just don't know by how much. It may be a "modernized 30-06" vs. .308 winchester type comparison

Alek

Perhaps the biggest advantage of the PAV (besides having a big punch in a small package) is the ability to be air-dropped by medium and heavy lift helicopters.

From the medium lift class, the NH-90 is the only one that load a PAV inside the cargo compartment because it has a ramp. It would be a perfect fit for the safe and rapid deployment of PAVs.

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/img_imp/nh90pt1b_z.jpg

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?arbo=3&noeu_id=10010&lang=EN

solidpoint

http://www.google.com/search?lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=NH-90

I think this is the same chopper that was chosen by the Marines to replace Marine One which is the President's helicopter. Assuming weight & balance consideration are agreeable; two PAVs can be transported by this bird internally, with the nose of one sticking out the back of the partially lowered ramp. (the sloped bottom of the crew kayak allows the ramp to be pulled up almost shut)

I need to design a hard-point mount for the PAV so that it can be mounted hard under choppers like the BlackHawk and new USMC SuperHuey. This allows the chopper to maneuver at maximum rates with the PAV attached and allows it to set down on the PAV or drop it from a low altitude - less than 20 ft I'd guess - while on the move. This is important at high altitude on hot days as the chopper can make a low pass at 5,000 ft or more above the altitude at which it can hover. It also makes the chopper almost invulnerable to ground fire as the PAV's armor is added to the chopper's own. Together they will stop 20-30mm cannon fire from near bp range.

In this role the PAV diesel fuel storage located in the honeycomb structure covering the V hull is perfectly located to protect it from ground fire. The side 3x9 armor slabs would likely be detached and placed on the floor of the chopper, adding another 11-12mm of RHA equivalent protection to the chopper's underbelly. These passengers won't have to sit on their helmets for protection. It might also be possible for the driver and HOOOW to be in the PAV while it is airborne so that a CROWS type weapon like the RMK or a MK-19 could be fired to the side - depending on the amount of clearance between the forward PAV bulkhead and the bottom of the chopper. I think this would be important, as the chopper would have to give up a lot of its weapons load to carry the PAV so getting back the use of the PAV's primary heavy weapon would be very welcome.

The solidly attached weight slung so low should make the chopper VERY stable in flight, but would tend to add drag and pitch the nose down a bit - although the PAV has a very pointy nose which can be pitched up via the shock-absorber pushing between the kayak and forward bulkhead of the PAV base unit. I have already specified the installation of the "Last Chance" parachute system used on some small private aircraft for PAVs on these missions so that if shit happened the PAV crew would be safe or could be safely jettisoned in an emergency like the chopper losing an engine. I have a feeling the widespread introduction of PAVs would lead to choppers with a large lift reserve, possibly with a 3rd engine usually idle or NOP but put to use when carrying a PAV.

It might also be possible for the PAV to add its engine's power to operate the choppers electrical systems while in flight.... sort of an APU. 210 hp isn't much to a 6,000hp chopper, but it would make a great APU and provide redundancy at the same time - especially hydraulic system redundancy. A jac in for the control bus and one for hydraulic flow seems simple enough and would then give the pilots complete control over the PAV's systems - including targeting and weapons systems.

I have been playing with the PAV suspension to add the ability to lift the front 2 wheels into a BlackHawk or Huey, then the next wheels and finally the back 2 wheels so that it can "step" up into a low-profile/low ground clearance chopper. It only requires software to make this happen.

Cool,
Let me see if I can find my notes on the 7.92 and .338 back...

NATO 7.62 x 51 has 2,520 ft lbs energy @ muzzle (dbl check this .. not sure what bullet wt this is)

Mauser 7.92 x 57 has 3,276 ft lbs energy @ muzzle

Lapua Mag .338 has 4,830 ft lbs energy @ muzzle == 47% increase in energy

15.5 x 115 BRM has 25,000 ft lbs energy @ muzle (this is a guess based on a 900 grain bullet) http://billstclair.com/energy.html

It penetrates 19mm of RHA at 800m at 45° and is my vote for the chariot gunners MG in twin-barreled Gast-principal ... aka Mr P-A-I-N ... I call the gun BIG HURT ... a play on words based on Ben Hur ... chariot... can't you just see Charlton Heston blasting away with one of these from his Roman chariot... :D

The .338 shoots flatter than the .50 BMG and has better armor penetration at ranges > 1km. An M240 in .338 would weight around 30lbs, but the tripod weight would be the same and the much lower recoil would make it a better PAV & Hummer gun - one that wouldn't destroy its mounts. (Oops, I am thinking of the .408 CheyTac... better double check the flight ballistics) The CheyTac .408 are 7:4 in terms of bullet weight, and I believe the .338 is more like 7-8:2 in weight. Moeller's LM-105 .338 will definately outshoot the .50BMG, it was his project's goal. He uses banded bullets and progressive twist barrels but those are beneficial techonologies in and of themselves so nothing to regret in that.

A Gast-primcipal .338 would be even better, with a weight in the 35 lb class and 1,300-1,500 rpm rate of fire (normal ROF for Gast guns is 3-5,000 rpm) with its dual barrels to keep the gun cooler and spread the wear. Firepower like a GAU-19 with 1/3rd the weight and no power source needed. This would be a wonderful CROWS weapon with dual feed paths. I also like the 15.5mm in this configuration, but the recoil might be a bit high for CROWS. A Gast .338 would be a nice crew-served weapon if dismounted, could be carried much more easily than an M2, and a crew of 2 could carry 1,000 rounds or more. With a PAV to handle logistics 10-20,000 rounds would be well within reach and would make a hell of a point defense/area-denial weapon. Spaced 1 mile apart a few men could cordon off a very large area with such a weapon and take down light vehicles at that distance with SLAP or HEI rounds. Raufoss M211 type rounds might also be possible in this caliber. Going from an M249 which requires a condon point every 300 meters, or M240 every 500 meters, to one every 1-2000 m makes it a BIG force multiplier - the whole point of the PAV system. A Gast .338 would make a PERFECT chopper door gun!!! (Gast-principal guns are a German design, adopted by the Soviets and used on MIG fighters for decades. One barrel's gas operates the other barrel's action. Light, reliable and high rate of fire.)

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/1999.html

solidpoint

http://www.custer.com.au/Lap/pages/338Hist.html
http://www.cpcartridge.com/338lapua-B.htm

http://webs.lanset.com/backplan/guncab/8x57/8mmMauser.htm

It looks like the MG-42 had at best 2,900 ft-lbs energy while the .338 has about 4,600, an increase of 58%. This gives the .338 the same energy at 3-400 yards as the Mauser. More importantly, it is possible to match the ballistics of the .338 to the .50BMG to maximize infantry training and experience.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Weitreichendes-Scharfschuetzengewehr-Dateien/Weltrekordgeschoss.htm

Zipperhead

1. could you make a simple 3-view drawing of this PAV? I’m still having a hard time picturing your concept. Oh and please add basic parameters, like weight, payload, crew numbers, typical armament loadout. As for the drawing I just mean you should spark up Microsoft’s default “Paint” (included in every version of Windows since the discovery of fire). Perhaps a second drawing could include a bunch of arrows with descriptions of relevant points of interest?

2. I’m not aware of this ‘recoilless’ 27mm cannon that you speak of. How does this one work? What method does it use to make it recoillless? And, surely there is still SOME recoil, so how much remains? Also, do you have weight numbers for this cannon, and weight for it’s cannon shells?

3. Please be clear about just exactly what missions you want this PAV to accomplish, and clear about what you WOULD NOT ask the PAV to do.

4. For your advanced indirect machinegun fire article, I think it would be better if you found someone in the US army who’s a machinegun course instructor. If I wrote it, half the terminology wouldn’t be the same, as I served in the Canadian forces. Believe me, while our two militaries work very well together, they are NOT the same, nor do we even use the same training books, terminology and so on. The Canadian system has probably more in common with the British Army than it does with the US Army, even though the soldiers themselves are probably much more like US Army Rangers, as people.

Zipperhead

Remembering the bit about the SADF for mine protection, look at this US company, offering what amounts to South African tech for US soldiers in the sandbox:
http://www.forceprotection.net/models/buffalo/

solidpoint

Yeah, I love the Buffalo. Especially the 6-wheeled version. It was studying this platform 6 months or so ago that first made me realize that in MOUT height is not a liability, it is and ADVANTAGE!!! It got me thinking about the B-17 style bubble/saucer gun to replace the chariot at the end of the chariot boom. In MOUT having the ability to see and fire something like an RMK from a "cherry picker" 12-15 feet up in the air fills a critical gap when ground and CAS are working together to defeat elevated targests in MOUT in multi-story buildings. I use the saucer guns in 2s and 3s so they can be mutually supporting in a mezzinine level defense of both ground and CAS and while providing the eyes and ears to both of those via TIITS. I like the smaller 25-27mm RMKs for the saucer, but sitting the gunner legs up, knees to chin style between twin guns for a rate of fire between 600 and 1,800rpm. These guns have MORE punch than the Bradley IFV and would likely weight 5k, even though the guns are only 250lbs each. MK-19s routinely collasped whole buildings in MOUT during OIF, these things could do that at a range of a mile or more using HEDP rounds. You can see how much protection these would give to Apache and Cobra choppers while inbound on a run. It fills in for the fact that AC-130s don't fly in daylight - very nicely.

RE: drawings... it turns out we have a draftsman in our ranks! Cool is working with me to produce some drawings in his "spare" time. At some point I will have to buy some software and do some very good ones for the patent office, but for now Cools will do just fine I'm sure.

http://www.nd.edu/~bhenness/JavelinLiveFireVsT72.mpg

This video demonstrates the way in which, in addition to weapons like the RMK recoilless cannon, heavy weapons (the tank in the video is a T-72) can be defeated by the PAV. A two man crew can fire one of these fire-&-forget weapons every 8 seconds in fog, rain, snow, sleet, chemical or battlefield fog. By dismounting the HOOOW, L-Step gunner and Chariot gunners from the 300 PAVs I got by trading in a few heavies from a standard MEU - working as a 3-man crew with a loader and 2 gunners - they were able to launch one Javelin every 5 seconds along a 30km long line of Iranian armor they ambushed without warning. Note the T-72 turret about 10 feet above the top of the mushroom cloud, about 80-90 feet in the air by my estimate.

Attacking 3 Iranian heavy divisions, with embedded SAM missiles which prohibited our helicopters and A-10s from engaging, they destroyed 1,500 of the Iranian's 1,800 tanks in the first 90 seconds of the battle before debris and smoke obscured the battlefield to the point were target locks became too marginal. Attacking into their rear and side quarters, the RMK equipted PAVs then streaked alongside at 700-1,500 yards and blew the crap out of anything else that was still whole. Bunched together in waves, the DragonFire mortars were cued using TIITS provided position information so that these "drive by blastings" were preceeded and followed dynamically at danger-close ranges by 700,000 lbs of mortar fire delivered in less than 10 minutes. I was assuming the Iranians were using a variation of the Israeli Merkava Mk 4 Main Battle Tank, the plans for which were obtained for them by Haamas. Its very steeply sloped armor actually made it MORE vulnerable to the Javelin's top attack mode.

I assumed 10-15% of the 8-man crews in the Merkava survived, but they were immediately engaged by Mk-19 and HMG fire from long range even while mortars pounded the entire 30km length of the column. I realize this sounds hopelessly "moto", but I think the truth is modern anti-armor weapons are so deadly and effective this would likely be the actual result - maybe with a little longer timeline - of any real-world battle. The old nut "if you can see it you can kill it" is so much more true now than ever before - but now you have to hide from radar, IR, light amplification and acoustic sensors. The day of the heavy is done imho. I just can't see any way they will survive on a modern battlefield. The Iranians wheeled IFVs were just shot to pieces by the PAVs using the RMKs, top attack mortars, HMGs like the 15.5 x 115, GAU-19, M2, MK-19 using HEDP (2" penetration). I did not even waste Javelin or TOW weapons on them unless they immediately threatened friendly forces. The Javelin missile weights 21 lbs. The day when you needed weight to field weapons capable of destroying heavy armor, including any MBT on earth, looks to be gone.

RE: the Mauser. If you Google it you will find an explination in German. Maybe autobahn or Alek can make it out. As far as I can tell it uses a 3-hole revolver style load/eject/vent system. One hole holds the chambered round, one the spent round's casing, and the other ducts recoil gasses to a funnel-shaped vent facing backwards relative to the muzzle. I too am skeptical that there is NO recoil, but I have seen official documents citing that very feature in weapons development programs such as weapons selection for the V-22 Osprey. There is also a report from what appears to be a very seasoned weapons analyst who reports that even light aircraft - like a Cessna Caravan - can outgun by FAR an A-10 Warthog using this technology. There can't be much recoil if this is in fact true. The RMK-35-350, by comparison to other guns with its same ballistics, should be capable of defeating the FRONTAL armor of any existing IFV and MBT up to and including a T-72. The Javelins are a sure thing though, and since the marginal cost of them is likely about 25k I decided to give my characters in the USMC max advantage and use them like lollipops. Once all of their heavies were destroyed, the 2 infantry divisions didn't last long, as you might expect.

The PAV is great for recon, scout, patrols and ambush. However, it will not prevail in a toe-to-toe battle with heavies if the crews do not have and know how to proficiently operate missiles. This includes the 2-missile hand-held and vehicle quad-pac versions of the Stinger system and HUMRAAM/SLAMRAAM system to defend against choppers, cruise missiles, attack aircraft and even TBMs. I also decided to broaden the mix a bit and am using LAHAT and MILLAN missiles from elevated positons (low mountain ranges) to engage Iranian Hokum attack helicopters and MBTs. There are French, British, Canadian and Aussie troops in the theater and they were able to redeploy some 300 miles with these PAV-based systems in under 2 hours to join the battle. This necessary after the Iranians were able to reinforce their position by land and sea from two different directions in an attempt to create an outer envelopment threatening the USMC envelopment of their original forces. ( about 300 of the original 35,000 survived after Iran was determined to be responsible for the terrorists that nuked Los Angeles. Payback is a bitch !!!)

I am not sure what a PAV cannot do, it has a great deal to do with the tactics employed, and I am still developing them. What I can say is it is critical for PAVs to establish and maintain the momentum throughout the battle. They do not do well in defense - although I have found some interesting tactics that are helping there as well - and need the heavies at times to be able to get down and slough it out with some determined foe. I have also tried to break the dependence between the heavies and their infantry escorts from both ends.

With PAVs there is NO infantry, I have come around to autobahn's view on this and now see the PAVs more like a Cavalry horse. I have also made a rather startling discovery - that MBTs can be very much more protected and therefore less dependent on escorts if you give them CROWS turrets and weapons like 60mm mortars (critical for indirect-attack counterbattery fire), GAU-19s and MK-19s or the desperately needed 15.5x115 project FNL abandoned. The Israeli Merkava is actually a great MBT platform for this as it can carry a crew of 4-5 instead of 8, but those 5 are now CROWS operators that can provide complete 360 degree coverage around the tank out to 2km plus. This not only makes the Merkava virtually impossible do destroy in MOUT or by infantry or TOW operators, but allows the primary crew to focus on killing heavies completely free of concerns about their own defense. Imagine what a relief and how much more effective the primary crews would be in such curcumstances.

I think you can see how unexpectedly deep this problem has become - as it affects so many systems and so many system tactics. I find this all tremendously encouraging though as my goal in writing the book was to explore to what extent the Army could follow the sucess of the Air-Force in developing "force multipliers" so that a few men could reasonabally do the work that took dozens or maybe even hundreds before. I expect that using PAVs, which gives all former-infantry the full-time use of their own inventory of HEAVY weapons, and the intrinsic logistical support to sustain the use of those weapons, that ammunition use will go up by 10-20 fold - AND I DON'T CARE. Why? Because the alternative to using up a bunch of fifty cent bullets is to bring down a half dozen CAS platforms at 50 million apiece and shoot $300,000 missiles at the problem. There is also the very practical problem that both the Israelis and our own Army and Air-Force have admitted that in the opening 3-10 days of any conflict all assets that could be used for CAS will be dedicated to the destruction of TBMs - and we all know from ODS how very difficult it was to find even the very crappy SCUD missiles. This is exactly why my book focuses on the most challenging initial 100 hours of war.

This is alot to digest, and even more to accept and "swallow" - at least it was for me, but the weapns are there, like it or not, and the tactics will be soon, so we better get ready. Have a great weekend.

Alek

Solipoint,
How about the .408 CheyTac? It is on a whole different level than .338 Lapua. I think it is already in use by the US army in Iraq.

.338Lapua muzzle energy = 5000 Ft/Lbs; BC = 0.675; muzzle V = 3000fps
.408CheyTac muzzle energy = 7700 Ft/Lbs; BC = 0.96; muzzle V = 2950 fps

The .408 weighs 33% less than the .50BMG, and matches its energy at 700 yards. Ballistic performance is excellent due to the extremely good BC. Also recoil is reported as significantly lower than .50BMG. The bullet stays supersonic untill 2200yards and makes sniping at 2500 yards a reality.

To me the .408 seems as the ideal HMG round. It should replace .50 and fill the void between 6.5Grendel and a 30mm autocannon, for sniping, surpression and anti-material applications.

http://cheytac.com/Data/Products/Brochures/Intervention%20408%20V2.pdf
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/blackwater/analysis6.html

From left to right: .50BMG, .408CheyTac, .338Lapua
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/cheytac-ammo.jpg

Coolhand77

5.56 replaced by 6.5
7.62NATO replaced by .338
.50 BMG replaced by .408 cheytac
40mm replaced by 25mm (grenade launchers)

solidpoint

I think you both have the same idea I have, and as soon as we face a near-peer foe with body armor and face something like the Korean War Chinese mass formations with body armor we are going to find our existing inventory of small arms to be tragically inadequate.

I like the CheyTac a lot, and respect the research it required enormously, but I am also struck by the fact that in MOUT combat the .50BMG always gets very high praise and is fielded around the world by friend and foe alike for its ability to defeat almost all types of enemy protection. I also think the .338 is needed but would like to see it replacing the 7.62x51 more than the CheyTac replacing the .50BMG.

Ideally, assuming the logistics guys can at least aspire to the level of efficiency of the Germans right to the end of WW-II with the advantages of computers, huge long-range aircraft and prime movers they could only dream of, I would like to see the .50BMG bracketed by the .408 for long range anti-personnel (shooting enemy TOW gunners for example) and the 15.5x115 FNL VHMG for anti materiel and MOUT. A VHMG like the 15.5 would defeat enemy cover in MOUT without reducting buildings to rubble. This is very important because rubble makes very good cover that is very hard to penetrate. One of the best examples of this is the 25mm Bushmaster cannon's nasty habit of blowing an 18 inch hole in a reinforced concrete wall WITHOUT blowing aside the reinforcement bar. This leaves a great fireing port for the enemy while still denying friendly forces access through the hole. It would be much better to be able to pierce the wall, or blow a huge section out of it with a "bunker buster" TOW - which we have now developed - than to end up in this sistuation. I also think the 15.5 is heavy enough to defeat most vehicle armor at long stand-off ranges. Its really important for PAVs to avoid closing with heavier armored vehicle and instead be able to outrange them so they can be defeated before they can effectively engage the PAV.

So I guess I would just add the 15.5 x 115 between the .50BMG and the 25 or 30mm grenade gun or GAU round. The really beautiful thing about a PAV is you can give every infantryman a heavy weapon of their own to operate as their primary weapon. In such a world the assault rifle would be used much more like the M9 9mm pistol is now, for close-in personal defense or as a last-ditch weapon only. It would also be very useful for dismounted operations in MOUT, but in general, the PAV would maneuver the infantry to engage with heavy weapons. This should allow US infantry to fight from longer ranges where effective return fire is unlikely and the rate-of-fire comming from our side is overwhelming. Trading in a Bradley for 10-20 PAVs, each of which has a 25mm+ cannon, 50BMG+ MG or GAU, and an M240 in .338 in addition to personal assault rifles that can be fired when the big guns are down for reloading or jammed is such a huge trade up in terms of firepower is is hard to even imagine. Every PAV would essentially have at least the firepower as the M113 "assault vehilces" of the Vietnam era where 4 heavy weapons were mounted and manned at all times to implement a 360 degree field of zoned fire - the RMK and "heavy" PAVs much more. On average then we would have about a 20-50 fold increase in firepower for the same weight as a single Bradley, would be much faster to engage than CAS or heavy arty, and massively cheaper than CAS, or precision bombing. Arty also has a very nasty ground-based logistical component and the units and their logistics all require a LOT of protection by other friendly assets - so while their ammo is cheaper, the total cost of thier force deployment is still very high.

The additional crew members would have to come from HumVee mounted crews, and since the PAV and HumVee weight the same when the PAVs are fully armed with all of their guns, ammo, chariot and DragonFire mortar systems,, the entire weight of the heavies is saved. I think my speculaton on a future heavy division of 600 Abrams and 9,000 PAVs is about where we'd end up. The Abrams tanks should all get multiple TIITS enabled CROWS turrents. Some could be operated from inside the tank and some tele-operated by trailing PAV crews. The addition of 3 CROWS operated 15.5x115mm VHMGs would make them much more effective and protect their side and rear quarters in open-country and MOUT when fought in concert with swarms of supporting PAVs. It is also possible to tele-operate the Abrams from trailing PAVs so that with an installed autoloader the Abrams is fought entirely robotically. There may be some circumstances where this would be desireable.

PS: There is one application besides sniping where the .408 would be compelling, and that is in a GAU-19 gun used by light aircraft, and particularly by helicopters and the V-22 Osprey. This is because range and recoil as well as bullet weight is so much more critical for these platforms. One could either use the 7:4 weight ratio and halved recoil to fit such a GAU to a craft as small as the AH-6 LittleBird, or two or more as door guns on the BlackHawk, Hokum, SuperHuey, NH-90/US101, CH46, CH47, CH53. Since they have rockets and missiles for materiel these guns would beused for engaging enemy infantry's ground-based heavy weapons at stand-off ranges. One could also use the weight and recoil savings to add a barrel or two to the GAU-19 to increase the ROF and range. ROF is very important for high-speed passes or engaging other helicopters or aircraft with guns. For destruction of the deadly self-propelled ZSU-4-23s or mounted MANPAD systems I'd vote for the Javelin. Pop up from behind cover, get your target lock, then fire and scoot to make max use of the fire and forget capabilities.

With SLAP rounds they could also be very effective against light vehicles. Going back to the insertion of PAVs inside the defenses of the enemy in MOUT, the extra range could well be decisive.

solidpoint

BTW,

As nice as the quiet, and the stealth it enables is, hybrid technology has some very serious drawbacks. First is the emission of EM energy which can be detected and used to locate and destroy vehicles employing hybrid technology. The DOD knows this and is trying to find ways to minimze this, but you'd never know it to read stuff like that GT ultra vehicle. If you keep the electric motors close to the ground it helps, but is tailor made for setting off MAGNETIC MINES. If you raise the motors to avoid mines the EM wave problems, as well as the radar signiture of that elevated metal, just gets worse. I don't have an effective solution for this problem at the mement, other than tactics to try to minimise it depending on circumstances.

I think the PAV makes pretty good use of the technology by using an innovative vehicle topology, which makes it a secondary and ancillary form of propullsion 18-20 feet distant from the core PAV vehicle. The hybrid weight and other detractions can be detached and left behind by unhooking the chariot boom where weight, EM detection gear or magnetic mines are known to be threats. You can eliminate the EM probem by not engaging the motors/generators, but the magnets in the electric motors are allways "on" and always a threat. To mitigate these affects, the only other thing I might do is give the base PAV unit a larger generator - mounted up high above the engine in a farady shield - so the batteries on the chariot which are the primary storage devices for electrical energy can be charged without activating the hybrid motors. I might also add a bit more battery capacity to the very tiny amount planned for the base PAV. These batteries should be dimensioned and located to add protection for the engine and/ or crew as is commonly done in the design of "boomer" nuclear submarines.

Coolhand77

Anyone here seen Batman Begins? I have to say, ditch the stupid jet engine, put a gun turret in its place, and use "scissor wing" or "gull wing" type doors, and maybe narrow it down a bit, get rid of the "driver down" position and up armor the front end...maybe stretch the back out so its two axle instead of a "dually" setup, and I think you might have a working idea there.

On, and of course change out the 350cid chevy engine for something a little more economic...though having an offroad vehicle capable of 220 mph on the road might appeal to MOUT situations, espcially when keeping up with an abrams.

Oh, and if you get rid of the "jet" and center position, you could concevably squeeze it down to something around the size of a squad car (not much bigger than the police cars in the chase scene).

Coolhand77

Someone pointed out to me that the "Dually" would probably be more manuverable than switching to a six wheel design. Also, I was just considering the front wheels (which are unpowered on the BM). Using an individual drive shaft and controll arm for each of the front wheels would keep the configuration, allowing the use of the space between those wheels for things like "Mine IED detection equipment" thereby improving survivability.

Why am I suddenly seeing images of the "Tumbler" with a Phalanx "R2D2" mounted on the back, patrolling hot zones.

Oh yah, there was information in Defense review of them developing the 20mm Phalanx system with retuned radars and "flack" rounds to take out incoming morters. They are planning on fielding it in places like Bagdad.

Zipperhead

Be aware that EM emisions can be shielded. In fact,many household items are required to have reduced EM...and that holds true for your cars too.

When the first TV sets were out, my grandfather told me about how when a car would drive down the street, the TV would get disrupted! :D

He said it had to do with the ignition coils being unshielded! Now...I know that Spooky gunships found NVA trucks at night by searching for EM...but were those trucks using 1950's automotive tech? Meaning unshielded electrical systems? REmember, they weren't nessisarily running diesel back then, many of those old army trucks ran on gasoline at the time... not like today's all-diesel fleets.

Today it's even more so, because of computers, onboard engine FMC's, cell phones and so on, all could get affected by strong EM.

But then...why the concern about EM, if you have computer/radio datalinks? :D :D
;)

solidpoint

The strength of an EM emission is proportional to the current, especially where it is primarily a magnetic wave that is being detected. The P3 Orion has a pencil stuck up its butt because that extra length is needed for a magnetic anomoly detector. Using this technology one could easily detect electric motors, even DC motors which have no normal EM emissions. I don't think there is a way to shield against magnetic waves??? ... so I am concerned about this vulnerability. A couple of 40hp electric motors operating at 400hz would be too juicy of a target signiture to expect an enemy to ignore.

The F-14 Tomcats have a secure ship-to-ship laser-based datalink that is used for com and data and this is one of the technologies specified for the TIITS system so that line-of-sight communications can be relatively secure. This technology would not emit EM energy. It may be too expensive for every PAV, although I douobt it. Most systems that are astoundingly expensive are only expensive because the price of each item is the total project cost divided by the number of units sold. Using this pricing mechinism a copy of Microsoft Windows woud cost 10 million dollars. One of the goals of the PAV system should be to sell a lot of them, like a hundred thousand or so, (the M113 sold over 80,000 copies) so all of this stuff could be had for reasonable prices. One should also hope to sell some to the civilian market for those living in bad neighborhoods or in flood plains. Anyone wanna go cruising for gang-bangers in a PAV meet me at the intersection of Bad & Dead. This is a BYOA party - you know the caliber:D

I haven't seen BatMan, I'll have to take a look at the vehicle. Have a link for that Mk-19 flak round Cool?

Zipperhead

Ok, but isn't the range of such magnetic waves rather short?

I dunno, I don't see that as any threat to my safety as a soldier...I'm not worried about being detected like that, I'm more worried about the noise my vehicle makes, if it's distinctive or loud. If it'll handle a mine strike, an RPG-7 and a PKM...the occasional arty barrage...that's all I'm concerned with really.

If it's fast, that's ok. If it's fast and quiet, awsome. If it's fast and can handle muddy terrain, great. If it's maneuverable in urban fight (like being able to back out of an ambush), then great. It's gotta have armament of at least 50cal, and the option of doing higher rates of fire for short durations.

If It's an APC, gotta be able to haul 10 troops plus driver/cmdr (notice the extra space I specify...that's on purpose, because those things are ALWAYS too packed in at the best of times).

Thing is though, I’m not sure we have a need for PAV-like vehicles anymore. In Canada, we used the Lynx for armored recce, but got rid of them in about ’92 I think. America used the M3 and M1 for that. And unarmored recce…well unless you are special forces, we don’t even do that at all, unless you are a reservist (Canada it would be Iltis jeeps with TOW, US is the Humvee with TOW).

Ok, so forgetting that for a minute…how would the PAV be employed, in today’s post-war Iraq? I ask because I’m having trouble seeing the “need” for it.

solidpoint

Iraqi soldiers ride in the back of open trucks from Operation Spear in Karabilah, 320 kilometers (200 miles) west of Baghdad to their base in nearby Qaim, Iraq, Monday, June 20, 2005. About 1,000 U.S. Marines and Iraqi soldiers finished Operation Spear Monday, near the Iraqi-Syrian border. (AP Photo/Jacob Silberberg)

Anything a HumVee is used for now, and most things an LAV or Bradley are used for. Faster, cheaper, better protected, 3-5X firepower, and fewer KIA when they build a bomb big enough to kill anything.

The US had a Tracer Scout program under development before 9-11.

The last op in weatern Iraq most of the bad guys got away in row boats while our guys stared forelornly into the desert unable to follow them over 300 feet of shallow riverbed. Complete idiocy in the 21st century. If we don't want to build a PAV we should swallow our pride and buy VBLs. Either could have crossed on their own without breaking stride, or been flown hundreds of miles in minutes using intra-theater lift assets.

When our enemy's location was known during the cold war we could prepositon stuff. That is NOW as practical as a traveling salesman buying a limo in each of 50 cities he calls on once a yr. All the systems in the prepositioned gear gets obsolete right along with the stuff you actually use, and the cost of keeping everything up to date all the time is beyond even our $500 billion defense budget - half of the entire world's defense budget. When the plan to base usable quantities of stuff here in the US and move it by air to where it is needed gets completed, this problem will go away, but it will generate a huge requirement for PAVs.

... as the image titles suggest... for tight old-world streets, and vast open spaces...
PAVs are perfect for patrolling vast distances in large numbers and at an affordable price. They can get to the point of contact at nearly the speed of a chopper. You can dispatch enough firepower to take down a small city without tying up an entire MEU. It would allow the USMC to be "everywhere at once" - patrolling for and surviving enemy contact and able to bring on the PAIN. For this kind of terrain I would specify larger tires, in the 32-35" range instead of the 26" range. That "sand" looks lke talc.

Coolhand77

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001623.html
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/002430.html#more

Its not Mk-19 rounds, its 20mm rounds for an uprated Phalanx

http://www.chickslovethecar.com/tumbler.asp

The "new batmobile"
read the specs and then strip out the wack stuff like the jet booster

Zipperhead

Ok...you have the PAV doing missions that require carring lots of troops...but i thought earlier you said that the PAV wouldn't carry troops, just a driver and gunner...

I dunno, I got the impression it was something like a Bren Carrier from WW2, or maybe a Ferret recon from the same timeframe...

Bren Carrier:
http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/history/carriers.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-armour/allied/bren_carrier.htm

Ferret scout:
http://www.steelsoldiers.com/images/ferretstreet.jpg
http://www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/britkit/vehicles/
http://www.tomtownsend-toyland.com/toyland/ferret_scout_car.htm

Earlier than the Ferret, the Daimler scout:
http://www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/britkit/vehicles/DAC.diag/index.htm

So...are you carrying infantrymen to the battle, or are you a micro-tank?

In between, like the Cadillac V-100?
http://www.steelsoldiers.com/images/xm706.jpg

Or how about these from the Rhodesian war:
http://members.tripod.com/selousscouts/vehicles.htm

solidpoint

You don't need a vehicle that carries lots of troops to carry lots of troops...

..you just need a lot of vehicles that carry a few troops. Now you will object on the basis of cost...and I will point out that the Stryker costs 2 million apiece so if I am replacing them on a 10:1 basis I have a budget of 200k... or more given the PAV has the capabilities of a Stryker AND then some - as it can be airlifted quickly by all current helicopters... and in much greater numbers by all other air assets, and by comparison the basis for CAS like the JSF costs 75 million each and the F-22 Raptor almost 300 million...and if I can make 2-3 men do the work of a squad by giving them more firepower, mobility, and logistical support while dramatically reducing their package's logistical requirements I think that is a fair tradeoff.

...we're short of men.. we don't have enough...putting a whole bunch together makes the problem worse...like packing police cars with 5-6 policemen would .... it also makes them a big, fat, juicy target for smart weapons or IEDs. Everyone who has ever studied the IFV in a precision/smart weapons environment is almost immediately driven to this same conclusion. They were designed to taxi troops to a known battlefront and defend against other armored taxis, they weren't even intended to be mixed with MBTs when first conceived. Battles with known fronts are a thing of the past, relics of an age where mobility was rare and expensive. The battle is now all around, both in a local and theater sense. You not only need to have vehicles that can defend themselves with 360 zoned fire, but they must be redeployable over water, snow, mud, mountains, deserts and continents so decisive force can be applied where and when it is most needed before the "firestorm of malevolence" takes root. They need to be able to do this for sustained periods of time, operate in a diffuse way without the constant support of CAS, precision bombing, or arty support from higher command. A small example of this is hitting a mine with a 4-wheeled vehicle leaves it immobilized, while the PAV’s topology allows it to maneuver even if up to 4 wheels are blown off. Force protection is not enough. If you are far from support and deep in enemy territory your ride needs to be able to take a licking and keep on trucking…to mix a metaphor. Another example - composite armor weights 1/3 of steel and angled surfaces half that weight again, so the vehicle can weigh 1 ton instead of 6 tons.

I have detailed the exact configuration again and again in great detail with dimensions down to the inch and find doing it again for the 3rd or 4th time more a waste of my time than I am willing to bear. Perhaps one of the other posters could bring you up to speed.

I'm not really interested in debating the viability or need of the concept. Billions of dollars have been spent on research that already demonstrates the need and any discussion of future Army force structures and deployment modes just reinforces that. I have been happy to incorporate useful ideas such as the V hull, the EuroDiesel engine, RMK cannon and use of Ti because they were good suggestions that helped and had merit. In the last 6 months though, nothing has convinced me that the PAV topology is not superior to all others, that its capabilities are a force multiplier, and that with reasonable tactics it can fill the need for almost all ground combat vehicles, short of acting as a MBT. In contrast, placing this platform in actual combat scenarios I have had to work hard to arrange difficult situations so that it does not immediately and always overwhelm enemy forces and make short work of them and my chapters. This is a very happy outcome for a designer.

I would like to guard against the tendency to root for ones own invention at the expense of realism, and I was hoping our collective conversations would do that. In order for that process to be effective though we must all have roughly the same level of knowledge. Since I have devoted a lot more time to this than people making an honest living, I know this standard will not always be met, but after spending 3 months on posts, some of which took me up to 6 hours to write, I'm afraid I am going to draw the line at "what does this thing look like again"?

Maybe this thread will continue to be interesting and helpful, maybe not. I'm only interested in what someone thinks if I 'm convinced they have something relevant to base those opinions on. Many have met this standard and proved helpful, some haven't. Increasingly I have the feeling this has become a waste of time, but then I enjoy the "company" here so I give it the benefit of the doubt - within reason.

solidpoint

Cool,

... so it is... my bad. This seems to reinforce our idea to use a 5.7 P-90 or Grendel caliber gun and current electronics to shrink R2D2 down to the size of a coffee can and use it for PAV anti-missile defense, right? Being able to engage and defeat ballistic weapons is uber-cool, I had not thought that possible. It should also work to at least partially defeat the sub-munitions of a TBM missile or arty round, to say nothing of protection from helicopters. A nice find worth monitoring. :D

RE: the batmobile. Visually very pleasing, but reviewing the criteria for a MPV..

- it must have a V hull of at least 30 degrees of slope
- the wheels cannot be under the V hull
- the bottom of the V hull should be at least a meter above ground to allow the blast to dissipate to about 10% of ground level forces where materials like steel can remain coherent
- there can be no nuts, bolts or large sub-structures below the V hull that can become flying bullets or buzzsaws

..its pretty clear this is not a viable platform.

Btw, the pressure/blast wave from a mine travels at 6,500 meters per second, so nothing is light enough to just "pop up like a ping-pong ball" and survive. The foam covering the space shuttle can survive those speeds, but only in atmosphere that is 2% of the density at sea level, and not when the pressure wave hits it standing still.

It's still pretty cool looking though... :D

Zipperhead

>>“Btw, the pressure/blast wave from a mine travels at 6,500 meters per second, so nothing is light enough to just "pop up like a ping-pong ball" and survive.”

Quite the opposite: for the occupants to survive, you want the vehicle to be physically more heavy. If it had super-armor, and weight just a thousand pounds…the force of the blast would end up being transferred directly to the necks and spines of the poor soldiers inside. On the other hand, if it’s heavy, the blast has to work much harder to propel the hull upward at less velocity…meaning the occupants are going to have a much “softer” impact, relatively speaking. It’s like using a firehose to push either a light kite, or instead a pile of bricks the same area across…the kite is gonna move from the same water pressure a great deal more…while the water won’t likely even push the bricks at all.

Basically, when you have such an underside blast, the V-hull prevents the blast from actually entering the vehicle…but the whole thing gets hit so violently that it put one of our drivers in a wheelchair, with compressed spine and all. That was with a Wolf, which is similar to a Caspir I think. Anyway, that vehicle had shoulder restraints and the seats were designed with huge shock absorbers to cushion the occupants.

The lighter the vehicle, just like lighter bullets for the same charge…the faster it’s imparted velocity, generally speaking. And the faster the velocity of the vehicle, the more shock is going to be felt by the occupants, because of the inertia of the vehicle hull moving, Vs. the poor sods inside who’s inertia hasn’t started yet. In race cars, this light weight and high velocity make it very difficult to make cars that are safe. But it sorta can be reasonably done for racing…but 200mph is nothing compared to the initial blast of a mine…no your micro-tank isn’t going to be actually doing 300mph after the mine…but that split second right after the blast, when parts are moving while other parts aren’t…look out!

Now, that’ s not to say your idea for light vehicles doesn’t have merit, because it certainly does. But the other day, the Army decided that it couldn’t meet the low weight targets they set out for the FCS vehicles, in particular the NLOS gun, and so they upped the target weight from 19 tons to 24 tons, all bombed up and ready to fight. This means that one can’t be transported by Hercules, but that a C-17 could carry perhaps three of them.

PS, have you done a concept drawing of your PAV yet?

Coolhand77

- it must have a V hull of at least 30 degrees of slope
I realize that the tumbler doesn't quite fit that, but I was only using it as an example for size and basic layout. With a few mods to the suspension and the bottom, you could concevably get the 39 degree slope on it.

- the wheels cannot be under the V hull
That is exactly why I suggested it. NONE of the wheels are under the V hull and if you run drive shafts down the control arms to the articulated front wheels, you get an all wheel drive platform

- the bottom of the V hull should be at least a meter above ground to allow the blast to dissipate to about 10% of ground level forces where materials like steel can remain coherent
I was thinking of applying an articulated suspension system that would allow for that, but also allow it to sink back down to the existing "tumbler" configuration for a conventional warfare situation where a "hull down position would be preferable.

- there can be no nuts, bolts or large sub-structures below the V hull that can become flying bullets or buzzsaws
Yah, the tumbler has alot of extrainious fins on it. But if you look underneath all the cool "stealth spoilers" you will see a rather robust structure. I'm not saying use it unchanged, I am saying, some of the qualities of that vehicle could be advantagious.

One thought was to replace that stupid jet engine with your "backhoe arm" system.

This seems to reinforce our idea to use a 5.7 P-90 or Grendel caliber gun and current electronics to shrink R2D2 down to the size of a coffee can and use it for PAV anti-missile defense, right?
You took the words right out of my mouth. I might also recommend adding a thermal sighting system keyed off launch flash signatures. Example: some smartass with an RPG pulls the trigger, the thermal sensors pick up the heat bloom immideately, (IR radiation travels at the speed of light) zeros in, and fires two short bursts, one that detonates the incoming warhead, the other that puts about 12 rounds through "Johnny Jihad" and his launcher. Nuff said

solidpoint

There are 4 parts. The base PAV is a V with 4ft sides, stands about 40" high when resting on its pointed V hull, has a 5 ft top plate overhead and 6 wheels. The 2-part suspension arms are each 30" long, connected to shape a "<" and are anchored at the top of the hull. All of the base PAV’s weight is therefore slung - making it incredibly stable. Standing straight up the bottom of the PAV is about 40" from the ground, depending on tires. The V-6 210 hp diesel engine and integrated hydraulic pump occupies the back 3 ft of the V's interior space. There are no drive shafts or gears anywhere. The vehicle is driven entirely by lightweight ceramic and composite hydraulic motors mounted in the wheels. No metal, no magnetic signature, no metal wires to and from. Return oil flows thru the suspension and other parts to provide low IR cooling. The suspension is pneumatic, like a ball behind your knees when you squat. On a track on each side of the base PAV are composite armor slabs 4ft x 9ft which can be lowered to form 4 layers of /V\ shaped protection, or raised to cover the top of the vehicle and protect its crew in a <> shape. This allows the same angled armor to be optimally deployed to defeat attacks from the side, or top, in real-time, dynamically under crew control, depending on the threat. As a base-line, the slabs will stop a 7.62x51 at pb range. Both the V hull and slabs have small 25 x 70mm taped tabs embedded into their composite structures to act as vortex generators to diffuse the mine shockwaves and allow attachment of added armor and to slip the ends of bungee cords thru for crew gear.

The V-hulled crew compartment is cantilevered ahead of the first of the wheels and attached by long elastomer connectors via a hinge so the base unit can kick up its heels without transmitting that force to the crew. The crew "kayak" slopes upward and to a point as it goes forward from the first 18" or so of its 8 ft length where it has a constant width. The 2 man crew sits side-by-side in a slight stagger with the driver sitting lower and further back, and the hands-on-operator-of-weapons (HOOOW) to his right sits forward enough to have an unobstructed view AND field of fire to his left and all the way around to the right in a 220 degree sweep. The crew's shoulder and head region is covered from behind by the 6" thick composite bulkhead at the front of the base PAV and the rear of the kayak. The 30 degree sloping side protection for the crew's head is spec'ed to stop a .50BMG FMJ ball at pb range. Sloped 50mm+ ballistic glass, at least one layer of it, 2-3 inches wide held in slots by Ti stanchions provides 7.62x51 SLAP protection at pb ranges and allows field replacement of broken pieces. Overhead protection is provided for protection at RHA equivalent to 2" plus to protect against arty fragments. It is 18" overhead the driver and angles to cover the forward HOOOW position to about 36 inches. Shorter, more heavily armored single crew kayaks are also possible to protect RMK equipped PAVs engaging IVFs – or very light ones for chopper deployed PAVs carried on hard mounts to allow a combined arms SEAD engagement where the chopper has a decent chance for survival by bringing along its own ground component.

The PAV fly-by-wire suspension can squat, kneel, tilt and lean into curves. (GM has a vehicle they are showing in China called the HyFly...hydrogen and fly-by-wire... nothing groundbreaking here after all.)

Providing stability, physical separation, a back-hoe type arm to deploy target and visioning systems and to lift ammo and weapons, and possibly the individual parts of other PAVs is the folding, hydraulically articulated boom 8-9 feet long attached to the back of the base PAV at one end and the front of the wishbone at the other.. It is long enough to sling 3 55 gallon drums under or 8-10 rucks over. It is also made entirely of composites. It provides protection to the hydraulic hose that powers the 2 rear HEMMIT sized wheels. The boom morphs into a wishbone and features a pneumatic suspension much like the rear of a motocross bike. The wishbones are armored, can be spread up to 12 feet apart and contain fuel in their honeycomb structure. The wheels have hybrid electric motors with batteries physically adjacent so no long metal cables are needed, keeping radar signatures to a minimum. The VHMG gunner pod is suspended using the aforementioned pneumatic suspension and floats over the ground at a height that is computer controlled to stabilize the gun turret. Max height is 15 ft at the base, making the gun breech at about the 18 ft max. The "turret" is wedge shaped and has a dome cap to protect the gunner from overhead arty and such. The gunner is in the B-17 belly gunner position with feet up on either side of the gun and chin near knees. This provides a saucer shape for minimum area to be armored and allows armor to .50BMG FMJ ball at pb range. This component can be left behind where min weight is required. This gunner is known as MR PAIN, and except in cases where the driver is operating a CROWS turret or RMK cannon, this will be the heaviest gun in the PAV system. There is a more capable version of this that has a much longer boom, the "cherry picker" version, which allows the gunner to elevate up to 25 ft and has a much wider wheel base for stability. It fills the gap in MOUT between air-to-rooftop and ground-to-window fire by elevating to fire directly into 2nd and 3rd story windows or onto or over rooftops. In open country it is an excellent platform to fire suppressive fire over the top of friendly advancing troops. I like the AA version of the RMK cannon. No recoil and 8-900rpm per barrel. It can also blow a chopper to smithereens in a heartbeat. It has an ITAS type targeting system that is shared with ground and CAS via TIITS.

Behind this is another 2-wheeled kayak shaped substructure on a wishbone suspension with a spreadable wheelbase that mounts a DragonFire 120mm automated mortar system. The recoil forces are passed directly thru to the ground below via a 12" drop-down composite or non-ferrous metal wheel so the mortar can be fired on the go without the structure having to bear the recoil forces. It is armored against 7.62x51 at bp ranges and like the crew kayak has about a 75 degree forward armor slope. The swept-back wishbone structures create an outer layer of spaced armor in conjunction with the inner kayak structure. I'd guess the kayak it at 8-10 feet long. The 2 HEMMIT sized wheels are hydraulically driven from the base PAV's pump - nothing is towed, everything contributes to the total tractive force in stop and go modes. There is provision for armored mortar round storage of around 100 rounds (2,000 lbs) and a rear scissors mount for a MMG of M240 size in 7.62 or likely, .338 Lapua mag. This system can be attached optionally to any PAV system but one to a 3-4 vehicle squad is more likely. The empty weight should be in the 7-800 lb range. One could also have mortar squads or platoons where all PAVs incorporate DragonFires. I like my fire more organic, but you never know about anal commanders who insist on owning everything so they can micro-manage it.

A lot of the weight of this system is in the tires, so let me make an important distinction. For the PAV there are two important weights -the deployment weight and the fielded weight. I see a large number of PAVs prepped for rapid deployment having tires that are meant to last 2-4 weeks, but use cutting edge materials to keep tire weight to 10% or less of common tires of the same size. This allows the PAV to be brought into a theater and fought until follow-on logistics arrive by air, land, sea. For situations like the current one in Iraq where the initial knockdown is long over, heavier and more durable tires would be fitted. I see the wheels on both the chariot boom (wishbone thinggy) and the DragonFire as part of the total armor package. To this end I have designed a rigid but flexible backing for a surface of hex-shaped ceramic armor tiles that is attached to the rim and protects the outside of the tire, and more importantly, MR PAIN and the DragonFire gunner. For added mine protection the tires can all be filled with water in replaceable bladders accessed via round screw-out 4" caps in the rims. Water not only adds mass and cooling, recent research indicates it flattens the cone of destruction so that at a meter's height, the blast travels sideways under the vehicle. Obviously if weight is a concern you drain the bladders. I spec-ed bladders so potable water for the crews can be mixed with pond scum and sea water in the same wheel without contaminating drinking water. Filled with wet sand they would be pretty damned bullet resistant too, assuming mines weren't a threat.

The suspensions are all active and stabilized using roughly the same technology as the Abram's turret. There are a million more details but this is a good sketch. Cool has more detail for his computer drawings.

Four subsystems all separated from each other, spread out along up to 45 ft, with both direct and indirect fire and featuring good protection from all sides and top. Top speed > 100mph, 3-11,000km unrefuled range, max system carry of 10-15,000lbs. It is nearly impossible to kill the entire system all at once because it is so spread out, has a very small frontal zone, and all the pieces are buffered from each other. They fight 3-4 to a squad and rely on TIITS to coordinate the "swarm" of platoons.

Momma, make it stop.... :rolleyes:

solidpoint

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=120

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/pantsyr/

.. they will be laying in a smoldering pile just when you need them. Or if they are smart, they will bring PAVs along and slip a few in right at the point of first detection (these are active radar systems) and then let the PAV sneak up and take out the EAD assets or at least render them ineffective long enough to let the CAS roll in and blow them to bits - perhaps WHILE you are engaging them with MK-19 grenades and M2 fire. Then the PAV crews can lurk around and kill anything they try to reconstitute. This is where I see a need for a very light single seat crew kayak. With the side armor slabs detached and a light crew kayak and some LAHAT long-range HARM missiles, even an AH6 LittleBird can get you within 10-15km. Airmobile!

(Like the riverine boats in Vietnam ala Apocolyspe Now ... except attached with hard points so the chopper can maneuver hard if needed. The PAVs pointed nose makes it streamlined even at 150mph! ... see what I mean about how I keep getting pleasant surprises instead of unpleasant ones. You know you have a good design when everything gets better - as opposed to uncomfortable tradeoffs.)

Coolhand77

This seems to reinforce our idea to use a 5.7 P-90 or Grendel caliber gun and current electronics to shrink R2D2 down to the size of a coffee can and use it for PAV anti-missile defense, right?
Quick addendum. I think 6.5G would be the minimum on an "mini-Phalanx" point defense unit. Optimally I would rather have a laser for this (no running out of ammo) but you definitly want something with up to 1000 yard effective range. Not only that but in the event that the vehicle is wrecked, you can take the gun and/or ammo and use them as a SAW to cover a retreat to cover while you wait for another couple of PAVs to come pick you up. Not only that, but using sub-.50 cal bullets means they won't be screaming about the Geneva convention and using "anti-vehicle weapons" against personnell (its a no no to fire a 20mm gat, Mk-19, or anything else over .50 cal directly at personnell. They tell marine gunners on the Mk-19 that they are shooting at the guy's equipment, not the guy. ;)).

I wonder how small an object one of those small boat radars can pick up. That would be a good base line for your "antenna array" for your mini Phalanx.

solidpoint

I have been thinking about the implications of this a lot, and tend to agree the Grendel is more likely the optimal round. What I have been burning the midnight oil over is how much does it weight, would it be deployed, and what does it imply for us defeating their systems and they ours - assuming they develop the same capabilities.

I think the threat detector should be mounted as high as possible, and like you, I would like to see it be a general purpose weapon that is slaved to a radar or other detection/aiming system and given THE top priority on a dedicated optic fiber and TIITS link so that when a missile or MLRS type round (yeah, the Russians have MLRS too now, and of course they are selling them to anyone with two nickels to rub together) is detected as a threat, the gun is instantly freed to engage the Phalanx target. This actually dovetails nicely then into a twin GAU-type Grendel gun on a CROWS turret who's top priority is always given to Phalanx. The gun doesn't have to be elevated, just the targeting sensors. Where there is a cherry-picker version of the chariot gun available, the targeting package would be great mounted on top of the gunner's protective dome cap. The sight pic from the targeting hardware could also be useful in general, and would likely be a popular TIITS subscription.

Because the gun and sight are in different places in such a configuration, and the boom moves around all the time, it might be easier to co-locate a primary sighting system or at least sensor package above the twin GAU/CROWS turret. This would also provide a stereoscopic view of the threat, AND allow searching for a follow-on threat while the gun is firing on the first threat in the same way an Abrams tank can fire on a target while a 2nd targeting system allows the crew to search for new threats. It would also help if one of the GAU guns had a sub-actuator so the two guns could converge dynamically on a moving point as the target flys towards them. This is one application for which I would favor SLAP rounds, and given that, it wouldn't make a bit of difference if the gun was 5.56 or Grendel - for this particular application. Since we want to use the twin GAUs for general infantry decimation I would still favor the Grendel. Since one Phalanx may have to provide for a 3-4 vehicle squad, it might help to have each vehicle have its own sensor package so it has a head-on view of the threat it can publish to the gun via TIITS. This would argue for keeping the designated Phalanx gun near the middle of the pack so parallax compensation would be minimized – assuming computational loads were a significant % of the total TIITS capability, which is likely.

One feature that would be important would be dual feed-paths for both the GAUs. This would insure that dedicated ammo types and ammo stores could be reserved, and yet if those reserves were depleted, general purpose ammo could be fired in a last ditch effort to whatever extent it was still available. This would also allow a fast reload of canister ammo using an autoloader or very motivated crews. As for numbers, I think one such weapon per squad of 3-5 PAVs should be sufficient, unless you know you are going into a high threat environment, in which case you bring all you can and maybe deploy them forward or around other PAVs. The PAV's ability to "pop up" on its suspension would be very helpful in making sure the GAUs fire over the heads of other crews and not into them. This safety feature is much more prevalent with cherry picker gun. Thinking out loud here, I guess the Phalanx targeting data should be available to any gun that could potentially engage - like the cherry picker gunner who could make a quick mess of the shooter and if the cherry picker gunner happens to have chosen a GAU in Grendel, .338 or .50 BMG for the mission, would be very effective at engaging incoming missiles, arty and mortars outside the range and from a different angle than the designated primary GAU gun.

There are some interesting tactical implications of the enemy having such a capability
- don't rely too much on your CAS and especially choppers to defeat enemy formations, they will be very vulnerable to a Phalanx system
- don't rely too much on BAT P3I type smart munitions as they "hover" to search for targets and will therefore be vulnerable to such weapons
- when engaging an enemy so equipped, fire arty, MLRS, mortar and MK-19s in the most intensely time-compressed volleys you can manage. DragonFire's computer controlled management of large groups of mortars allows it to do just that - saturating a point or area with fire from up to 32 systems.

My TIITS scheme for voluntary "cooperative fires" which provide direction and elevation indicator bubbles that only have to be zero'ed on before firing allow PAV crews to set up and fire 2-4 cooperative mortars per PAV (no system limit, but a practical one). This was the reason for specifying the cleats/running boards at the bottom of the side armor slabs have receiving fixtures that are a perfect substitute for the base plates of mortars. You will also remember the entire weight of the vehicle can be pressed down onto this running-board/cleat/scrape plate, lifting most or all of the PAV weight off of its suspension. This and Ultra-Light mortars using ceramics and carbon fiber to reduce weights to 30-50% of current mortars allows even a single 4 PAV squad to fire an oil-cooled DragonFire auto-loading 120mm @ 20rpm and up to 16 additional 60mm & 81mm mortars @ 20-30rpm. Employing a small diameter, low-pressure, dual-channel, hydraulic hose one could oil cool all of these tubes so this rate of fire could be sustained indefinitely. With 17 tubes firing at 20rpm per squad, even a squad could overwhelm an enemy Phalanx system. You might also want to use the 60mm's higher 30rpm rate of fire since the goal is simply to overwhelm the enemy's ability to engage. So at max, ignoring MK-19 grenades, that is 500 rpm per PAV squad. Two MK-19s add another 500rpm if the target is in its 2,200 meter range. One final thought, given the massive computational power required to operate sight processing in TIITS, there is no reason to have DragonFire's smarts offline in some proprietary system. The processing power needed to compute the ballistic tables for 17 mortar tubes spread out over maybe 1k max is far less than needed to render one 200x300 jpg file from its compressed format. This is true even if the enemy is on the move and probably true if all of your guys are on the move too.

Look how much capability we have added, and how much weight? Maybe 50-100 lbs for the targeting radar? - assuming at least one PAV in a squad of 3-5 was going to be deployed with a CROWS twin GAU anyway the weight penalty is noise. Where is the requirement then for an endless parade of 15-25 ton platforms the DOD keeps getting sold? Have they never heard of the RMK? Also, when you look at the systems the defense contractors build you are immediately struck by the fact that each of them want to build completely self-contained islands so they can sell the same capabilities over and over again. Interestingly, when you look at those same contractor’s presentations to the DOD they make a point of selling the overlap/commonality with existing or other proposed systems which are supposed to save costs, but when actually developed, they make the DOD pay for all of the capabilities all over again no matter how redundant. What this tactic actually is intended to do is break down DOD resistance to adopting many new systems with the implication that there will be cost savings from the joint development. This cost savings in fact NEVER materializes. The DOD gets billed multiple times for the development – my observation. As with the current radio com nightmare, this problem fosters non-trivial systems incompatibilities that result in a dramatically degraded combined systems capability – and it will get worse on a log scale as permutations increase logarithmically, not linearly, with added variations. This was THE impetus for TIITS. Get a standard in place, revise it as needed, but FORCE EVERYONE to use it!!!!!!!!!!!!! oh, and !!!

OK, having thought it to death, I like the idea a lot, thanks for the pointer... :D

Coolhand77

I try...just wish I worked in an R&D house or something...talk about a kickass job where we could actually develope stuff like this

solidpoint

Lol

Yeah, you and me both...

In the meantime... check out the brainstorm Arne and I have going. I was wondering if one could feed Grendel-based ammo through a FNL MK-48 7.62 version of the M249 SAW by extending the bullet and seating it high in the Grendel case to give it the same OAL (71mm) as the 7.62x51 using the 144FMJ. As a bonus we could reclaim the vacated casing space for more powder.

http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Kneubuehl.PDF

It looks like a very pointy bullet would work, as the limit on bullet size would have a case + bullet length of 83mm. We should be able to get a good seat then and still have a 5-6 calibers long bullet. I could design a full-sized tungsten SLAP round at that weight and get ballistics VERY close if not identical to a .50BMG FMJ ball. Now THAT would make one sweet round for twin Grendel Phalanx GAUs!

I am working on a calculator for computing the weight of various bullet shapes based on various Ogilvy and materials. I might have to get my scanner working for that... a nice math problem to solve... and very helpful to determine general characteristics before warming up the forge. :D

solidpoint

Coolhand77

Yah, too bad about the 109s problems. I really wanted my "Cannister gun" :D .

Joking aside though, i like what I am seeing with the new 40mm launchers that are being fielded, I just wish there was some way to streamline and thin down the ammo, so we could get more effective range with maybe a slightly reduced payload...not to mention a flatter trajectory. I think a low impulse version of the 109 ammo would be in order, just like they did with the low impulse 40mm ammo originally.

solidpoint

Cool,

Both the Steyr and the South African .50/20mm AMRs have solved the problem. Barrett is just being obstinate about sticking to their short-recoil mechinism. The Steyr used a long recoil and the South African (Denel I think) gun uses hydraulic to catch the initial recoil and then a spring for the last few inches. This provides a more linear felt recoil as the hydraulic arrestor provides good braking action until the log-linear spring action starts to load up enough to do its fair share.

There is no reason a 25 or 30mm cannot have the punch of a 40mm grenade as far as I can tell. There is nothing I know of about the physics of shaped charges that requires a diameter greater than 25mm to set up an effective penetrating blast wave. This is not to say there isn't one, but none I have ever found. ATK also has a 30mm Apache gun projectile development program underway with some pretty ambitious goals, so we may see some new capability soon. I also noticed that the new Milkor 40mm 6-shooter now comes in a full-charge version.

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=749

The 40mm charge-reduction system might need the full 40mm diameter, but I doubt it. I am surprised no one has ever tried to add a gas collection chamber to the gun itself so the initial charge could be stored and then spread over more time so the full charge could be used to push the grenade down the barrel but with a managable recoil. Such a collection chamber should be made of something like ceramic or carbon fiber that will not cool the gas quickly, as that would kill the charge. This could be done by having holes in the brass case which are uncovered in the process of the grenade being pushed out of the shell and into the barrel. By adjusting the size and placement of the holes it should be possible to "leak" gas into the collection cavity at a highly tailored rate.

This would result in an M79/M203 with a 1,000+ yard range however, not a flat shooting GLMG like the Apache gun. This would be a huge advance in MOUT capabilities though, as it would allow infantry to engage enemy fire-support weapons like MGs and RPGs at stand-off ranges. By placing the butt on the ground and using your boot to hold the strap to the ground at a marked point on the strap you can stretch the strap up from a marked point to adjust the elevation of the gun like a mortar. This procedure is in the Army field manual for the M79.

Coolhand77

FULL CHARGE?!?!?!?! You don't mean a hand held weapon that can handle the Mk-19 ammo? I didn't think that was possible with the recoil impulse.

solidpoint

Hummm... maybe not the full MK-19 strength round.. which sometimes has a bit too much push for MOUT as it can ricochette and end up in your lap... but for longer ranges there's no reason the HellHound can't be retrofit to the MK-19 for 90mm penetration of soft steel.... at least 50mm of RHA I would think... and to think the existing MK-19 HEDP rounds collasped whole buildings during OIF... man, with all of the new ammo developments the case for the PAV just gets stronger.

I like the Milkor 40mm a lot for the PAV driver's weapon as it doesn't need a lot of careful aiming to knock down a squad or 2 of bad guys rushing the PAV unexpectedly as the PAV starts across an intersection. This allows the driver to focus on getting the crew to saftey while still supressing the hell out of a quartering threat.

I have specified a ball type firing port through the driver's side armor so the driver can duck for cover and still blow the bejeesus out of anything on his lef to front quarter. When in open country the ball can be turned to cover the hole and therefore offer unbroken armor protection.

http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/MEI%20HELLHOUND.pdf

Coolhand77

Okay, yah, I read about the Hellhound. i would still like something more streamlined than the 40mm ...maybe if we could take the same launching impulse and use a higher ballistic coefficiant 25 mm projectile...

solidpoint

http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/MEIHUNTIR.PDF

This is a critical piece in MOUT environments, and being an IR camera, it would give us a big advantage at night, through smoke, or in fog, snow or heavy rain. Now all we need is to TIITS enable it and we have another weapon featured in my "military fiction" book. It will all be fact pretty soon. Better get busy I guess :D

Uber cool for MOUT. No blind alleys!

solidpoint

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=741

A shaped charge warhead with 12.7mm penetration and 200 yard range shoehorned into a 19mm 12 gauge shotgun format. I didn't think there were any physics that precluded this. These can be fired from full-auto, low recoil "shotguns" with 20 round boxes. (sounds like a GLMG to me)

Speaking of a GLMG, a 5-barrelled GAU in 12 gauge shotgun firing these shells would be awesome for MOUT and should be within the reach of a CROWS turret for recoil as the new CROWS can handle the MK-19. Better yet, the ammo could be used by infantry as well as the vehicle pain pump, a philosophy I like a lot.

BTW, did anyone else notice that the people that the FSU graduate that published the paper on ultralightweigth composite motar tubs called on to make a test mortar tube are the same people that completed the development of the Javelin ATGM shortly afterwards - after having warhead performance problems up to that point? You connecting the dots here ? ;)

solidpoint

http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/ecp/5-Initiatives/GCE/ECP%20-%20ECASS%2022%20Dec%2004%20Web.pdf

gee, why didn't I think of that... look at the increase in load bearing capabilities and speed projected... :cool:

Coolhand77

I wonder if theres a payload comparison between the FRAG-12 and the 40mm rounds, Would be interesting.

As a side note, I wonder if they are still using standard shotgun shells for the FRAG-12 rounds. It would seem more logical to me to use a slightly extended brass case, and use a driving band on the "slug", leaving the slug exposed (and strangely enough it would look like those mini grenades from Aliens, funny how life imitates art some times) and easier to identify not only at a glance, but by touch as well. It would suck to feed a round into your shotgun and fire it only to realize that you got one of the frag rounds and just used it on a guy that was within the 2 meter "kill zone" :eek: .
BlamBOOM
"Aww crap...someone get the medic, Bob just fragged himself"
:D

Zipperhead

>>"I wonder if theres a payload comparison between the FRAG-12 and the 40mm rounds, Would be interesting."

There would certainly be a MASSIVE difference in the explosive charge volume, between that Frag-12 and the 40mm. But if you are considering the new 40mm shells "hellfire", which effectively doubles the payload of the 40mm...well you get the picture!

Personally, I think for Iraq, anyone with a shotgun would be better served by being able to shove as much double and tripple ought buckshot straight at the enemy instantly...than messing about with firecrackers like the Frag12. Semi and full auto shotguns firing buckshot, in guns that are easily pointable, and magazine fed (for speed of recharging) would be the ticket. Pumps may be good for low cost and general mission flexibility, but I think that there's a need for a pure automatic ultra-fast shotgun for high intensity military CQB scenarios. The Russians learned that lesson and made the Saiga-12...which in it's basic form isn't terribly practical, but with modifications has turned out to be outstanding and showing even more potential than anything else in combat shotguns.

solidpoint

We developed one after Vietnam, and then it just seemed to evaporate. It fired 10 gauge shells though, but was full auto... about 600rpm if I remember right. The stated purpose was to keep Charlie from breeching the wire by flattening it with bodies and then having their comrades run over their backs to get inside the perimeter. The full-auto 20 round box gun being fired by the 80 lb kid looks pretty impressive too.

For the PAV HOOOW having a 12 gauge GAU on an overhead mount, with a Javelin CLU type interface, keeps the deck clear, his head down, the weight off of him, and his lap, arms and hands clear for reloading other weapons, supporting the driver and curling into the fetal position behind bullet-proof glass 2"+ thick if the Islami-Nazis get a jump on him. I guess in MOUT he'd likely have a bunch of hand-grenades velcro'ed around his personal space for pitching into windows or doorways.

Anyway, I too like the idea of just hurling a bunch of steel or lead balls in Jimmy Jihad's general direction, but the shaped-charge version would be a nice addition to the mix for breaching doors and then raining pain inside the building. With 4" of aluminum and 1" of steel armor penetration that door would have to be VERY thick to protect the Inazis from certain death.

BTW, I contacted a company that makes linear electric motors in LA and based on my research the XM-109's recoil could be perfectly arrested, according to your own personalized recoil profile, using this technology. As a side-effect it charges batteries or whatever. My idea was to put the batteries on the gun so their mass helped control the recoil. If you have to carry batteries anyway, there is no weight penalty. You could also just dump it into a resistor and let it dissipate as heat. For rapid fire you could dump it into a capacitor and have the coils resist more vigourously. My cousin sent me a story claiming there is now a thin plastic garbage bag like membrane that produces electricity. If so there wouldn't be much weight advantage in turning the gun into a battery charger.

I have heard that the Inazis have been targeting leadership targets like tank and IFV commanders. My solution for shedding schatchel charges and such would help here - a dome of shade cloth. (The Russians used woven metal for this and Molitov cocktail protection in Chechena) For the PAV this would look like the top half of a football, for the crews inside heavy metal in Iraq it would be a godsent to have the entire vehicle under shade and out of sight of menecing eyes. Its gotta get old burning your hands anytime you touch metal with bare hands - to say nothing of sweating your ass off in 115 degree heat all day. The increase in crew stamina from the shade alone would be worth the 2-3k price.

solidpoint

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, one of the reasons, perhaps the primary one, that we are having so much trouble in AnBar province is because the troops that were supposed to occupy it were the ones Turkey refused to allow passage thru their country. At 88 per C-5 and 51 per C-17, using the H1, H2, & H3 bases in western Iraq to stage from, landing one each an hour, in 24 hours we could have had a over 3,000 PAVs to patrol with. with fully equipted crews. Whether Darfur or Zimbabwi, or two dozen other hot stops we can't afford to engage while the problem is still a manageable size, we need to be able to do this mission with good crew protection and at a reasonable cost.

Am I the only one that feels it an embarassment that the HellHound gets developed by some little no-name company from the sticks while the huge ATK, spinoff of Boeing, can't even get the HEDP round for the XM-109 working? Clinton's strategy to pay incentives for defense contractors to merge each other out of existance has shown itself to be a horrible idea that is serving us poorly at best.

I have an idea. Large defense contractors should have to set up a system to solicit ideas from the general public and help them bring ideas along so they can get them into production using their huge and deep pool of capabilities. This seems like a small thing to ask from companies that garner billion dollar contracts on a weekly basis from the DOD. I guess another letter to my Congresswoman is on my ToDo list.

Coolhand77

gee, maybe I should put it in the same envelope with the "You'd better protect my property rights under the fifth amendment" letter to my congressman

Warbucks

Solidpont,

Not gonna happen. Companies want to patent anything they create and are loathe to work with outsiders. Besides, Procurement is a game of politics, which the big companies cna play and hte little guys can't.

If you think your ideas are great, find someone in the Pentagon to send them to, or get a financial backer and patent stuff then approach the Pentagon.

Look at the small arms arena as an example. Te Grendel is clearly superior to the SPC despite what Doc Roberts claims, yet there has been more promotion within the Pentagon of the SPC, because he SPC is connected to some special forces folks. Such is life.

solidpoint

...better get that mini-phalanx system up and running quickly... looks like we are going to need it and damned fast.

RE: defense contractors. We paid billions to encourage them to merge. They get paid in advance for stuff they never even deliver. There are no 2nd sources for many of the systems they sell to the DOD so they name any outrageous price and then brag about how much money they saved the government. Their performance in delivering innovations shows they feel no competitive pressures, many pay zero taxes as they are allowed to carry forward losses, they develop almost exclusively on cost-plus contracts... Boeing in particular has been involved in 2 scandels involving hiring AirForce personnel who pushed Boeing's 767 tanker program while still in uniform as a perk for their support which resulted in multiple senior level firings, two changes in corp leadership, two Congressional probes, the cancellation of the tanker/transport program which now seems likely to go to an AirBus consortium, and at least one high-visibility public appology... as a long-time Libertarian believe me... there is no private property to protect here. These guys long ago sold their souls to the devil and are now in the pockets of the DOD.

Minority firms are garenteed first crack at all contracts, and 1/3 of what they deliver is so badly defective it is unusable, and yet this policy goes on. At least my proposal would give those like Bill & Arne a leg up getting their ideas thru the red-tape mill. ... imho of course

solidpoint

Anyone know how difficult it would be to do this conversion. The 12 gauge being 19mm from the DefenseReview article...??? The recoil would be much less I assume as the shell has a lot less push, but at least the barrel assembly should work.

Coolhand77

Depends on what mechanism you use, If you are using a GE minigun style unit, then conversion shouldn't be that difficult because it doesn't depend on the cartridge to keep the weapon operating. They have Mini's as small as .22 Long Rifle, and gatlings as large as 30mm (maybe bigger, though I don't recall it). For a gas/Recoil operated, just make a crew served version of the AA12 and use a linkless feed system to avoid having to develop a new "feed tray" system for linked belts.

solidpoint

Cool... yeah... I was thinking of a GAU, but made with shotgun length smoothbore barrels made of ceramics - very lightweight to allow the max possible slew-to-target rate and with max rate of fire. Using 00 buck and some of the new HEDP shells a 5-6 barrelled version should be light enough to double as a killer MOUT gun for the PAV and still be air-deployable in a CH-47 or CH-53 platform.

I was looking over the new body armor for extremities and realized the infantryman is getting a lot heavier, up to 25 lbs of body armor now. Added to heavier weapons like shotguns and OISW and Grendel SCARs I am starting to see the PAV more and more like the Cavalry steed of old. When body armor in those days got too heavy for men to fight on foot, they became mounted. This is exactly how I saw the PAV when I set out to define an infantry "force multiplier". I have to admit, autobahn's constant pushing in that direction was a factor.

BTW, except for the fact that it takes up so much time, I would like to focus on tactics here on the PAV thread. Alek has given me an interesting scenario I am working through. I know some of you have your doubts as to the weight and protection levels, but if you could suspend disbelief where your perception does not influence system capabilities maybe we could all play a sort of AvonHill war game here. By system capabilities I mean, if I think it weights 1,600 lbs and you think it weights 2,600 lbs, we can still agree it can be lifted by most helicopters, so we still have that system capability. Now if you think it weights 6-10 tons that system capability is gone.

PS: speaking of weight, check out the characteristics of honeycomb structures...http://www.pacificpanels.com/
- 33 times the strength of plywood
- 7 times the stiffness
- 3% of the weight
... a 2" thick pannel weights 1.2lbs per sq ft.

http://dtrs.dfrc.nasa.gov/archive/00000381/ ... hypersonic flight...hummm... sound like a mine blast wave to you?

They also now have carbon fiber cored honeycomb. Lighter, stronger and NO radar signiture. :D

Coolhand77

You might want to consider teflon coated flechettes instead of buckshot. You get the multiple wound channels, and armor piercing capability.

solidpoint

... can I use snake veneom instead of teflon? :D

solidpoint

I've been reviewing the NASA data on honeycombed structures and also sales liturature from HexCel Corp and have come to some interesting conclusions.

Using the cell structure NASA used, the PAV's two 4x9 ft V sides can withstand 3,535,488 lbs of pressure each before they buckle. This is without any intermediary supports, of which a center bulkhead is actually planned for the design. Using thicker pannels with greater density this strength can be tripled, effectively allowing these pannels to withstand 10 MILLION pounds of pressure before buckling. This does not solve the problem of stopping bullets or shaped charge weapons, but it does give great hope that if structures and materials can be applied to the face of this structure to prevent penetration and spread loads across larger areas, these structure can more than fill the strength and stiffness requirements needed. The weight of the most densely packed cells is 4.2lbs per CUBIC foot. For a 2" thick section this is a weight of 0.70 lbs per square foot. Adding the carbon fiber skins and epoxy will bring that weight up to between 1-1.50 lbs / sq ft. By comparison, steel weights 82 lbs.

Coolhand77

Thats basically the same deal with bodyarmor. The kevlar will survive the impact but the person wearing it won't nessicarily. Thats why they have the trauma plates.

On a side note. Need to ask my girlfriend's father if they have a site, but he mentioned something called "liquid metal" or something like that. Not Murcury (too heavy, and OSHA would have a field day) but maybe similar propertys. Not sure it would fit what we need, but according to him after giving him a brief description of the PAV it might be a useful technology to look into.

Zipperhead

A friend of mine was saying there's a "liquid body armor"...maybe that's what your GF's father was thinking of? Anyway, apparently it's a fancy liquid that hardens instantly upon major trauma, but is just a liquid under normal circumstances. They are thinking of more comfortable body armor uses, most of all...

solidpoint

My current thinking on ceramic facing armor is to cut it into hex shapes the size of a nickel or quarter with beveled edges on a 45 degree angle - so there is no gap - and then apply it as a sheet over the honeycomb surface which has perhaps a Ti or other composite armor embedded in the layers of carbon fiber facing. One interesting way of getting a good tight fit between the ceramic facing armor and backing would be to use a small vacuum pump and a perimeter lip seal. The problem of course is the exact composition of this kind of armor is classified so even if I knew the composition I couldn't discuss it - and NO, I don't know.

Coolhand77

As far as turret systems, have you looked at the remote gunnery system from FN? I think they call it the ARROW or something like that and it can be fitted with anything from a GPMG up to a MK19 style GL. Its on the www.fnherstal.com site in the integrated weapons section I think.

solidpoint

I have the document saved... looking for URL to paste here... developed by the Israelis, the only country not drownding in its own red tape as far as I can tell.

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004arms/session7/wasil.ppt It looks like the FNL is the Kongsberg unit relabled.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2003/02/mil-030210-navsea06.htm

I like the minigun on an overhead "power steering" mount for the HOOOW- don't need a remote, but some stabilization and a drop-down halo target sight dipping behind the frontal 50+mm ballistic glass would be nice. This keeps the gun light, overhead, arm steered and keeps the deck, cockpit and HOOOW's lap unencumbered. I'd even favor electric drive for this so the PAV could use its hybrid motors to sneak into position AND fire this gun without having to start the diesel engine....attention to details when writing scenarios helps refine this kind of thing.

Any overhead sheilding of the gun, as well as the body of the gun, protects the HOOOW from overhead fire. The ammo could be stored in the space behind the HOOOW's seat or in the base PAV ahead of the engine in the forward 5-6ft of the V-hull. Make mine a .338 or 71mm Grendel using a VLD long bullet.

http://www.precisionremotes.com/HTML/TRemotes.T250.Apps.htm ...don't need the robot, the "just has to be a tracked" robot at that (???) ...so it can be especially susceptible to mine damage? weight twice as much? move 1/10 as fast? require 3x the power (???) hello?? Just fly the PAV by wire via TIITS from up to 5 miles away... duh!

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/smallarms/Ernest-Jones.pdf ... this is a one-man serviced gun, but the Bushmaster gun has 7,000 lbs of recoil force. The mount is a bit heavy at 870lbs, but would be more than enough for a over-under RMK-35-350 AND a coaxilly mounted .338 5-7 barrelled GAU with a 2km range. Replace all the control crap with software and make use of the onboard general-purpose CPUs for implementing vehicle controls and crew-side TIITS functions. One could also put it all on a PlayStation II, an iPod or Casio or Timex watch... jeeze... what a load of "buy it all again".

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002infantry/wasil.pdf ... NOTE the range on the MK44 - 5,600 yards :D The recoil would be too great for a PAV. This gun is LESS capable than the RMK-35-350... which has zero, or very nearly, recoil. On page 19 there is some very TIITS-like beginnings in this system.

Grendelizer

The military, particularly the Marines and SOCOM as related to their use of the MV-22 Osprey aircraft, are looking into light vehicles called Internally Transportable Vehicles (ITV).

I think it's the closest thing, lately, to a PAV, though it is more likely to be a small jeep-type weapons carrier.

See article here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/itv.htm , or search Google.

John

solidpoint

John,

Thanks so much. This is exactly the break I've been looking for. It looks like the USMC might have figured out the huge advantages of bringing your own ground team along when doing intial-knockdown, or even follow-on, SEAD & search and destroy missions. This would be the first time in history that a heliborne assault vehicle could carry its own detachable armored vehicle "danger close" to enemy air defenses and the go on to defeat the threat using a mini-combined arms team.

Well, I guess I have a lot of work to get done and not much time to do it. Thanks again... :)

solidpoint

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/rst-v.htm

Damned! This is almost a requirements list for the PAV !!! Who knew? :eek:

PS: I just spent 4 hours studying the RST-V in detail. It is a very good vehicle, but the PAV (while admittedly only a concept) exceeds its performance in all dimensions. In some dimensions, such as crew protection, where the RST has no armor, and no mine-protection features there is no comparison. On other fronts they are close. Because the PAV's engine produces 210hp (for a weight of 210kg) and the RST only 138hp, the PAV burns more fuel - BUT - that is assuming the PAV is operating without its chariot boom. Bringing along the boom, the usual case, and using the identical hybrid electric system, with a battery weight of 425 lbs (exactly half the power/wt ratio of the PAVs diesel btw) and 80kw motor & battery capacity, the PAV achieves the same fuel efficiency while operating at a cruise speed almost double that of the RST. Assuming a full-up boom-included fielded weight of 4,000lbs - half that of the RST - to include fuel, ammo, operators and such, the PAV should be able to average 50mph while burning 2-2.5 gallons per hour. Using the hollow of the top plate's 2" honeycomb stucture to hold 60 gallons of fuel we get a range of 1,200 miles or almost 2,000km. This far exceeds the 775km range of the RST. Additional fuel can be carried in the honeycomb structure of the chariot boom which would bring its total capacity into the 200 gallon range - depending on weight and mission requirements. This allows the PAV to provide logistic support to choppers, trucks and heavy armored vehicles or drive unrefueled for 3-5,000km while towing an M777. Karachi to Tehran, 1915km, and back on one fill!

For towing, the combined power of the PAV's 210 hp engine and 108hp electric motors yields 318 hp. If I increase the battery weight from 420 to 500 lbs to get full power to the two 50kw hybrid motors I get 345hp for the PAV. This would push the PAVs halved weight well past the RST-V's 32 km electric-only range - perhaps into the 50-60km range. This means even if your PAV takes a APFSDS round through the engine and it takes out the two back wheels too your PAV will still get you out of almost any arty range and to saftey. Using the standard 20hp/ton weight ratio standard for heavies the PAV should be able to tow and carry up to 17 tons! (Wow!) This makes it a prime mover on a scale the Hummer could never hope to match and puts it on par with the latest versions of the M113.

I also came up with a simple way to enable all existing towed gear - like arty - to use hydraulic motors so they add to the combined tractive force of the PAV system. Simply create a hydraulic motor in a package that bolts onto the existing wheel hub and then bolt the wheel onto the hydraulic motor. Wa-La... instant powered "towed" package. Using 2-3 of these 25lb ceramic/composite motors allows the PAV to drive a large prop for amphib ops too, and based on weight, hull configuration and flotation, should result in a top speed in water at or above 30 knots. Based on its combined 345hp and very streamlined hull, I expect the PAV can achieve top speeds over 150mph ( Z rated armor :D) - although I don't see this as likely given the QuadRunner sized tires on the base PAV. For combined chopper ops though this would make it able to not only keep up, but actually lead the choppers into an area. Looking back at those pics of ops in AnBar provience trailing mile long dust plumes I can imagine PAVs at night spaced a half-mile apart or so abreast of each other and the choppers flying in the clear air in-between using the dust plumes to hide them from detection even from IR devices. Oh, almost forgot, but return oil flow from braking forces is fed through the combined [hydraulic motor/pump/hybird electric motor] on the chariot to allow towed gear to contribute to regenerative braking's battery recharge capabilities.

The RST-V was designed 10 years ago, and I think engine, hybrid and armor technology has moved on, but it is still the man to beat at this point. A very capable vehicle as long as no one is shooting at you or planting mines - especially magnetic mines.

http://www.detroitdiesel.com/products/auto/Specs/index.asp ...they are using the top engine, I am using the 2nd one down... aka VR 630 DOHC. My dad's factory test Massy-Fergusson Super-90 tractor had 21:1 common rail direct injection in 1965. Even when lugging down from 1500 to 1100 rpms it never smoked. We had that tractor 5 yrs and plowed half of Iowa and Minn with it to "work the crap out of it" as per Massy's instructions and it was absolutely rock solid. The fuel pump produced 3,500psi of pressure. That engine never made it into production as it was too expensive, but it was absolutely bullet-proof. The hydraulics on it were 20-30 yrs ahead of their time - totally amazing in capabilities and compactness. The whole tractor was sheer joy to use and operate. I really hope it is in a museum somewhere as it was just lightyears ahead.

solidpoint

Well... you asked for it...
All hulls are V-hulls and the forward part of the crew compartment comes to a point in front, a tetrahedron I believe it is called. The crew compartment isn't staggered in position or height, and the side armor panels are not shown... but you get the general idea.

Assuming 1,500 for the RMK ammo, 1,000 crew & their gear, and 500 lbs fuel added to the basic 2,000lb weight = 5,000 lbs for the base

Assuming 2,500 for the boom, hybrid technology, armored side slabs, 1,000 for the starship itself with gun and then perhaps another 1,000 lbs of fuel in the honeycombed slabs = 4,500 - well below the 12,000 lb limit of 2 HEMTT's tires.

Total system weight of 9,500lbs... the heaviest possible configuration of the PAV system. Unrefueled range would be 3,750 miles if averaging 50mph. (75 hours) :D

If the wheels were flooded they would hold about another 1,500 lbs, and the undrawn side armor slabs for the base PAV would hold about another 750 lbs for a total of 290 gallons. Enough drinking water for 3 men for 20-30 days? Is there any place on earth THAT dry?

The StarShip gun is aimed Warthog style, the entire saucer is articulated. The StarShip can rotate a full 360 degrees and go from about -30 degrees down to flipped upside down shooting behind so it can track and engage an airborne theat, like a chopper, even if it passes directly overhead. The max gun height is about 18 ft if the 9ft slabs are standing straight up. The wheels can be spread dynamically under the StarShip gunner's controll to a width of 12ft max - or 5 ft min. The tires and slabs both contribute to the total protection the StarShip gunner enjoys.

The slabs are actually angled at 30 degrees and mounted on the inside of these armored slabs is a Stinger quad-pack on one side and a Javelin quad-pack on the other. The StarShip saucer has side attachment points for them. It can therefore engage armor and aircraft simultaneously, using their F&F capabilities, while firing its guns in support of infantry - especially supressive overhead fire in support of advancing infantry. A very capable system - far beyond the capabilities of any existing IFV and at about 20% of the weight.

Coolhand77

Okay, remind me why its so front heavy/ unbalanced looking? Wouldn't it be more balanced to have the front wheels further forward on armatures or something, just behind the nose/sensor pack?

solidpoint

... so if you run over a mine the crew is safely forward of the blast by the time the first wheels could hit it. Actually, if you knew you were in a mined area you could tell the suspension to "float" the front wheels, or even pick them up so the back 4 wheels would bear all of the weight. You can see now how the boom is important in stabilizing the system in pitch, but bear in mind that all of the engine weight is at the very back of the PAV, as is the hydraulic oil, engine coolant and cargo. By filling the rear wheels with water you can also add about 500 lbs at the back of the base PAV.

Also, almost all of the weight in the crew "kayak" is in the first 18-24 inches. That is where the crew and very thick armor is. After that the crew compartment comes to a point pretty quickly and there is therefore not much weight up there. Note how the HOOOW's GAU is anchored right at the bulkhead as opposed to on a mount ahead of him. This keeps the weight back and keeps his head down and lap unencumbered.

Cargo can also be slung over the boom in a pinch. An extreme case of this would be 3 55 gallon fuel drums slung with nets or ropes or wheatever, draped with ballistic blankets, with the crew's rucks, ammo boxes, mortar tubes, etc. draped over that, and then a final layer of ballistic blankets and cammo cloth over that. The length of the boom is specified to accomadate 3x32" 55 gallon drums. That 165 gallons will get the PAV 3,300 miles, but more importantly, it would get an AH6 LittleBird 5-600 miles.

The distance from the StarShip's wheels to the hinge point where the slabs meet the boom is 9 ft. The boom is 9 ft in all, so the distance from the StarShip's wheels to the front set of PAV wheels is about 27 ft. This makes the system VERY stable in pitch, in spite of the crew compartment being cantelivered.

Coolhand77

Whats the green thing hanging on the back?

Zipperhead

Ok, using your best guesses, please fill out the following form so we can digest it:

Completely Empty weight :
Empty weight with fuel/fluids:
Weapons weight:
Munitions round count:
Total munitions weight:

Engine/drivetrain description:
Horsepower:
Torque:
Total drivetrain weight:

Weapons list
-configuration A
-config B
-config C

Crew size:
Passenger/troops:
Top speed:
Endurance time without re-supply:
Fuel range:

Height at which saucer gun extends:
level of armor for gunner:
Weight of saucer gun system, with gunner and ammo:

Primary mission:
Secondary mission:
Alternate mission:

Projected development cost:
Projected drive-away cost (unit cost):
Projected number of units purchased (how many will the US military buy?):

Level of protection:
-mine strength
-caliber of HMG/autocannon
-how will it handle RPG-7?
-RPG-27?

Sensors/computers:
-how many, what power are computers?
-what kind of sensors?
-system weight:

Future potential variants for different missions:

Zipperhead

Cont.

Water volume:
Water weight:

Overall tonnage (will it sink or float? Where’s the waterline?):

Oh, and if you are describing anything in Tons, please inform us if you are using Metric tons, Imperial tons or one of the other kinds…likewise for any other unit, please be clear about which unit you are using!

solidpoint

...kind of burned out after an all-nighter... but just a few things off the top of my head

water is 8lbs/gallon and 64lbs per cubic foot
ton = 2,000 lbs
ceramic/compsite armor weights 1/3rd what steel does.
45 degree angles reduce required armor thickness by 50%
30 degree angles only reduce it by about 33%
7.72x51 requires 15mm RHA equivelent

All armor slabs are min 7.62x51@pb range protection level. Using 45 degree angles this requires 8mm RHA equivalent. The 30 degree slopes would need another 2-3mm. That is the level of mine protection as well, unless additional armor is applied, which there is provision for if desired. NOTHING in the V-hulls is bolted as these become bullets in a mine explosion. The hulls are monolithic strucures backed in a pressure mold. They have wrap-around Ti sheets on the bottom 18" to protect the too brittle ceramic armor and are folded over the V bottom to prevent "splitting" of the hull. The 2" thick 4x9ft honeycomb structures will withstand up to 10 million pounds of pressure and will flex like the windshield of a fighter jet to help shed mine blast waves. The ceramic armor is expected (this stuff is all classified so I have to guesstimate here, sorry) to be cut into hex shaped dimes, quarters and dollars with 45 degree beveled edges so there are no gaps and few overlapping edges. All of this is then baked into a composite structure using carbon fiber to resist backside tension forces.

Diesel fuel weight is 8lbs gallon, jet fuel about 6

Slabs/sheets are 2" thick with perforated honeycomb ribbon.

The honeycomb 4x9 ft hull members and 5x9 PAV rear deck therefore represent an 13x9ft x 2" water displacement. This is is 19.5 cubic feet, which at 64lbs/cf is 1,240 lbs of displacement. The crew kayak is about half of this for a total basic displacement of 1,800 lbs.
The wheels/tires will displace about 225lbs x 6 = 1,400 lbs
The 4x9 outer movable/removalbe slabs (not shown) are another 1,240 lbs.
Total SWAMPPED displacement is about 4,500 lbs

The interior space displacement is about half of a 5x5x9 box for the base unit and half that for the crew kayak... so about 1.5 x 110 x 64lbs/sq ft = 11,000 lbs.

Total UNSWAMPED displacement then is 4,500 + 11,000 = 15,500lbs total displacement. So even configured at its heaviest, 5,000lbs, it floats like a cork! :D

15,500lbs is about 10x the minumum DRY weight with the V-6 engine... because there are no mechanical linkages in the drivetrain the V-6 can be swapped out for the R315 SOHC 105hp turbocharged 4-banger in 10-30 minutes with a weight savings of 200lbs while retaining a 1:12 power to weight ratio to 15,000 ft - better than my car by far. I have also used a full 15mm armor for the PAVs top plate to protect it against arty and such - which is unnecessary if the side armor slabs are up in the <> position to protect against top attack - as opposed to the /V\ position to protect against side attacks.

For transport in a light chopper, such as the AH6 LittleBird, I could lose the 15mm top armor and the side slabs, use the 4-banger, a shorter, lighter crew kayak, and get down to around 1,200 lbs.. I think... need lightweight tires too, but then they don't have to bear much weight so no problem.

The lightest configuration therefore has a DRY weight of 1,200 lbs -but this still provides 7.62x51 protection for vehicle and crew... and a bit more using Ti armor for the engine...cause with no chariot boom there is no hybrid tech to help out in a pinch.

As you can tell, this thing is built like an A-10 Warthog. I hope you guys are proud of this thing; you definitely helped me by challenging me at times. The vehicle exceeds, by far, the most stringent requirements for the USMC's very tough RST & ITV programs - which have no armor or MPV requirements. The USMC is interested in 3-4,000 at the present time, and if used to replace the Army and AirForce Hummers the total run would be in the 60-100,000 unit range? By way of reference, as I recall, there were about 500,000 Willy's Jeeps produced in WW-II.

solidpoint

The RMK 35-350 is the most powerful IFV gun currently under development with the possible exception of the telescoping ammo gun. It will defeat the frontal armor on any existing IFV in the world, and many MBTs. It has zero recoil according to the mfg and field reporters. You can fire it sideways off of a bicycle... that is the claim. The total length of the gun is about 11 ft, and the barrel about 9 ft. The gun is drawn close to scale as the crew kayak is 8ft long. Some caliber of RMK would also be an awesome StarShip gun where the recoilless gas blast would be up and away from blue forces... and zero recoil to manage too. Mauser makes a 27mm gun with a ROF of 900 rpm, but I am not sure it is recoilless. Twin RMKs with a fire rate of 600rpm are supposed to provide devastating close-in air-defense and decimate any chopper A-10 Warthog style.

Due to the limits of Paint I did not draw in a 2nd CROWS weapon, but one mounted behind the RMK to include a MK-19 would be well within reason. To protect this 2nd gun a metal blast shield would have to be installed and anchored to the PAV structure. This would actually increase the performance of the recoil mechanism of the RMK and disperse IR heat plumes.

My personal favorite gun for the StarShip, when paired with the RMK base, would be an over-under twin barreled Gast-principal BRM-15 FNL 15.5x115mm gun. With a modest bullet size the VHMG can defeat the armor of most IFVs and many MBTs at a range of almost 1km and enough ammo can be carried to use it like MaDuce. It has a single-barrel fire rate of 600 spm, so the Gast gun should about double that... call it 20 rounds per SECOND. The recoil would be high, but the point of articulating the entire StarShip structure is precisely that all of the gun, armor, pod, ammo and operator weight is available to damp recoil. With both hydraulic and electrical energy just a few feet away this should be quite doable.

For MOUT this gun would be utterly devastating and with the range and punch to provide awesome mezzanine level suppression to CAS assets rolling in for their gun run. In this role the StarShip will be an RPG magnet and will therefore need slat armor. I see these being used in clusters of 3-5 seperated by a block or two, one in the lead, with a heavy or 2 ahead on the ground to provide frontal security and protection and land-lubber PAVs behind and around to provide 360 ground protection.

PS: There are two versions of the StarShip. The SS-Hi has a longer boom so it can reach up to 25 ft without having to raise the slabs very high off the ground. The StarShip I drew was the SS-Lo, which would be pretty unstable at 18 ft of height, but this would still be a good observation height to make max use of its ITAS type targeting package. In MOUT the Lo could get over single story structures, and into the windows of 2nd stories while the Hi could look over the top of 2nd story roofs and into the windows of 3 story buildings. Beyond 3 stories there are few structures usually spread out here and there so if they are a problem just call in an air-strike and let the Hi use its laser designator to paint the target. Also, if you can keep Jimmy Jihad fighting from above 3rd story roof tops you vastly diminish his ability to threaten ground troops.

As a practical matter, given middle east building codes, I'd just cut the building in half at the 2nd story level to collaspe it Twin Towers style and let the collaspe kill everyone inside.

PPS: I now favor a single version of the StarShip - the SS-Hi. Not only is it more capable, but when the boom is extended fully and lowered the StarShip will actually lift up on the back of the PAV. If the front 2 or 4 wheels were blow away the PAV's weight would have a tremendous lever arm ahead of the surviving rear wheels - which would put a tremendous strain on the remaining two suspension members. By enabling the StarShip to provide lift to the base PAV unit at the very rear, it would relieve a great deal of this stress.

solidpoint

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050712/ap_on_re_eu/srebrenica_anniversary;_ylt=AtaeU.R2msvBB2iclblPDVWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b3JuZGZhBHNlYwM3MjE-

On this day let us resolve to give policy makers something between doing nothing and spending 5-10 billion to move 200,000 tons of gear into the theater. What a difference a mix of 20 C-5 & C-17s would have made if able to deploy 1,300 PAVs with crews of 4,000 in 8 hours time. Next time they might not be Muslims and someone will actually give a damned.

Warbucks

Coolhand,

Ceramic trauma plates are necessary because rifles go through kevlar like a hot knife through butter. You can survive the blunt trauma from a handgun round in Kevlar, but it'll hurt like hell without a plate.

solidpoint

“Operation Niagara” Best Case Analysis of Airpower in South Vietnam

B-52 Support of Ground Forces During the Siege of Khe Sanh

Tet Offensive (January 21 – April 8 1968)

Total B-52 Sorties Flown during “Operation Niagara”: 2,602 sorties

Average B-52 Sortie Cost (FY-1968): $38,000 per sortie

Total Bomb Tonnage Dropped by B-52s: 76, 600 tons

Cost: $98,876,000.00

Tactical Air Support at Khe Sanh (fighter-bombers): 21,847 sorties

Tactical Air Support Average Sortie Cost: $8,900 per sortie

Total Bomb Tonnage Dropped by Tactical Air: 35,888 ton

Cost: $194,438,300.00

Total Costs in Then Year Dollars: (B-52s plus Tactical Air) $293,314,300.00

Total Costs in Current (2003) Dollars: $1,613,228,650.00

Total Bomb Tonnage Dropped: 112,488 tons

MACV KBAs: 4,000 to 15,000 North Vietnamese troops

(Military Assistance Command Vietnam, Killed By Air

This is the best estimate by American intelligence of the

number of enemy killed during the siege of Khe Sanh by

airpower.

Cost per estimated enemy KBA: (4,000 troops) $73,328.57

Current Dollars (2003): $403,307.13

Cost per estimated enemy KBA: (15,000 troops) $19,554.28

Current Dollars (2003): $107,548.54

------------------------------

By bringing along their own arty in the form of mortars I'm hoping we can bring down that cost substantially.

solidpoint

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:kTNRG9SqtJ8J:www.veteransforpeace.org/The_cost_of_war_082703.htm+%22operating+cost%22+%2B+M1+%2B+abrams+&hl=en&lr=lang_en&client=firefox-a%20target=nw

The M1A1 cost about $160 per mile to operate. Assuming it averages 50mph for 20 of 24 hours a day during combat operations this works out to $160,000 per day. This is some very large fraction of the per unit cost of the PAV and was near my guess that the cost of a PAV would be the cost to operate an Abrams for one day.

The BFV costs about $28-30 per mile... so about $25-30,000 per day.

The road from Baghdad to the Jordan border is about 400 miles, so if we were to patrol that critical road and make the trip back and forth once a day, a reasonable task for an armored patrol vehicle, this would cost us about $12,000 a day, or $4 million per year, PER VEHICLE! - more than the cost of the vehicle.

The IRS reimbursement for common vehicle useage is $0.35 per mile... so assume the PAV cost a buck a mile, even though it uses the same technology. This would drop the cost of the patrol to $145,000 per year. I rented a large 24ft Ryder truck with a Allision transmission, hydraulic lift gate and Hi-Lo 2-speed rear axle for $85 a day recently and the gas milage was about 10mpg. The engine was in the same general range as the PAV but it still used a lot more fuel pushing all that wind. Still, using this as a baseline we would have $85 a day in capital cost and at $2.50 a gallon for diesel fuel, traveling 800 miles we'd burn $200 in fuel in this gas guzzler. (The fuel specifics for the proposed engine are very specific so I have good estimates for the PAV's usage at about 4gph when on and zero when running on the electrics for an average of 2-2.5gph.)

Lets just round this up to $300 a day and assume the DOD can't do things as efficiently as Ryder. This comes out to about $110,000 a year - so I think the 145k is likely a very good guestimate. Call it 150k if you like - that is a huge difference from 4 million, in fact, it is about a 25:1 cost savings, so the cost of deploying 25 PAVs in lieu of 1 BFV is roughly proportional their relative DRY weights. Even if used in a 50:1 weight ratio, the PAV is still massively cheaper than the staggering 6-fold jump in cost when going from the BFV to the Abrams. For the same cost as an Abrams we could field 300 PAVs, almost enough to do the proposed mission. Isn't that striking? (using the low-side estimates we get about 425 PAVs per Abrams as a function of cost) That RMK cannon and those Javelin missiles are starting to look pretty cheap, huh?

Now if you need 500 vehicles to do this patrol properly, will you spend 2 BILLION per year to do it? Or will you just find ways to cut corners as a commander to keep the taxpayers from screaming bloody murder?

By contrast, if that cost was 12-13 million a year, just a little more than the replacement cost of a single Abrams tank, would you still try to cheap out, or would you likely just do the mission as planned, and perhaps even add a few vehicles for reinforcement and reserves?

Zipperhead

Well that's all fine and dandy, (nice cost breakdown BTW), but you are overlooking some rather basic issues: Neither Abrams nor Bradleys are being used to patrol long highways. Of that you can be sure.

Such roads are being patrolled by cheap UAV's, armed response done by helicopter (but not nessisarily patrolling), convoy escorts being done by M1117 vehicles, which just got a big increase in orders, these being much cheaper than a Bradely on a dollar/mile basis.

Then there is the fact that heavy tracked armor isn't simply driven to it's target...it's put on trains for long distances, and on lowbed tractor "tank transporters" for medium distances. That way, you have the high speed of rubber wheels, the fuel economy of a heavy truck, but retain all the offroad mobility, high firepower and crazy armor protection that such land beasts afford the trooper.

Quick response seems to be the Stryker's main advantage, and I bet it's dramatically cheaper to operate than a Bradley, but I've not seen numbers to back that up.

solidpoint

Zipper,

I largely agree that we are deploying them as you say, and the cost makes it obvious why. It is troublesome though that we are forced to eliminate the use of armor because of the high cost of using it. If you expose a gap in your capabilities, expect your enemy to exploit it to his maximum advantage. Trucking heavies in is of course done, but it makes suprise operations impossible because it requires so much planning and logistical support the insurgents are gone by the time they get there. BTW, the Russian analysis that John posted says the Strykers are doing very well. I also think it more likely that units would be assigned sectors, perhaps 20-50km long and would run racetrack patrols over those. This gets the units in their sectors familiar with enemy formations, terrain, and tactics. The ability to reinforce such patrols by air via C-130s and C-17s - using the highway itself as a runway - would also be very useful. It would also likely increase the number of miles put on these patrol vehicles as they would patrol constantly 24x7x365. A practical top speed of over 100mph would be a huge asset on patrols and in adjecent patrol sectors comming to the rescue in reinforcement as well.

By giving the PAV light armor and MPV capabilities my goal was to allow them to find and fix the enemy, stand toe-to-toe with them to maintain the inititive, giving CAS time to get on station and destroy whatever was beyond PAV capabilities. A few RMKs add a lot of reach to that package. Interestingly, I had run across the RMK months before Alek pointed it out to us, but failed to grasp the importance of its recoiless feature for the PAV.

It's stinking hot here this week, and I am reminded how wonderful a large, desert cammo pattern shade cloth dome would be for the crews. The fact that it could also hide them from snipers, and the PAV's IR and radar signitures would be a bonus. The ability of the shadecloth to keep the hull from getting hotter than the surrounding terrain, and holding that heat after sundown, would be very helpful in recon missions where, by contrast, a thick steel hull would stick out like a glowing sore thumb for the first few hours after sundown as it radiates the heat stored in 25 tons of steel into the cold desert night.

I wanted to demonstrate where the PAV really shines, and why it could replace most of the roles of the Hummer, light trucks, scout recon platforms and why as a practical matter heavies are more likely to be fought in MOUT - because they are too expensive to drive around much. Its not what they were designed for. They were designed to travel 50-150km from a known "safe" area into a known hostile area where they would fight the Soviets. This bipolar world of safe and hostile doesn't exist anymore, even in major conflicts, or at least it won't when PAVs by the hundreds and thousands can be redeployed deep behind enemy lines in a few hours. They represent, imho, the state-of-the-art in maneuver warfare, but their ability to be inserted in significant numbers inside the perimeter defenses of a city in a MOUT fight and their ability to get down narrow streets, not block streets if they get immobilized, and with the StarShip, get over the top of a lot of urban landscape gives them a pretty good capability in MOUT too.

Mostly I was just trying to nail down the numbers and having found them, I thought it would help illustrate the relative magnitude of some of the PAVs dimensions. Personally I found the sense of the PAVs numbers/weight tradeoff a lot more concrete after I fleshed out the numbers.

solidpoint

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04925.html

Stryker still too heavy...

solidpoint

http://metals.about.com/gi/dynamic/...tcalculator.htm

Using the calculator and assuming a vehicle

20ft long
7 ft high
8 ft wide

If we conceptually flatten the vehicle we have an area 20ft x (7+8+7+8ft) or 20ftx30ft or 600 sq ft

Assuming we use steel armor and ignoring the weight of the track, chassis, engine, fuel, weapons and ammo, we get the following weights in lbs and tons to protect against the cited penetration risks....

2000mm 1,929,373 --- 965 tons TMK-2HC Soviet HC mine
1200mm 1,157,623 --- 579 tons Koronet ATGM
1000mm 964,686 --- 482 tons TOW-1 & TOW-2 ATGM @ 1 per minute
0800mm 771,749 --- 386 tons Javelin top-attack Fire & Forget Missile @ 10 per minute

0330mm 318,346 --- 159 tons RPG-7/7M shaped charge warhead @ 3 rpm http://www.taos-inc.com/smarms.htm
0150mm 144,702 --- 72 tons RMK-35-350 recoilless autocannon/chaingun @ 200 rpm
0130mm 125,409 --- 63 tons BONUS top-attack triple sensor-fused arty 35km range & 64k sq meters search area per shell, AGM-154 bomb, MLRS delivered BAT P3I @ 300km range.
0105mm 101,292 --- 51 tons RPG-7
0080mm 77,175 --- 38 tons Chinese 35mm AGL
0075mm 72,350 --- 36 tons HellHound 40mm shaped-charge (90mm mild steel - guessing 75mm armor)
0070mm 67,528 --- 34 tons 120mm mortar RAUG Cargo round @ 20 rpm
0040mm 38,587 --- 19 tons 14.5x115 Soviet AP, 25mm OCSW & Barrett XM-109 HEDP, Apache 30mm gunship
0034mm 32,800 --- 16 tons .50 BMG M903 SLAP
0025mm 24,503 --- 12 tons .50 BMG SLAP (25.4mm penetration @ 200 meters) FRAG-12 AP
--- small arms ----
0015mm 14,470 --- 7 tons 7.62x51 SLAP
0012mm 11,576 --- 6 tons 5.56 SLAP

http://www.snipersparadise.com/equipment/ammunition.htm

You will note that for this size vehicle the weight is about 1,000 lbs per mm of protection. Obviously we need to use sizing, materials, spacing, structure and shapes to achieve the PAVs goals.

Armored vehicles are typically given 20-25hp/ton, so the engines required to power these vehicles would range from 100 hp to 25,000 hp. A quick survey of real-world vehicles reveals that this estimate is LOW, and most vehicles are 10-25% heavier than this estimation technique would indicate. Note that the RHA weight jumps from 7 tons to 386 tons to go from small arms to ATGM protection. All ATGMs are man-portable as crew-served weapons as are the unguided RPG missiles and shaped-charge 40mm HellHound - 12 gauge FRAG-12 grenades. A handheld AA12 shotgun can deliver 300rpm of FRAG-12s from a 20-35 round box. The HellHound is currently fired from an M203 low-impulse under-rifle grenade launcher, but could easily be reconfigured for the GLMG MK-19 and fired up to 2,000 meters at 300 rpm. It should also be noted that a million ton bunker complex could not protect Sadaam from precision-guided bunker buster bombs. Fixed fortifications were the folly following WW-I, there is no such thing as an unsinkable battleship, the grim truth that started WW-II, and there is no such thing as survivable armor, the folly revealed in Desert Storm. Passive armor systems are obsolete. Have we learned that lesson? Weight kills!

PS: A good list of Soviet anti-armor weapons with penetration figures.
http://miniatures.de/html/int/shells-russian.html

A good discussion of armor, its rating systems, effectiveness and protection levels. http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/introduction.html#Armour_Hardness_and_Quality

solidpoint

http://www.titusti.com/exo_iso.html

How to make a pneumatic suspension that weights only a few pounds...

A 2" round tube under 3,000psi has an area of pi * r^2 ... or convieniently... pi in this case as r=1=1^2 so about 9,500 lbs of lift. Using the 1.25" tubing in these bike frames yields less, of course, but the law of area/perimiter is greatly in our favor as we go to larger diameter tubes, so things only get better.

There is enough tubing in that frame to make 5-6 suspension members... for 2.5 lbs of weight. It sure beats the hell out of 200lb torsion bars huh? :D

PS:
Or you could go with strictly COTS stuff like this... http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Rear_Shock/product_87274.shtml ... maybe 2-3 in paralell depending on the wieght and lever arm of the suspension members. Oh, and look at the unbroken string of ***** star reviews!

solidpoint

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050803/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

No big, fat, juicy targets. Two and three man vehicles only... near-peer foes would make this problem massively worse.

Warbucks

If a bomb can flip over a 27 ton AAV, it would shred a PAV. Also note that the insurgent can certainly rig up several smaller bombs to deal with a PAV.

solidpoint

First of all, it is not at all clear that the PAV would not fare significantly better than an AmTrac against an IED, and unless it was command detonated the PAV wouldn't have triggered the mine. Its ride height, wheels, and V hull make the PAV much better suited to avoid the fast part of the cone of destruction and much better able to shed the force that remains after a meter or so of ground-vehicle interval. Whether or not this is true its not really the point.

The point is for the same 25 men in a AmTrac or 11 in a Bradley, or 50:1 weight ratio for the Abrams the insurgents would have to kill 8-12, 4-5, or 50 PAVs respectively to kill or destroy the same manpower or logistical replacement footprint.

If you get the idea behind submunitions you should get the idea behind the PAV. Spread things out and don't put all of your eggs in one basket. This is pretty much deployment 101 in an era of sensor-fused weapons.

Looking at it from the other end, if you put 10,000 men in one massive vehicle with armor 10ft thick, but somebody builds a mine that penetrates it (like an aircraft carrier and anti-shipping missile) you take a huge loss with its destruction.

Or looked at another way, given that they have unlimited time, and nearly unlimited propellants we were too stupid to destroy or even guard, they can build a big enough mine to kill anything we want to deploy. Spreading things out across many smaller vehicles makes it much more difficult for them to really hurt us.

Flipping it over wasn't what killed anybody, it was getting hit with a pressure wave and spall when the hull was breeched. There is no vehicle, no matter how heavy, that will withstand a mine packed under enough boosters. Dragging around 27 tons is just a waste of money, and packing that many men together makes it easy for them to deliver a big blow. In fact, the weight of these heavy vehicles requires they be tracked, and tracked vehicles are especially vulnerable to mines. The tracks and roadwheels hold a charge detonated under the vehicle inside under the hull, the breakage of even one tread pin renders the track unsuable and immobilizes the vehicle, the hulls are low to the ground where the full 6-10,000 meter per second force of the blast is available, and not being V hulls, they don't shed blastwaves at all. The AmTrac is a perfect example of a juicy target. It offers no more ballistic protection than a PAV, has no mine-protection features, and offers up to 25 KIA for an afternoon's work. It is also slow and cumbersome, makes a lot of noise, has a high ground-pressure, is large and easily spotted, and is poorly armed.

solidpoint

I am happy to report that my search for materials and methods to actually implement this vehicle has revealed that its construction is not only possible, but there are actually a blizzard of options as to how to implement. One feature of honeycomb structures I have recently discovered is that of muffling the sound of aircraft engines - as well as providing thermal protection to orbital vehicles upon reentry, ( similar requirements to withstanding a mine blast wave as both heat and pressure are shielded against ) and lightweight construction of thrust reversers on jet engines where again heat and gas blast forces must be controlled. As stated earlier, this is in addition to several methods of mono-forming the hull of either metal or composites even when relatively complex shapes are required such as those of the crew compartment. I am still investigating this technology, but it appears that a properly constructed hull would make for a very stealthy PAV even when powered by the diesel engine.

At a minimum this means the vehicle can get much closer to its targets before having to use its hybrid electric system for silent operation (saving this energy for a stealthy exfiltration :D), and when in that mode other interior vehicle systems or interior mounted weapons will be much quieter. I am imagining a stealth mode with a noise profile close to that of a mountain bike. With a minimum vehicle height of 48-52 inches and the ability to "squirm" its V hull down into sand, snow, shallow water or mud - perhaps at the bottom of a ditch, ravine, or wadi - it could almost completely disappear from visual observation and enemy FindFire arty search radars given favorable terrain.

Given the human body is sufficient backing for STANAG 4569 Level III armor, honeycomb structures will greatly exceed the face strength requirement as well.

solidpoint

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1095

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/ss-26.htm

With a top speed over 100mph the PAV would be the perfect tool to use in large numbers to fan out and find such systems as they are, for the most part, bound to roads, and generally good roads capable of bearing such weight. Caves, bunkers, large buildings - such as barns or Mosques - all make ready hiding places while decoys to fool aerial S&D missions are readily available. The implication is clear. You need to go in with ground assets, preferably paired with assault helicopters to add speed and mobility, and then engage in a combined arms attack on these TBM platforms.

Whether one is reading Israeli doctrine or US war games, the TBM threat is at the top of the list after ODS showed how very difficult it is to find and destroy SCUD missiles. The ability to do this from the air was also greatly overestimated at the time, and there are now serious concerns that Apache helicopters will be able to withstand enemy air defenses well enough to be used for such search and destroy missions. This is exactly the gap in capabilities I discovered that led to what we now know as the PAV. IMO, the OMFTS doctrine is in fact a SCUD hunting mission as there is a great deal of evidence to support this notion.

solidpoint

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/default.asp?target=rpg7vl.htm

One wonders how long the US Army will cling to the folly that steel will protect them from technology. The Germans were producing and fitting Brinell 650 steel armor on WW-I battleships - is this where the technological leader of the world, the USA, wants to compete - a race to see who can pile the most steel onto a set of tracks? Surely any thinking person can see the folly of this kind of arms race.

I propose instead that we make very light and fast vehicles and focus on active defense systems which are successful in proportion to the sophistication of their fire-control electronics - an area we are unrivaled in. Using this approach, and employing recoilless cannons such as the Mauser RMK 35-350, and missile technology such as the Javelin for offensive capability, we do NOT need heavy vehicles to defeat any heavy armor in the world. With a base configuration weight of 1 ton the number of PAVs available on station in 24 hours time is 65-80 times that of heavy tanks such as the Abrams - with a lower fuel and logistical load, many more deployment and placement ooptions,, much better intra-theater air transport options, and the ability to fan out, find and fix enemy formations so they can be destroyed by CAS and PGMs. Once the war is over they can then patrol the peace for a very small fraction of the cost of Abrams, Bradley, AmTrac or Stryker vehicles.

The Army is now repeating the same tragic blunder the US Navy did up until Pearl Harbor. They are making the wrong platform heavier and heavier instead of changing platforms and weapons systems and ignoring the ability of the weapons they themselves are fielding to easily destroy their coveted platform. The Javelin missile is both a front attack and top attack weapon with 800mm of penetration. The top of the Abrams tank has 100mm of protection so that if you dug a deep hole and then piled 6 additional Abrams tanks on top of yours (for a combined weight of about 500 tons, or ONE MILLION POUNDS!) you would be just as dead after a single Javelin missile hit in its normal top-attack mode as someone wrapped in a cheap cotton sheet. It is frustrating in the extreme to see this nonsense proceed.

solidpoint

http://www.mca-marines.org/Gazette/2005/05norton.html

...learning from the masters. Another piece of evidence that the PAV represents the Cavalry mount of old, with the benefit of state-of-the-art armor, and very long range via very high efficiency diesel engines. While heavy armor may still be needed to defeat defensive positions in dense forests, or MOUT, the island-hopping campaign of WW-II demonstrated that for the most part, these can be bypassed and starved into submission. If mountains and oceans cannot stop man, no fortification will either…with apologies to Patton.

Heavy armor was a temporary aberration, where mobile fortification technology temporarily had the upper hand over munitions. With ATGMs such as the Javelin, this fleeting moment has passed and mobility once again has the upper hand.

Btw, I first heard about Boyd on The Military Channel, and just got around to checking the index on Norman Schwarzkopf's book It Doesn't Take A Hero. You guessed it, no mention of Boyd. I lost a lot of respect for Schwarzkopf after hearing that Cheney reviewed his plan in ODS and called on Boyd to analyze and comment on it. Boyd described Schwarzkopf's original plan as "hey diddle, diddle, straight up the middle.." The "Hail Mary" plan was Boyd's plan, not Schwarzkopf's - and you'd never know it to read Schwarzkopf's book. It was therefore a little rich when watching a Battle Plan piece on the same channel last night, featuring Deception, to have it feature Norman Schwarzkopf’s ODS “Hail Mary”. They were right, just on a whole different level. :(

PS:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/086531862X/002-5041125-4990427?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Lind_051903,00.html
http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/cowan_proceedings.htm

solidpoint

First generation warfare reflects tactics of the era of the smoothbore musket, the tactics of line and column. . . . Operational art in the first generation did not exist as a concept although it was practiced by individual commanders, most prominently Napoleon. . . . Second generation warfare was a response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machinegun, and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement, and they remained essentially linear . . . the principal change from first generation tactics was heavy reliance on indirect fire. . . . Second generation tactics remained the basis of U.S. doctrine until the 1980s and they are still practiced by most American units in the field.6

While the other services still were mired in second-generation warfare (attrition warfare), a few in the Marine Corps recognized the need to progress to the third generation, or maneuver warfare.

This can be traced to the battlefields of Europe in 1918. According to Lind:

[The] third generation of warfare was also a response to the increase in battlefield firepower. However, the driving force was primarily ideas. . . . Based on maneuver rather than attrition, third generation tactics were the first truly nonlinear tactics. The attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the enemy's combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them. . . . The basis of the operational art shifted from place (as in Liddell-Hart's indirect approach) to time. This shift was explicitly recognized . . . [in the work of Colonel John Boyd].7

Two significant factors emerge from analyzing fourth-generation warfare. The first arose as a lesson from the Gulf War: "If you fight the West, don't mass conventional forces in the open or in static defensive positions, where it is easy to separate friend from foe."8

Fourth-generation warfare will be characterized by an "increased reliance on irregular/urban combat, with intermingling of friendly, hostile and neutral parties."9 According to defense analyst Franklin C. Spinney, "the rise of fourth generation warfare implies an increased need for irregular warfighting skills . . . with decreased reliance on firepower/attrition in ground warfare . . . [and] decreased reliance on deep strike/strategic bombardment in air warfare."10 Though the ideas of maneuver warfare are only some 80 years old, the emergence of a fourth generation of warfare will require new ideas in war fighting.

Lind identified four elements that carry over from the third to the fourth generation of warfare:

*

The first is mission orders. . . .
*

Second is decreasing dependence on centralized logistics. . . .
*

Third is more emphasis on maneuver. Mass, of men or firepower, will no longer be an overwhelming factor. In fact, mass may become a disadvantage, as it will be easy to target. Small, highly maneuverable, agile forces will tend to dominate. . . . [and]
*

Fourth is a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him.11

Boyd's ideas are the basis of the current Marine Corps warfighting philosophy. According to Lind, his ideas should have a lasting impact. It took nearly ten years for Boyd's ideas to become the basis of Marine Corps warfighting doctrine—an ironic and unintended consequence of one retired Air Force colonel's work.

solidpoint

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_hybrid,,00.html

Hybrid HumVees.

solidpoint

Thinking about how maneuver warfare might actually play out if we use it and our opponent doesn't, and assuming we have a lightweight heliborne deployable asset like the PAV - which can massively overmatch anything near its weight by using Javelin and SPIKE ATGMs and RMK recoilless cannons paired with auto-loading 60 & 81mm mortars - I am struck with a parallel to the human body's immune system, and the function and action of T-cells in particular.

After ODS it is well understood that to mass forces is to invite them to be destroyed enmasse’. The alternative is to create a force which spreads itself thin and fans out across the entire theater of battle searching for enemy concentrations and TBMs in particular. Enemy forces up to a Battalion in size would be engaged to fix and destroy them outright or with the help of CAS and heavy high-altitude PGM and sensor-fused bombardment. When enemy forces are assembled enmasse’ of necessity - or out of frustration at trying to engage/destroy superior light scout and maneuver assets in detail and finding it takes more than an Battalion to do so. It also tips the battle greatly in your favor when the very limited number of enemy battalions must be employed in some impossible scheme to engage 50 such MEU platoons.

Reorganizing a MEU’s 2,200 men, we could deploy 1,800 of those as roving Platoons of 3 squads of 3 two-man teams operating 9-PAVs. Of these 9 PAVs 6 would be towing StarShips or some form of heavy gun attached to the chariot boom (or the base PAV equipped with an RMK cannon) and at least 3 would be towing a lightened form of the DragonFire III mortar system. If sufficient airlift were available a max configuration would be 9 StarShips and 9 DragonFires as the system is designed to “tow” both at the same time. In such an arrangement there would be more weapons than people to man them – at any given time, but it would support a very robust and reliable weapon system with massive firepower, use of automated targeting systems, and system redundancy. Such a system could fire 200rpm of cannon fire, 30+rpm of 81mm or 120mm mortar fire and up to 12 Javelin missiles in the first minute – PER PAV! (Using the ABS barrel technology, hydraulic oil cooling, and a 100 round auto-loader for the mortar system, that rate could be in the 50-60rpm range for the first two minutes!) This works out to 135 MBTs, a like number of APCs/IFVs, and close to 1,000 mortar rounds in the first two minutes per 9 PAV platoon.

More important than the exact mix of direct and indirect fire being towed would be equipping these PAVs with dozens of Javelin and SPIKE 5lb missiles http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_SPIKE,,00.html. Using Javelin missiles alone a two man crew can launch 3 a minute, or if repackaged into QuadPacs like the Stinger missile, 8 in the first 5 seconds with target queuing and then 3-5 per minute thereafter. This would allow such a Platoon to destroy 72 MBTs the first minute while RMK cannons used their 200rmp rate of fire to destroy IFVs while MK-19s and mortars killed their crews or supporting infantry. It is reasonable that “overgunning” a PAV platoon in this way would allow it to attrite battalion sized enemy formation down to combat ineffective status in 3-5 minutes if able to preserve the element of surprise.

Before such an engagement the platoon would place a request for reinforcement, CAS and heavy bombers to provide heavy dumb, PGM and sensor-fused bombardment should they need it in the eventually, or if facing larger than battalion forces. My personal preference for reinforcement timing is to tell the chopper pilots to give me a 2 minute warning before arrival so I can get the carnage well underway before risking their detection and losing the element of surprise. Reserves/reinforcements arriving on said choppers need to be trained and mentally prepared to arrive during a pitched battle, disembark, man their weapon (or provide support services like reloading the DragonFire's mortar autoloader) and prosecute their piece of the battle. TIITS is instrumental in allowing them to observe the battle and obtain complete situational awareness while inbound so they have a complete knowledge of the battle before they ever arrive and can fully contribute to its success.

By acting like T-cells, which can engage immediately and also coordinate the activity of the larger follow-on force, such maneuver platoons deny the enemy large, massed targets. Better still, the enemy cannot hide his own massed forces from detection and rapid and utter destruction. If the enemy attempts to destroy the MEU’s platoons in detail by matching their dispersal of forces strategy – and does not have a vehicle such as the PAV to support this strategy – they will be destroyed in detail. The enemy is therefore damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Given the strong desire of command elements to exert more and more control as things progressively deteriorate the now questionable truism that defense is stronger than offense, and anticipating a state of extreme frustration, it is likely he will chose to mass forces larger than a battalion and attempt to defeat the smaller platoon before it can call for help. The PAVs speed is critical in responding to this threat so that platoons that are close by can reinforce at speeds ranging from 60-120mph and can be heliborne in a combined arms support team from a hundred miles away over rough terrain and poor weather and be immediately ready to fight upon arrival.

Using these tactics it is therefore likely that such platoons will be successful in finding and fixing dispersed enemy forces, including TBMs and large formations of heavy armor, and will be able to immediately defeat them or fix them for massed destruction from heavy bombardment. It leaves one’s enemies with only a loser’s game to play, but it is the only game in town, so it is likely that this is the game he will play anyway.

...from http://www.thebody.com/step/immune.html

The Cells of the Immune System
T-Cells -- T lymphocytes are usually divided into two major subsets that are functionally and phenotypically (identifiably) different. The T helper subset, also called the CD4+ T cell, is a pertinent coordinator of immune regulation. The main function of the T helper cell is to augment or potentiate immune responses by the secretion of specialized factors that activate other white blood cells to fight off infection.

Another important type of T cell is called the T killer/suppressor subset or CD8+ T cell. These cells are important in directly killing certain tumor cells, viral-infected cells and sometimes parasites. The CD8+ T cells are also important in down-regulation of immune responses. Both types of T cells can be found throughout the body. They often depend on the secondary lymphoid organs (the lymph nodes and spleen) as sites where activation occurs, but they are also found in other tissues of the body, most conspicuously the liver, lung, blood, and intestinal and reproductive tracts.

NOTE: In writing battle scenes one fact has forcefully presented itself time and again - trolling with "overgunned" PAVs is the best strategy because it provides a devastating first contact response and 2nd, because once the battle is joined reinforcements are in the form of trigger fingers and ammo only. All of the heavy stuff is already in place and in use. In short a PAV with 5 weapons stations (some of which are automated until a reloader is needed) and a 2 man crew is VERY easy to reinforce with light infantry reserves which can be quickly flown in via helicopters. Using PAV assets like the StarShip's HMG, Javelin and Stinger missiles, the assets to provide SEAD while these insertions are being completed are already in place. In a greatly compressed timeframe this is the pre-positioning concept we currently use at the theater level.

solidpoint

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?prod=45066&session=dae.16974689.1135205888.Q6neAMOa9dUAABQvE9o&modele=jdc_1
http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/VM04_905.pdf

The cat and mouse game continues, but I will point out again the critical role a GLMG can play in overwhelming a system like ARENA. Launching a mix of SPIKE, JAVELIN, BONUS, and STRIX mortar rounds and BAT P3I MLRS rounds, one can volley the mortar and GLMG rounds to overwhelm and exhaust the ARENA system even as the AGM-154/158 sensor-fused bombs, BAT P3I MLRS, JAVELIN and SPIKE ATGMs close in for the kills.

Besides being impervious to active defenses, the other pressing reason to mount a heavy gun like a Mauser recoilless RMK-35-350 is instant reaction to threats. Even the best of ATGMs have some setup time and need time to acquire a target. If you are surprised in a 73 Easting scenario, or are jumped, you will need an instant, effective and sustained fire-support weapon to prevail. The RMK series, even with the RMK-30-230 provides a lot of this. I have chosen the heaviest of the Mauser offerings, the RMK-35-350 because it has no recoil, and therefore no added recoil, and will defeat all existing IFV frontal armor and cannot be defeated by any reasonable depth of active defensive systems.

One tweak I have been working on is remounting the RMK from the front of the base PAV to the rear so that a hydraulic mount can be fashioned to drop the gun down behind the back of the vehicle. This should allow a helicopter with a PAV attached to the bottom of its hull to capture its fly-by-wire control system and fire the gun while in-flight. Having such a gun underneath the chopper in an armored platform would add both protection AND massive firepower (about 3x that of the GAU on an A-10 Warthog!) as a partial payback for having to give up other weapons in order to carry the PAV in flight.

Such a system, properly engineered, would also allow the gun to be fired from an elevated position relative to the base PAV vehicle. This would allow it to fire over ridges, berms, river banks, streams, wadis, walls, revetments, etc. while the base PAV is BELOW ground level or behind cover. It would support a very low firing position to the rear for stealth, or elevated over the top of the PAV leaving ample clearance for 1-2 other top mounted weapons such as a CROWS/ROSSAM mounted Grendel, 7.62, .338, .50BMG GAU, or MK-19. It would keep the weight of the RMK and it's ammo compartment at the rear over the engine to offset the cantilevered crew compartment and also tend to keep the RMK's blowback above the heads of infantry in MOUT. It would also make reloading easy for the crews as the entire unmanned turret could be lowered all the way to the ground. Fighting with a StarShip in "tow" this would support a stepped set of RMKs, 1-2 MK19s, and the HOOOW's GAU or MK19. This in addition to the StarShip's side hardpoints fitted with Javelin and Stinger QuadPacs and/or 1-2 SPIKE 30 packs. With “towed” weapons it would give up its rear drop-down capabilities, but the StarShip would more than make up for this lost capability.

Finally, a full-up PAV configuration would add a DragonFire 120 or 81mm automated mortar system which using CF barrel technology and hydraulic oil cooling should be able to sustain 70-100 rpm, feed itself bombs from 100 round canisters, and using the now defunct Challenger’s liquid binary propellant system, eliminate lumpy propellant increments, round prep, and support very fine tuning of range WITHOUT moving the barrel. The latter would be very valuable when firing on the move as changes in range could be compensated for in real-time by a decrease (or increase) in charge.

The max system capacity would be 100 CARGO DPICM http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/mortar-munitions.htm or THP mortar rounds http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/ADHPM.htm, 2x200rpm from the RMKs, 3x600rpm MK-19, 30 SPIKE and 4 JAVELIN missiles for the first MINUTE per 3-4 man PAV team. I would RX: trolling for contact with the DragonFire unmanned and rely on its 100 round autoloader and containerized ammo for reloading and man the system with the driver/RMK position, HOOOW-slaved MK19s, and StarShip gunner on RMK and missiles. To reinforce then I need only a mortarman and more ammo. This would allow 1,800 men from an MEU to operate 600 such systems at once. In open country, especially if choppers can provide some C3 functions, this formation should be able to defeat any heavy division on earth in a few minutes.

One of the most inviting aspects of such a system is the enemy's best defense would be to cluster their armor together closely to form the most deadly possible 1st contact response from a well-prepared ambush. This concentration of enemy forces would represent the best possible target scenario for PGM and sensor-fused weapons which would be very effective after the GLMGs defeat the enemy's active defenses.

PS: Anyone interested in the PDF should copy it to a more permanent source as this research is getting VERY hard to find back on the web.

solidpoint

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/TB071091.pdf

The thicker the better when using composite armor systems. This had been a concern of mine, but with TI-64 belly armor, sectioned armor, and a possible super-plastic formed TI mono-hull I am convinced this system will be very effective and likely will exceed my initial expectations.

solidpoint

I have mentioned several times that the enemy's best defense would be to engage en'masse, rather than seek the detail destruction of such a mobile and heavily armed force as a PAV equipped MEU. I need to think through a scenario where the enemy did choose to pursue destruction of PAV forces in detail, as I think there is one available – although it would require a very sophisticated enemy.

I believe contemplating such a scenario would inform the force structure and tactics significantly, and writing it out would force me to think it through and would keep me from making small errors of detail like the fact that the GLMG's current range for lobbing "decoy" grenades at active armor defenses is about 1km short of the maximum range for the Javelin missile. Like the .338 GAU, with its ability to outrange all but the heaviest of Soviet era guns, and the FN 15.5x115 for outranging the rest, we may need some additional development of either automated high ROF 60mm mortars or longer range GLMGs - or both.

Because the tactics I have laid out - that of T-cells - calls for finding, fixing and destroying *ALL enemy formations, and this is decidedly against the teachings of maneuver warfare (to engage only through gaps and not into fire sacks) I also need to develop some guidelines for when to engage and when to deny engagement. One could play into an enemy's strategic goals, even while winning 95% of engagements, by getting so tied down with lots of small battles, at a time of the enemy's choosing, that reinforcements would not be available to engage at Schwerpunkt, or strategically, at their center of gravity. Such an enemy strategy would require tremendous skill and communications, but there are such enemies in the world. (or maybe just the kind of dumb luck we enjoyed at Midway Island)

Evaluating the sophistication of the enemy in order to make an assessment as to whether there is a pattern or strategic intent to the myriad of diffuse engagements, evaluating the enemy's general level of competence, and disrupting his C3 to thwart such strategic goals would be a legitimate and important role for higher command to play.

* T cells must kill ALL pathogens or they will multiply and regain sufficient numbers to again threaten the health of the body. In general this is not true of enemy combatants in a major war and is an important way the analogy breaks down. One notable exception though is with insurgent forces, where even a single living malicious person can recruit new members and corrupt otherwise healthy individuals in much the same way that cancer progresses by corrupting DNA so that previously healthy cells are now pathogenic.

solidpoint

A few more tweaks have been arising. First, instead of mounting Javelin and Stinger missiles to hardpoints on the body of the StarShip pod it would seem to work better to keep them on the ground inside of the partial V-hull's protection and reduce the structural requirements and weight of the StarShip's boom and total structure in the process. Neither of these weapons requires an elevated position for launch anyway so having fire-control from an elevated position and leaving the weapons on the ground where they are better protected and easier to hide and reload seems a better solution.

One of the reasons for adding the weight of these weapons to the StarShip gunner's pod was to attenuate recoil forces. I don't know if this has ever been done, but it occurred to me that one could use a centrifuge’s great ability to store energy and give it up quickly to fashion a recoil attenuator. Recoil forces would drive a V-shaped brake-pad assembly into the V-shaped centrifuge disk edge where it would be engaged instantly and use its stored energy to drive the gun back forward. With the right design this would allow even a heavy gun such as a FN 15.5x115 firing at 10rps to be operated with very little recoil. The system is thought to work better for heavier guns with lower ROFs and for short duration (< 90 seconds) engagements, but to my knowledge, this approach has never been tried and seems a promising avenue of investigation.

As a practical matter, with the gunner in a B-17 style belly gunner's crouch, gun between his legs, the flywheel would need to be in a heavily armored cage so if it were damaged and came apart it would not injure the gunner. Happily this dovetails very nicely with the general requirement for StarShip armoring against ballistic threats. It might be better though to have two flywheels, positioned parallel with, and just inside, the very flat V-hull of the StarShip gunner's pod. With the energy-poor inner part of the flywheel made of aluminum, but sheathed in Ti or 600+ Brinell armor, it should be well equipped to shed (or more precisely, spread) ballistic challenges across a large surface area. Spinning at 100,000 rpm, a 3 foot disk's 3 foot surface would be traveling at pi * 300,000 fpm or 15,700 fps. This, and the tremendous shear forces it would impart on any would-be penetrator, should allow 3-5mm of surface armor to stand up to some very significant ballistic forces, even from shaped charges. This dual-flywheel arrangement, if it disintegrated, would not threaten the operator as the overwhelming vector of energy would be shed along side of rather than into him.

A possible happy side-effect of such a system would be stabilization of the operator's pod due entirely to the well-known ability of gyros to redirect motion 90 degrees off-axis. Riding along 12-20 ft in the air at speeds in excess of 60mph, this would be a welcome side-effect of the recoil management system.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/gyroscope1.htm
http://static.howstuffworks.com/mpeg/gyro.mpg

... an exerpt...

Uses of Gyroscopes
The effect of all this is that, once you spin a gyroscope, its axle wants to keep pointing in the same direction. If you mount the gyroscope in a set of gimbals so that it can continue pointing in the same direction, it will. This is the basis of the gyro-compass.

If you mount two gyroscopes with their axles at right angles to one another on a platform, and place the platform inside a set of gimbals, the platform will remain completely rigid as the gimbals rotate in any way they please. This is this basis of inertial navigation systems(INS).

gewing

Cool,

I originally posted this on the 6.8 vs 6.5 Grendel thread and realized it was quite far off the subject so I moved it here... my appoligies if anyone finds this confusing.

There are some good arguements on each side, but I have a feeling that the DOD is stepping back a bit from the XM109. I think this is for several reasons.

snip
Second, at ranges under 500 meters the .50 actually has better penetration and generally better terminal effects.
snip
Fourth, Barrett has still not solved the recoil problem of the XM-109 and it has broken shoulders and collar bones.

FN may have been on the right track in developing the 15.5 x 115mm replacement for the MaDuce. I can't find out enough about it to judge if it could be fired from a modified Barrett .50 or not. The 15.5 ball ammo of the BRG-15 could pierce 10mm of steel armor at 30 degrees at a distance of 1350 meters. (about the same performance as the Raufoss .50 BMG) The .50 M962 SLAP round will penetrate 34mm @ 0 degrees @ 500 meters - about a 62% increase in penetration from the ball, so applying those same gains to the 15.5 we would get 17mm penetration @ 1,350meters.

According to the manufacture's claims a 15.5mm round can penetrate 19mm of RHA at 800m at 45°, which should be equal to 38mm at 0 degrees. At 3-500m then a good guess on the upper limit for the gun would be 50mm of 0° penetration using SLAP- about 2 inches. I am assuming this was using a SLAP round. If not much greater penetration should be possilbe. The TOF of such a bullet would be excellent for destroying moving vehicles at long ranges.
http://www.montysminiguns.com/RealityPage.htm

I'm finally trying to work my way through this thread.

IIRC the 15.5 mm FN BRG round had somewhat higher performance than the Soviet 14.5mm. This indicates OVER twice as much muzzle energy as the .50 BMG. This is a seriously impressive round, true. However, a 20mm+ with the option of a fairly effective HE or an APDS/APFSDS would probably be the better choice for the same power.

I believe the .50 Slap will penetrate 3/4 inch of RHA at a 45 degree angle at 850 meters. The OCSW HEDP is supposed to penetrate 50-70mm of armor.

7.62 SLap as designed for the Swedish Sniper round will penetrate (50%) 33mm of steel at 0 degrees at 100 meters. Might be a better choice if you have to have a mini-phalanx.

The British tested a system over a decade ago that had iirc 2xFN MAG controlled by a radar unit derived from the Millimeter wave radar of the Longbow Hellfire. I believe most of the modern active defense systems are controlled by Thermal sensors.

Your basic concept of heavily armed light armored vehicles I like. Some of your implementations... well I don't see them as really practical.

Oh, btw, technically ANY normal internal combustion engine can be detected by the electrical signal the ignition gives off. The AC130 used that to locate trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail during the VIetnam war.

The "Stinger" of the P3 is a Magnetic Anomaly Detector. It is used to detect the mass of steel that comprises a submarine, even when it is under water.

One of the more impressive light armors is a titanium plate with a ceramic plate somehow "bonded/ or melded" to it. IIRC a 1/2" piece will stop a .50 AP. below this, for high mass efficiency, one could use Ceramic spheres set in a polymer matrix. Then back this up with more titanium/ceramic, or perhaps Very Hard Steel.

This could form your "basic" armor package. On top of that you would put Non-Explosive ERA mounted as spaced plates.

It MIGHT work to have ERA even outside the Ne-ERA, but I am not certain of that.

If I were designing the vehicle, I would build a hybrid drive 6x6 2 man vehicle, with a smallish cargo space(pack two people in an EMERGENCY in it). It wouldn't be that different in size and shape from a small three door hatchback car. It would, however, have a "modular turret" on top. This would consist of an OWS with a 7.62 Mg, and an OCSW. SOme of these features might instead be installed on the rear version There would be a lightly armored box, shaped somewhat like the Merkava's "flying saucer turret" to protect the sensors and the basic weapons. It would also have "wings" on either side, which would accept weapons in the same way a helicopter's wing stations do. It would probably NOT be possible to stress them for the full 4x hellfires/side or the 17 tube 70mm rocket pod. However, if they could carry 4x Tow, or 2x Hellfire, or 2-4 stingers, or 7x 70mm rockets, or one Sidewinder, etc... A pod containing an RMK 30 or 35 would be an obvious fit. The mountings would be perhaps more rigid than a helicopter allows, for better accuracy. The entire "turret pod" could be lifted off and replaced with other options. The heaviest one would use a pod of rockets for indirect fire. While 2x17 round pods of 70mm rockets would be interesting, I suspect there are better options. Perhaps the 120mm bofors(?) Aircraft rocket?
Another option would be the resurrection of an older weapon that never saw combat use. Both the British and the US developed AUTO LOADING Recoilless rifles before ATGMs proved themselves. The US version used the 106mm RR, and had a 5 round rotary magazine that could be topped off from inside the vehicle. The British version used their 120mm RR, and had a 6 round rotary magazine, again it could be reloaded from inside. Both of these could be enhanced to use LAHAT or some of the similar designs, and the ability to blow holes in walls with HESH would be amazing.

The weight of the vehicle would be targetted at under 10 tons. The suspension would be Hydro-Pneumatic, allowing it to adjust for ground clearance, or kneel for greater stability. The Wheels would be individually powered by electric motors, and could be swapped out for "Mattracks" (if I remember the name right)

The hull would be somewhat V-formed, as much so as possible without compromising size. The floor would be of spaced armor, in an attempt to provide increased mine protection. It would probably NOT be possible to armor it versus the Russian built EFP mines, as they will penetrate about 150mm of steel.

This vehicle, however, is only PART of the system. It would have a "Hitch" on the rear that would provide mechanical, electrical, and communications connections to the "Trailer." The trailer would be a family of very similar, though more boxy vehicles. The standard would have another two wheels, identical to the front vehicle, and a hybrid drive of its own. There would be several versions, ranging from open topped cargo container to fuel tanker, to APC/MICV pods, or Anti-tank/Anti-aircraft pods, or Fire support pods.

In the APC mode, it would carry 6 troops. Perhaps a longer version that held 9 and had 6 wheels would be an option. This would have a somewhat higher roofline than the front vehicle, so that the turret could fire over the top of the front vehicle. The rear turret could be identical to the front, or could be fitted out much more heavily. Probably not a 120mm Anti-tank gun, but an autoloading 120mm gun mortar would be one of the fire support options. The Long 105mm howitzers under test might work also. It might be possible to make a version that holds a single 6 tube MLRS pod, like the new truck based system. If not, the Koreans have an interesting assortment of artillery rockets.

One of my favorite versions would be for anti-tank/anti-aircraft. It would have an extendable boom (and probably stabilizing spades like artillery) that holds an RMK 35, a sensor pod, and either 4-8 ADAT missiles, or hellfire, or a mix of stingers and hellfire, what have you. THis could quite easily use the "wing" system proposed earlier. It would elevate at least 3 meters, to fire over terrain, buildings, etc. In this mode, the crew would be below the line of sight of opponents.

There would also be a gun based AA system, using either the 35mm Millenium gun, the 40mm BUshmaster IV or BOfors L70, or it is possible the 67mm bofors, supported by 4 stingers, Starstreak, or RBS 90. The gun system would be fitted with the counter-mortar/artillery capabilities demonstrated on the modified Phalanx systems used in the Green Zone.

A command vehicle pod would be simple, and growth to include the Solid state anti-aircraft laser that is under development would be simple.

The "Trailer" would have limited controls for autonomous operations, but would be able to be left behind for use as a shelter, power supply, mobile bunker, etc.

The front vehicle alone would be used primarily for scouting and such roles.

gewing

solidpoint

I agree with that. It is very poorly written. Unfortunately, I had a much better source for info, which included China Lake testing info, and couldn't find it back. I am referring to the SPIKE minimissile. There is also a SPIKE anti-aircraft system, just to make things even more confusing. By now you might have info I don't on the minimissile version. I was impressed with the SPIKE mini's potential to replace unguided Zuni 2.75 inch rocket pods with a smaller guided missile. There is a LOT to like in this system - although it is not really an ATGM, more like a anti light-armored vehicle missile. (ALAVM ??)

This is the source I was trying to find back IIRC.
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/spike.html

Reviewing my notes a bit, it appears the range of the MK19 might be close to that of a Javelin if used to loft decoy grenades - 2,200 meters. It would be nice to have a +P load though to add another 300-500 meters to deal with adverse winds.

Btw, I was watching something about Operation Barbarossa on The Military Channel and apparently Guderian hated the rather plodding plan and wanted a smaller, better equipped armored force to penetrate deep, all the way to Moscow to disrupt and destroy enemy transportation, communication and logistics. Hitler shouted him down.

I'll let you read up on what is a very long thread and collect your thoughts before asking too many questions. Thanks for the interest. If not for the ever-rising hit count I would have given up posting to this thread.

Navy Plans To Adapt Spike Missile To Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
By Marc Selinger
May 6, 2003

A low-cost, shoulder-launched missile the U.S. Navy Department is developing for the Marine Corps and special operations forces eventually will be adapted for use on unmanned aerial vehicles, according to program representatives.

The Naval Air Warfare Center's Weapons Division is developing the Spike missile and launcher system initially for use by people on the ground. The system is envisioned as a safer, more accurate alternative to rocket propelled grenades (RPGs) and as a relatively inexpensive complement to the man-portable Javelin anti-tank missile.

While RPGs are unguided and have a range of only a few hundred yards, Spike will be guided with a laser designator or electro-optical imaging and have a range of about two miles.

A Javelin missile costs about $75,000. By comparison, a Spike missile is expected to cost only about $4,000. While the Javelin launcher costs about $125,000, the Spike launcher will have an estimated price tag of just $6,000.

Spike is designed to destroy unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, mobile anti-aircraft systems and slow-moving helicopters. It also will have urban warfare applications because the missile will be able to go through a window before exploding.

Although Javelin is capable of destroying such soft targets, it makes more sense to use a lower-cost missile for that purpose and save Javelin for heavily armored targets, according to Spike program representatives, who displayed their system at a recent technology demonstration on Capitol Hill.

"You don't really want to shoot $75,000 missiles at Jeeps," said Steven Felix, the Navy Department's project manager for Spike.

The Spike system is supposed to be small and light - three missiles and a launcher could fit in a standard military backpack.

Spike is expected to move into the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase near the end of calendar 2003 and enter production within about two or three years.

Besides aiding forces on the ground, Spike also could serve as a low-cost complement to the Hellfire air-to-ground, anti-tank missile, another relatively expensive weapon that has been successfully fired in combat from Predator UAVs, program representatives said.

John Baylouny, vice president of DRS Technologies, which has been helping the Navy develop Spike, said the Spike missile could be used on almost any UAV and that "future spirals" in the program are expected to involve putting Spike on unmanned aircraft.

solidpoint

The most impressive configuration IMO for the PAV, in terms of the new capabilities it can support, is the very light SC-CAVE version. This very unclever acronym is for...

Self-Contained Combined-Arms Vertical Envelopment

Maybe I just have too much time on my hands, but I wanted a short-hand way of referring to a PAV configuration light enough to be attached to medium to light transport or attack helicopters via hardpoints so the PAV becomes an addendum to the helicopter which can make use of its hydraulic power, targeting and weapons systems while retaining full maneuverability in the air. (This is in contrast to dangling from the bottom of a transport chopper from a few threads like a half-dried booger.)

The majority opinion currently believes that helicopters are too vulnerable to radar guided guns, missiles and MANPADS like the Stinger to be effective against a near-peer. SC-CAVE (pronounced Sea Cave) should allow helicopters to again play the critical deep strike, super-mobility role they played in Vietnam. We have been somewhat spoiled by fighting the last two major wars in the desert where terrain and a poor EAD mitigated this problem.

The original idea for the PAV came from a sense of outrage that 65 years after the invention of the 1,475lb Willy's Jeep we cannot field something that provides the same kind of mobility in a vehicle that provides its 2-man crew enough protection to survive 1st contact with small arms. In the process of talking this around and the resulting investigation it turned out that the same geometries that provided synergy in ballistic protection also provided good mine protection - the V-hull in particular. Once the basic configuration was established I wanted to build in protection from obsolescence by giving the vehicle inordinate power and a very overbuilt suspension. In the end, these are the two things that keep any vehicle from being upgraded, up-armored, up-gunned, etc. BTW, the pneumatic suspension does NOT have any of the tubes sticking out between suspension members like all existing vehicles. There are no tubes at all in the suspension save the “control arms”.

I chose hydraulic wheel motors because they don't require metal wires to feed, don't corrode like mad in salt water and dust, and don't send out strong magnetic waves tailor made to trigger magnetic mines. Ceradyne makes parts that are of the same size and complexity as those required for radial hydraulic motors - which have both high torque and high speed - and these can be fed oil via carbon fiber and rubber hoses which have NO metal in them. Any metal near the ground is specified to be Ti as it has no magnetic interaction and is best suited to withstand a mine blast.

Hybrid electrics are pushed back into the chariot boom tailer because even the best existing systems, even when starting fully charged, weight twice as much per unit of energy as currently shipping EuroDiesels. This not only keeps the weight of the base PAV very low, while incorporating energy saving features like regenerative braking when weight is not a limitation, but gives the StarShip or other "towed" chariot boom appendages independant mobility and the ability to survive damage sustained by the base PAV because of its physical seperation from it. An intact pod's hybrid system should be able to move itself and the base PAV at least 50km, or using the boom's embedded small wheel, move its own tripod configuration up to 100km on battery power alone while still enjoying good ballistic protection against small arms and with its offensive systems intact.

My research indicates that AC130s found trucks in Nam by their gasoline engine ignition noise. A diesel engine, to my knowledge, does not produce any EM emissions that can be used for targeting.

Having designed a vehicle which can grow to 10 times its min configuration weight I have spent a lot of time here speculating on what such a heavy configuration would look like so I can design support for those features into the vehicle from the start.

I have defined 5 weapons stations.

driver/commander (left front)
HOOOW (right front)
L-Step gunner (left rear)
StarShip/boom pod gunner
DragonFire III artillery man

Perhaps we could discuss appropriate/reasonable real-world weapons fits station by station?

solidpoint

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/images/mtvr_cabforward1.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mtvr-pics.htm

...another cab-forward design - like the HEMTT. It gets the crew up and forward of the fast part of a mine's cone of destruction. It also saves space on ships, tightens the turning radius, and provides better fording and terrain clearance.

solidpoint

I believe the .50 Slap will penetrate 3/4 inch of RHA at a 45 degree angle at 850 meters. The OCSW HEDP is supposed to penetrate 50-70mm of armor.

7.62 SLap as designed for the Swedish Sniper round will penetrate (50%) 33mm of steel at 0 degrees at 100 meters. Might be a better choice if you have to have a mini-phalanx.

Oh, btw, technically ANY normal internal combustion engine can be detected by the electrical signal the ignition gives off. The AC130 used that to locate trucks on the Ho Chi Minh trail during the Vietnam war.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/ac130.asp ... but diesel engines don't have ignition systems. No spark plugs, no ignition wires, no distributor, no coil, etc. Just heat from pressure timed to perfection.

My info on the .50BMG SLAP is 34mm at 500 meters (I'm assuming zero degrees obliquity)
http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/mg/50_ammo.html

Used by M2HB machine gun. The SLAP is used in combat against current and future light armored targets and Armored Attack Helicopters (AAHs). The M903 offers the capability to defeat these targets at ranges two to three times that of currently available ammunition.

Armor Penetration.
500 meters: 1.34 in (34 mm)
1,200 meters: 0.91 in (23 mm)

Projectile diameter: 0.30 inches (7.7 mm)

The cartridge consists of a heavy metal (tungsten) penetrator that is sabot-launched at a much higher velocity than standard rounds. The sabot, which is designed to break up at the muzzle to release the penetrator, must also survive the gun environment until launch. It is injection molded of special high strength plastic and is reinforced with an aluminum insert in the base section. The cartridge is identified by an amber sabot (Item 1000).

Type Classification: STD. Type Classification Date: 31-MAR-1993. Unit cost: $8.87 (Fiscal Year 2005).

I would not chose the 7.62, no matter what the penetration, for an anti-material weapon as it does not have the ability to outrange common enemy guns such as the 12.7 and 14.5mm Soviet HMGs. The PAV does not have the armor to stand toe-to-toe with a heavy and it is therefore paramount that it use its stealth and range overmatch to kill out of reach of similar enemy weapons. (In MOUT of course they can see you, so you slather on the spaced and SLAT armor, use them in great numbers, and swarm, overwhelm, overrun, fix and destroy everything at once. Here again power and suspension are the limiting factors - in this case limiting armor protection rather than firepower or ammunition loads)

The .338 Lapua (penetration of 3 layers of body armor at 1,000 yards) and 15.5x115 were both designed with this exact goal in mind. The Gast action GsH-23 and GsH-30 using saboted rounds are also a good choice as they are simple, do not require any external power source and could be easily maintained in field conditions even when in the field for extended periods of time. They would have considerable recoil however, but as they are used as the standard gun on MIL helicopters and for decades MIG fighter jets I am assuming their recoil is manageable. For shorter range work, such as MOUT, their very heavy bullets would defeat all urban fortifications, including sand-filled 55 gallon drums. Note from the attached exhibit the Gast gun has less recoil and sophistication than either a single barrel or 6-barrelled GAU, but puts out a respectable 3,000 rpm while spreading wear across 2 barrels. Given development time, a twin-barrelled Gast gun in FN's 15.5x115 would be a perfect fit for the PAV's ROSSAM/CROWS "turret". In such a caliber a ROF of 4-5,000 rpm is easily achievable and would make an excellent air-defense weapon as well.

PS: Gewing, perhaps I missed your point. I agree that for a Phalanx CIWS system, assuming one decides to use sub-caliber saboted rounds, it makes little difference whether one uses 5.56, 6.5 or 7.62 as the projectile will be the same size anyway. The 7.62 would however allow for a bigger powder charge so I think your idea for using it with the cited bullet works well. Cool and I had a long discussion of this and felt in the end the CIWS system should not be dedicated, but should be a mode of the driver's CROWS/ROSSAM turret, perhaps with extra feed paths so dedicated ammo could be reserved to eliminate out-of-ammo situations at critical moments.

At the end of the day it seems if one is going to use a lightwight GAU, and the standard issue is 6.5 Grendel, then it makes more sense to use a twin GAU in 6.5 Grendel or a single gun with dual feed paths in that caliber. I personally favor a twin GAU, perhaps two 3 barreled, as it adds reliability, up to 4 ammo types can be selected , the system can be fired at a lower ROF for other purposes, and the guns can be converged on an incoming target to optimize kill probabilities. Because of the critical nature of this gun/s it should have BOTH hydraulic AND electric motors driving it. Of course, twin Gast guns would also work and eliminate the drive problem entirely. The smaller GsH-23 has implementations firing 5,000 rpm, so a 6.5mm could be made to operate at speeds from 2-5,000 rpm per gun.

solidpoint

http://www.engineeringtalk.com/news/sai/sai106.html

... they take a licking and keep on ticking... all 6 of them. :D

Six of these http://www.saispa.com/pdf/p05r-f25.pdf , weighting 15kg each using conventional materials will more than accommodate the 157kw peak engine output with up to a 40% reserve. In fact, if only 4 of these motors were still intact they would still be able to utilize all of the engine's power and that is assuming no chariot boom with its HEMTT sized wheels or other hydraulic loads. Using ceramics and composites a conservative estimate would be the ability to reduce a kilogram to a pound - implying a 15lb motor for a total of 90lbs of total system wheel motor weight. Because of the high rotational speed of these motors a top vehicle speed in excess of 200kph is possible with NO gearing (240kph max).

For variations that require the lowest possible weight, such as the SeaCave versions, a smaller diesel engine and lower top speed of 160kph (twice the top speed of most prime movers) could be accommodated with just 2 wheel motors for a total power train weigh of around 300-325lbs including engine, hydraulic pump and 2 wheel motors using 100hp R315 SOHC. For a 1,200-1,500lb vehicle this would provide an excellent power/weight ratio and the hydraulic pump supports hydraulic GAU motors, cranes, suspension members, turret actuators, etc, in the bargain.

The R315 diesel will cruise at 50-70mph using 40kwh (70hp) sipping 2.5-3.0 gallons per hour. The 54 gallons of armor-protected, mine-protected, intra-honeycombed fuel will therefore give a range of up to 1,500 miles! With the addition of one 55 gallon drum (or side pannel honeycomb fluid space used for fuel instead of water) the vehicle can go from Karachi to Tehran AND BACK unrefuled. Got range? :D

Coolhand77

Gee, maybe you should be marketing these to the US Border Patrol with all the reports of guys with Hummers and mounted machineguns crossing out southern border to retrieve captured drug shipments.

Don't worry, the mexican government says "They arn't ours" so shooting at them shouldn't cause an international incident

solidpoint

The fab shop that I am leaning towards for superplastic forming the Ti hull on the PAV made the exact same RX 6 months ago. They have lots of $$$ to spend too.

solidpoint

I'm working on a chapter where 3 SuperHueys and a pair of Cobra gunships lift 3 attached PAVs over a rugged mountain range in early spring to rescue a pair of downed A10s. Traveling on roads through snowed in mountain passes would have taken a week or more. Instead, the PAVs are lifted to within 20-30km of the rescue site in an hour. The choppers cannot fight their way in though as the A10s were shot down in an EAD fire sack consisting of a SAM site in a broad river valley that terminates in a broad box canyon rising over 5,000 ft above the valley floor and ringed with Stinger type MANPADS. The A10s rolled in to defeat the SAMs and were ambushed by MANPADS while trying to evade fire. The healthy pilot is able to communicate the trap to the SeaCave mission commander in time for them to avoid the trap, but it means the PAVs have to go in alone.

In an interesting application of TIITS, the SuperHuey crews use their TopOwl fire-control and navigation helmets to fight many of the PAVs systems when the PAVs also stumble into an ambush. They are able to fight their way out because the chopper crews take over the CROWS turrets and DragonFire mortars while the insitu crews fight with the HOOOWs GAU, ARs, SPIKE & Javelin missiles and within minutes are pretty much acting as reloaders while the chopper pilots and co-pilots fight the PAVs systems.

By stripping the choppers, the PAVs are able to use most of the Cobra's weapons and ammo. They also make use of the DragonFire's ability to be detached from the PAVs and still be teleoperated by the chopper crews while the base PAVs are free to maneuver. They are able to take down the SAM sites using SADARM and yet-to-be-developed FOREARM anti-radiation mortar munitions. Once the SAM threat is down the choppers, keeping clear of the ridgelines, come in at a critical moment to help the PAVs fight their way through enemy defenses so they can rescue the downed A10 pilots. It's a lot of fun to plan such a battle and really wring out some of the possibilities of the systems. I call it inverted because the air assets fight in support of the PAVs, rather than the usual case of the PAVs fighting in support of the attack helicopters.

PS: SeaCave is SC-CAVE (Self-Contained Combined-Arms Vertical Envelopment)

solidpoint

http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/ecp/Initiatives/Maneuver/ECP%20-%20ALSV%2027%20Sep%2005.pdf

Welcome aboard gentlemen :D
I am assuming the pictured vehicle is not the end state as it appears little more that an update of the USMC's black dune-buggy? Four wheels? What's the plan when you hit a mine? Call AAA? Reach a little further - Boeing is making money hand over fist and can afford things like the development of ceramic hydraulic motors and DragonSkin type body armor over a honeycombed exoskeleton. I hope you find my attempts at developing tactics for this vehicle helpful in its design - especially SeaCave missions, as they should make the helicopter viable again in the face of integrated EADs.

http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/ecp/Initiatives/Maneuver/ECP-SV%20Experimental%20Veh%2029%20Sep%2005.pdf
http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/ecp/Initiatives/Force%20Protection/ECP%20-%20Vehicle%20Composite%20Armor%2027%20Sep%2005.pdf

solidpoint

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/heinz_guderian.htm

(6) After the war Heinz Guderian compared French tanks with those available to German commanders in 1940.

The French tanks were better than ours in armour, guns and number, but inferior in speed, radio-communication and leadership. The concentration of all armoured forces at the decisive spot, the rapid exploitation of success, and the initiative of the officers of all degrees were the main reasons of our victory in 1940.

I believe these same opportunities are open to maneuver forces employing PAVs.

solidpoint

Kodak has been working on thin-film optical glass backed by a CF IsoGrid support structure. The weight of the backing is 0.5 kg sq meter. I don't know how strong this stuff is but at this weight a "heavy duty" version would still be featherweight. This technique has been used to create ultra-light tubing for things like tandem bicycles but this is the first application I have found where it is used to create panels with tremendous face strength. Based on the findings of Kodak, this technology greatly exceeds the strength of honeycomb panels. For the PAV, the minimum goal is to provide composite armor a backing as strong as the human body as this is sufficient to stop a 7.62x54r armor piercing shell using the best of the DragonSkin technology, which is about 1.4 lbs/sq ft. Doing a little math and dividing 39.37 squared by 12 squared I get a bit more than 10 - so 1.1 lb.sqm is about 0.11lb/sqft. For the PAV's 4x5x4x9 that is a total weight of < 13lbs to cover the IsoGrid tubing frame. This technique also eliminates the problem of punching holes in the honeycomb's foil to allow the free flow of fluids. I'll have to investigate this further to see if it is strong enough, but it looks promising.
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Feb05/NPO40035.html

PS: I guess I'm getting a little sloppy in my enthusiasm. The goal for the PAV is an armor system that will protect the base unit from small mines and crew compartment from larger mines - largely by lofting it above the magic 1 meter height where forces are about 1/1000th those at ground level. Having said this, it may be desirable where the lightest possible weight is required - for SeaCave missions with AH6 LitleBird choppers or other unforeseen circumstances - to have a system that protects against ballistic threats up to and including 7.62 NATO but does so sans the mine protection of the base PAV. In such a configuration it might be possible to get the PAV's weight below 1,000 lbs. Here the thinking might be that at such a light weight it would be better to have 2 PAVs than one as the mine threat is known to be non-existent. Single-seater crew compartment configurations would be ideal here as a shorter crew appendage would save weight, keep the CG manageable, and still offer the crewman excellent protection. If a non-diesel powerplant were allowed, and only crew compartment ballistic protection was required, such a configuration might be as light as 500-750 lbs. This would put it in the same weight league as the Prowler RTV but with good crew protection. While a single crewman might seem extreme, remember, in a TIITS world the chopper crew could tele-operate the PAV's weapons so the insitu crewman would be a systems manager and reloader as well as a driver. He would likely be as busy as a one-legged man at a butt-kicking contest, but that's what 20yr old's are for. :D In terms of lives at risk and sustainment one man would be much better.

solidpoint

This tube technology does indeed look promising. While more laborious than a monocast Ti hull, these structural tubes would also seem to be a lot lighter. Of course, the two techniques could be combined.

For example, let us assume that your application requires a lightweight product but requires the
stiffness of steel. When composite structures are designed with stiffness greater than the stiffness
obtained just from load capabilities, the structure traditionally must be designed either with very thick tube walls at less than the optimal structural efficiency, i.e. the weight increases or very expensive high modulus carbon fibers are incorporated. Both solutions are not optimal in cost competitive civil engineering or commercial applications. However, using the superior stiffness geometry of IsoTruss, the stiffness can be obtained with relatively little increase in weight while using low cost carbon or fiberglass. For example, the weight comparisons for a steel equivalent stiffness product in carbon IsoTruss would be: 9% the weight of steel, 22% the weight of carbon tube, and 13% the weight of aluminum. Fiberglass IsoTruss would be: 26% the weight of steel, 65% the weight of carbon tube, and 38% the weight of aluminum.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1996/PV1996_1508.pdf
I HATE paying for research my tax dollars already paid for once. :mad:

solidpoint

http://www.mcwl.quantico.usmc.mil/ecp/Initiatives/Maneuver/ECP-Project%20Rifleman%2017%20Oct%2005.pdf

• Development of an Internally Transportable Vehicle (ITV) TTPs.
(TTPs areTactics, Techniques and Procedures)

I see I'm not the only one to focus on tactics for the ITV :D If only I had more time I could finish my book and I'd just send the Corps a copy :cool: I'm a reasonably creative guy and might have thought of a few things they didn't. For example, if their ITV used honeycomb panels which could store enough fuel not only for its own use but making it capable of refueling multiple AH6's, BlackHawk/s or Apache/s, then tactics such as the separate infiltration to a rendezvous point where the chopper/s is refueled by PAV/ss and then one or more lightweight PAV configurations are attached to the chopper/s to form a SeaCave package would be possible. (While writing a product description I calculated the fuel carrying capabilities of a maximally loaded PAV with all of its liquid storage space and 55 gallon fuel drums dedicated to storing JP4 to fuel choppers. IIRC, a single such PAV can fill SIX bone dry AH6 LittleBirds to the tabs while towing a StarShip and a DragonFire III mortar system.)

Upon mission conclusion the choppers could return to the rendezvous point where some or more of the PAVs would provide SEAD for any air assets in hot pursuit using Stinger or HUMRAAM systems. They could also exfil to a new location which some or all of the PAVs had relocated to while the SeaCave mission was underway. This should allow for stealthy/secret reprovisioning via the main body by airdrop without that drop giving away the infill or exfill points of the overall mission. The PAV's great speed would be a phenomenal asset in such a role as any stale PAV position the enemy ascertained would in just a few minutes open up into a HUGE search area :cool:

Spartiate

Solidpoint,
On the LMG thread, you wrote,

"I had not thought about the PAV for naval defense. Could you flesh out your ideas on this?" and described the amphibious adaptability of your design, in response to my original statement that,

"It would even be quite useful to the Navy (along with the other services) for serving in the "wagon fort" (mobile firepower platform) role in base defense."

To tell you the truth, I was not thinking in terms of the full capabilities of the design (which I have still not adequately researched--the carbonfiber thesis to which you provided me a link is pretty dense :) ). My idea was simply that, in the presence of the current threat--numerous, dispersed, unpredictable, and willing to exploit any weakness--but in the absence of the resources to either patrol every inch of our present bases' perimeters, or to circle them with full Vauban defenses, the most cost-effective near-term alternative would be to utilize our present thin-skinned defenses as tripwires, augmented by noded mobile response elements mounting crew-served weapons--a role for which the PAV seems ideal. An unglamorous one, to be sure, but necessary (if not paramount) in light of the reports coming in daily from Iraq.

From your description, though, it does sound like the PAV would be an asset to our amphibious forces, if not as a competitor/replacement for the AAAV, at the very least as a light scouting platform complimenting the big transports.

Keep up the good work,
Mike

solidpoint

Thanks for the compliment. I see where you are comming from. Cool has also RX'ed it for land patrols to protect borders in much the same way. The PAV would allow AAAVs to be escorted - like fighters escorting bombers in WW-II sort of - from the time they leave the LHV until the operation is concluded as they can go anywhere with the AAAV and outrange it many times over. In general, the PAV would excel in the breakout phase of an amphibious operation, as it will have lots of resources left when it hits the beach even if launched from over the horizon. :D

PS: One of my concerns for the AAAV/EFV is it is a lot of metal and heat and therefore would be easy to target using elevated terrain close to the shoreline for things like FindFire arty radar or eyeballs and sensor-fused morars or arty. The EFV leaves a BIG trail of white water behind it and I find it hard to believe costal watchers like those the Aussie's used in WW-II or search radars couldn't find and kill it well before it came ashore.

As I understand it the OMFTS doctrine is using an international treaty on the range of anti-shipping missiles to shield it from attack 60 miles or so offshore. This seems like a really stupid assumption when dealing with rogue states - and those are precisely the ones that OMFTS is targeted at. If an LHV isn't safe from such missiles then why would a much smaller EFV not be a sitting duck? It seems more likely to me that PAVs in small numbers could be infiltrated at night to conduct covert surveillance to establish if the coast is clear for the main invasion force. Once again then the PAV's stealth qualities enable it to conduct a mission no other vehicle is capable of. A group of say 5 PAVs could even knock out FindFire or other surveillance assets, or break up an ambush on queue - approaching by stealth and killing at the last minute to give the enemy the least amount of time to respond. You need a vehicle that is fast on water and land, stealthy, armored, relatively heavily armed, fuel efficient and long ranged to conduct these missions. Zipperhead really did a good thing talking me into that V-hull! :D

(It turns out the 82nd Airborne is also looking hard for more firepower in a small lightweight package.)

solidpoint

Looking strictly at the backend of this 1970's German gun prototype, you get a rough idea what a towed DragonFire III or 105mm howitzer might look like. Get rid of the motor, steering, front wheels, crew stations and replace those heavy iron channel iron rails with something that looks like the front, tapered part of the hull of a 30 ft pleasure boat with all but the top 4ft cut away and you have the basic shape as it morphs into the 2 HEMTT wheels. The boat-like hull is made of honeycomb sandwiches holding a captive 3-5mm 4ft x 18 ft aluminum skeletal truss which prevents it from bending or buckling. This makes the entire platform positively buoyant with air in the honeycomb and able to add about exactly the extra fuel needed by the PAV to pull its extra weight for the 2,000km base-line range of the PAV. The honeycomb panels are of course armored to STANAG 4569 LEVEL III+. The angle of this truss / open-bottomed hull makes towing it through water very easy and it will naturally plane and be quite stable and low drag. It also reduces by more than half the required physical thickness of the armor needed to achieve the desired protection.

solidpoint

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/3id-arty-oif.pdf

It is striking how often the BRT (BRT: brigade reconnaissance troop) were the ones bringing in the indirect fire support. This is what I anticipated happening in future conflicts but see this being done more with PGMs than heavy, tracked arty. As noted on pg 15, JDAMS were very effective, but had longer lead/latency times. This is why the PAVs have so much indirect fire capability built in with oil-cooled mortars in 60,81 and 120mm sizes. Also, the 120mm, and perhaps in the near future, 81mm SADARMs provide a great indigenous counter-battery fire capability. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/sadarm.htm

It looks to me like having your fire-support indigenous to your maneuver force is the way to go. With the RMK 35X350, Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, Mk19, MaDuce (or BRM 15.5x115, GsK-23..etc) 60or 81mm mortars onboard, with the option for towed DragonFire 120mm mortars and StarShips the PAV is capable of providing the same firepower as a Bradley as long as you automate and/or tele-operate the weapons.

Trailing members of a long column could easily tele-operate any unmanned but otherwise available weapons for the leading elements - which leaves the enemy no advantage in attacking any part of the column - as long as disabled lead elements don't trap trailing elements behind them making them sitting ducks. This is a strategy the PAV has been very carefully designed to thwart as the PAV is so much more capable in off-road and amphibious operations (2-3X as fast on land and 10X as fast on water) and can be fielded in about a 10:1 numerical superiority based on the PAV/Bradley weight ratio and 5:1 based on crew size. As long as a weapon is in range to engage enemy forces it can be be fought 100% of the time by some part of the attendant force so long as some kind of com/data link is available. This is the crucial role of TIITS and JUGGS.

Whether they try to mass on the lead elements or attack the entire column in detail, the result is about the same - defeat - because all parts of the column can tele-operate weapons in support of any part of the column currently under attack. This also minimizes the need to physically bring forward fresh elements to lead the column as only ammo exhaustion or serious and multiple mechanical problems would require this. It also keeps ALL elements in a long column engaged in the battle and invested in keeping up good situational awareness. This is in stark contrast to crews riding in the back of IFVs with virtually zero situational awareness. A PAV-rich mech formation is also more reliable because it invests the talents of 2 people in the reliability of a single maneuver system, not 11-25. Therefore, if a PAV fails, the total reduction in force strength is miniscule and the total number of personnel at risk as well.

Finally, it means that it is not necessary to pack forces together in a manner that may not be operationally sound as relatively dispersed forces can fight together just as effectively and present a much poorer targeting environment for enemy sensor-fused or optically guided anti-armor weapons.

I had the pleasure recently of driving a Nissan 350Z from SF to Sacramento and thought to measure the width of the passenger compartment. (yeah, it really does go from 50 to 125 in "holly shit" :D) It is just slightly smaller than the proposed PAV crew stations and does not have the advantage of both horizontal and vertical staggering of the two positions. In my mind this makes it clear that while the PAV crew compartment would be small, it certainly doesn't need to be uncomfortable.http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/3id-arty-oif.pdf
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/nissan_350zcoupe_base_2006/18627/style_specs.html;_ylt=Ai4NYcjy2GwnWb6I2upNhbzKdMsF?p=int

solidpoint

http://proceedings.ndia.org/5650/Cannon.pdf

...pg 22..

Battle at An Najaf
"Tanks Drew Enemy Fire while ITAS Gunners Engaged Targets from Safe Standoff Ranges"

Yeah, especially in suburban MOUT and open country armor battles this is to be expected. PAVs lead the way? ... or do they follow behind and do the heavy hitting?

solidpoint

The V-22 is a turkey. The Vortex Ring State stalls they're having are caused by the physics of small high-speed rotors being susceptible to loss of lift if they descend too quickly. No technology will fix this problem.
Worse yet, the V-22's limited cargo space means it will not be able to carry the next generation of light combat vehicles. Scrap it and build something better.

As to the specifics of Vortex Ring State - this is a problem attendant with prolonged hovers in the same spot in still air, or in general, descending through your own downwash. The rotor downwash eventually completes the circuit and you get a downspout. Far from it being a problem with too rapid of a descent, it is a problem with too little forward motion relative to any available wind. But the real problem isn't even this on the V-22. The real problem is there are two rotors that are both far from the centerline of the aircraft and if either rotor experiences even a little loss of lift the vehicle violently rolls in that direction and is unrecoverable. The solution lies in leaving more of a lift reserve and in being able to detect imminent VRS so the pilot can maneuver out of it. There are new flight procedures in place to mitigate these problems and software changes to add lift reserve so like the Abrams transmission problem which was solved by prohibiting the "bow-tie" maneuver, procedures can be useful in mitigating technical limitations.
From ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_ring

A clear understanding of this condition is essential for helicopter pilots to avoid danger.

* On a fast descent, no vortex will form because the vertical airspeed is faster than the recirculation speed - although rapid descent through one's own downwash is itself a highly dangerous manoeuvre.
* With high airspeed, no vortex will form because the translational airflow is faster than the recirculation speed.
* 30 Marines have been killed in the testing of the V-22 Osprey. The worst crash, which killed 19, was due to VRS. V-22 pilots have now been trained how to avoid crashing from VRS.

...and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-22_Osprey
...and http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-vrs.htm
... there's a whole Google-full of pages saying the same thing.

The ITV will not only provide a solution to the vehicle problem for the V-22, but also the CH-46, CH-47 and CH53. Since they got nowhere trying to get the QuadRunner industry to fund this vehicle they have now started over and are doing a clean sheet of paper design. If they can’t get a useful vehicle out of that I have a PAV to sell them. One look at BA (Boeing's) stock chart will tell you they are rolling in dough and will work this problem as hard as they need to to get it solved.

The larger point though is there are many ready solutions to the small arms pressure problem, many of them are used every day by private gun owners. Over the decades as metals technology impoved so too have chamber pressures increased.

solidpoint

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/3id-aar-jul03.pdf

I see a lot of uses for PAVs here, even while recognizing that we had thousands of tons of prepositioned armor and months or even years to plan and equip for this war. Even in MOUT there is a need for a small, stealthy, STANAG Level III-IV vehicle with a lot of firepower and a "cherry-picker" which can elevate to see over buildings and around corners obscured by awnings and such where the enemy will not be expecting/targeting recon assets.

The effectiveness of SADARMs I have focused on a lot in this thread - as applied to OUR forces when engaging a future near-peer foe. It is comforting or disturbing that they are even more effective than we anticipated - depending on which side of these sensor-fused weapons you're on.

The 15 min average CAS response time, even using the best com techniques and CAS "Stacks" means the recon/scout lead elements need their own organic indirect firesupport, IE: 60, 81 and even 120mm mortars along with TIITS style battle maps to deconflict forces so fire missions can be authorized in seconds without blue-on-blue errors.

It was also driven home quite forcefully that if lighter forces are using shorter range mortars for organic indirect fires against longer range enemy arty, the stealth of the PAVs will be critical in allowing them to close to effective ranges WITHOUT being targeted by enemy FindFire type arty targeting radars. The speed of the PAV will also be critical in closing with enemy firesupport fast enough to keep ranging problematic for the enemy, even while accurate fire while on the move will be necessary for the PAVs. I might note that 15 minutes under unopposed enemy arty is a long time to wait for CAS. Perhaps some kind of ultra-light MLRS or rocket-assisted light 105mm howitzer system is needed for the PAV for the many potential situations where cities or mountains separate enemy firesupport assets from would-be assaulting PAV forces.

Even a partial read, especially if keeping in mind that in future wars we might have to go in a lot lighter and still be able to complete these missions, can reveal a lot of useful ideas.

Njoy!

solidpoint

Wars force Army equipment costs to triple

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago

The annual cost of replacing, repairing and upgrading Army equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan is expected to more than triple next year to more than $17 billion, according to Army documents obtained by the Associated Press.

From 2002 to 2006, the Army spent an average of $4 billion a year in annual equipment costs. But as the war takes a harder toll on the military, that number is projected to balloon to more than $12 billion for the federal budget year that starts next Oct. 1, the documents show.

The $17 billion also includes an additional $5 billion in equipment expenses that the Army requested in previous years but has not yet been provided.

The latest costs include the transfer of more than 1,200 2 1/2-ton trucks, nearly 1,100 Humvees and $8.8 million in other equipment from the U.S. Army to the Iraqi security forces.

Army and Marine Corps leaders are expected to testify before Congress Tuesday and outline the growing costs of the war — with estimates that it will cost between $12 billion and $13 billion a year for equipment repairs, upgrades and replacements from now on.

The Marine Corps has said in recent testimony before Congress that it would need nearly $12 billion to replace and repair all the equipment worn out or lost to combat in the past four years. So far, the Marines have received $1.6 billion toward those costs to replace and repair the equipment.

According to the Army, the $17 billion includes:

_$2.1 billion in equipment that must be replaced because of battle losses.

_About $6.5 billion for repairs.

_About $8.4 billion to rebuild or upgrade equipment.

One of the growing costs is the replacement of Humvees, which are wearing out more quickly because of the added armor they are carrying to protect soldiers from roadside bombs. The added weight is causing them to wear out faster, decreasing the life of the vehicles.

Congress has provided about $21 billion for equipment costs in emergency supplemental budget bills from 2002-06. All the war equipment expenses have been funded through those emergency bills, and not in the regular fiscal-year budgets.

Pentagon officials have estimated that such emergency bills would have to continue two years beyond the time the U.S. pulls out of Iraq in order to fully replace, repair and rebuild all of the needed equipment.

The push for additional equipment funding comes after the House last week passed a $427 billion defense spending bill for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, which includes $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. A separate $66 billion emergency funding bill for the two wars was approved earlier in the month.

War-related costs since 2001 are approaching half a trillion dollars.

solidpoint

From page 19 of http://cpof.ida.org/MOUT-Aachen-1944.pdf#search=%22aACHEN%2C%20Combined%20Arms%20in%20Battle%20Since%201939%2C%22

From 1999:
CONOPS Enablers

Distributed, integrated force of teams with a mix of manned and unmanned systems, light (extensive reach-back, automation, low-weight vehicles, high fuel efficiency), lethal (precision munitions and effective suppressive ordnance), and survivable (teamwork and interactive protective systems).
Organic C4ISR at every echelon linked directly to weapons, particularly those enabling engagement beyond line of sight. This must include provision for highly mobile C2, and for elimination of forward TOCs and FDCs.
Highly-automated, self-actualizing C3 system that assures situational understanding and prompt execution of tactical decisions.
Configured for airmobility: moving overseas using commercial transmodal equipment and civil air freighters, and able to be deployed and sustained within the theater by C-130 (or comparable airlifters).
Punch and endurance beyond that of today’s heavy-force, capable of forcing entry and of gaining and maintaining operational and tactical initiative.
SAG
Any future ground combat system must provide for both lethality and force
protection. Both are seriously deficient even in the most modern, “digitized” portion of the Army of today. Current combat units have relatively primitive organic RSTA. This was strikingly evident in the Army’s 1997 Task Force XXI AWE, in that leaders, having insufficient awareness of either friendly or enemy dispositions, did not use fires or maneuver to best effect. A simulated JSTARS figured in the experiments, but, due to terrain masking and data latencies, it was unable to help Blue commanders fighting the close battle. Moreover, the tactical internet actually increased vulnerability in that it required each combat vehicle to broadcast its location repetitively, and the network itself proved to be vulnerable. The Army must build a new generation of forces around materiel that will enable rapid deployment and sustainability in combat with air lines of communications only. But central to force effectiveness will be provisions for significantly improved command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR), and reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA), especially for deployed forces in close combat.

If I had known about this document back in 2002 it would have saved me a lot of time. As it is it is enough to convince me that the PAV is a valid concept and is badly needed - even if diffucult to bring into existance.

Alek

Hello,
It's been a long time since my last post on this topic. Recently I stumbled onto a vehicle that could make a really cheap mass produced and efficient PAV.
It is the tiny SUV Fiat Panda Cross.
http://www.motiontrends.com/2005/m12eng/fiat/0_panda_cross.shtml

It is so tiny that a medium lift helicopter should be able to carry two inside the cargo compartment. A heavy helicopter could carry at least four internally. It weighs around 1 ton. The diesel engine has excellent fuel economy, allowing an operating range of 1000km.

If you strip all of the plastic and unneeded civilian equipment, reinforce the structure, add armor protection for .50 cal. and decent weapons and electronics package, it would be an excellent little puncher. The dry weight should still be under 1.5 tons.

In a configuration with a roof hatch for operating the roof mounted weapons, it can be efficiently manned by two soldiers. This means that it would not need a CROWS system, but instead it would rely on human perception. The soldier on the hatch should be adequately surrounded with small arms protection.
The weapons mount on the roof should be based on ball-bearings to rotate 360 degrees around the operator.

The weapon configurations possible(with up to 300kg weapons load):
- light patrol:
roof mounted LMG, 1000m range, 600rpm, 3000 rds carried.
- combat1:
roof mounted LMG, 3000 rds;
Missile launcher manually operated, various missiles carried(ATGM, A-A, unguided)
- combat2:
roof mounted LMG;
20mm HMG, double feed(HE-FRAG, AP), 1000 rds stored, 200-600rpm, 3km range.
- A-A:
Missile launcher, 4-8 anti-aircraft missiles, 10 km range
- mortar:
roof mounted LMG;
mortar launcher on slide-out platform from the rear door, 20 - 100 mortar rounds depending on calibre.

A combat group would be 6 units: 2 combat1, 2 combat2, 1 mortar and possibly an A-A or another combat2. Put this in a heavy helicopter and you have a helluva punch in a small mobile package.

solidpoint

I checked my notes. I started writing my book in May of 2004 and began an investigation into USN and USMC weapons systems starting in Nov'04 and began working on an extensive DO scenario set along the costal road in Baluchistan starting in Jan'05. Much of the material I had researched by the time I left for Xmas vacation of '04. My sketches and maps to support the battle were along with me and I started writing in mid Jan of 2005 upon retuning home. I don't know if posts here were helpful or went unread, but the USMC idea of DO is almost verbatium what I had come up with. Here's a great link to a deep pool of writing on DO.

http://www.mcwl.usmc.mil/SV/SV_DO.cfm#DOIWG

I am hoping the Corps sees the need for outranging heavier forces when light forces are engaging them so that attacks can be at something of a stand-off range. To that end I'd like to suggest Grendel assault rifles and IARs and Ti receiver M240s upgraded to 300 RSAUM so even something as small and light as the Prowler can attack lightly armored vehicles and soft-skinned vehicles from safe ranges and still carry 4-5 times the number of rounds vs an M2. While the 300 RSAUM will perhaps only be half as effective as the .50BMG when engaging vehicles, it should prove much more effective for anti-personnel duties when ROF, reduced recoil and ammo carry are considered. In the spirit of the Barrett .50, long range, long barrelled sniper weapons using this round could be fielded for 1st round effects. The DPMS 300 RSAUM AR-10 is a good place to start looking for this capability.

The long range of Grendel IAR and LMGs will allow these to do the job of the current .308 and still save enough weight to in part or in whole offset the extra weight of 300 RSAUM ammo over current 7.62 NATO. The result is a dramatic increase in firepower at or near the same weight wth the added benefit that these weapons can be dismounted and fought effectively where needed.

solidpoint

As many of you know several supersonic aircraft have been designed so that the cockpit implemented an escape pod as punching out at supersonic speeds would mean instant death.

When designing the PAV I looked at what use could be made of ulta-strong carbon fiber and designed a very high pressure air bottle in the bottom of the front part of the V-hull. It is very much like commercially available CF SCUBA tanks but is about twice as long. I did this for several reasons.

1.) To provide an air source for NBC protective suits
2.) To resupply SEAL team's SCUBA gear
3.) To allow emergency inflation of floatation devices if for some reason the honeycomb sides of the PAV were filled with water or fuel while on an amphib mission and more floatation were needed. It would allow the PAV to blow the liquid contents filling the honeycomb slabs much like a sub blows its ballast if for some reason the PAV were unexpectly swamped.(it normally floats like a cork even when swamped because of the air trapped inside the honeycombing)
4.) To allow the PAV to tow heavy arty pieces which use spring-loaded, air-released semi-truck braking systems (I am assuming this is true) I have designed a hydraulic motor wheel kit that is bolted to the existing wheel via its wheel bolts and the wheel is bolted to it in turn. This allows the arty piece to pull its own weight using a pair of hydraulic hoses. Since many hydraulic motors have hydraulically-released brakes the air-brakes could still be used to stop the arty piece.
5.) Compressing air squeezes water out of even dry desert air for crew sustainment
6.) Emergency pressure to boost the speed of the diesel engine's turbo charger
7.) To drive an emergency hydraulic pump to power heavy weapons if the engine were disabled or while it is turned off.
8.) To force air under cotton sweat panels sprayed with water to evaporatively cool the skin of the vehicle in a few seconds to evade IR detection
9.) To explode outward and/or shear a mine blast wave or push it away from the vehicle's hull and crew.
10.) Augmentation of heavy weapon operation such as a MK-19 with up to 10,000 psi of pressure. (imagine an MG-42 short-recoil action whose bolt is also a slide valve which allows air pressure to absorb recoil and return it to battery)

I have gotten around to considering the way the V-hulled crew "kayak" is mounted to the 6-wheeled base PAV vehicle more carefully and have found still another use for the compressed air.

My prior design using really strong rubber bands attached 12-18" above the flat top of the base vehicle at the top of a hinged front bulkhead and at the bottom of the crew compartment's V-hull to allow for a max length has been modified. Fighter plane ejection seats use rockets to blow the seat up out of the cockpit. My new design will have the crew compartment floating on a pair of two-way pneumatic cylinders. In normal operation the crew compartment compresses air in the cylinders much like a bicycle pump. However, when a mine goes off and the car air-bag type sensors detect a very high rate of vertical acceleration the compressed air is routed to the top-side of the pneumatic plunger to blast the crew compartment down into the ground.

Weird as this sounds you must understand that a light vehicle like the PAV may encounter over 100 G's of vertical acceleration which would shatter the spines of its crew if this compartment could not successfully detach from the base PAV vehicle. (assumes by lifting the front wheels any mine blast would be triggered by the middle wheels and therefore the mine blast would be well behind the crew compartment) By actively blasting the crew compartment downward RELATIVE to the upward motion of the base vehicle the crew could be spared perhaps half or more of the vertical acceleration. Since I still intend to use elastomer attachment methods for the CF crew "bottles" that contain their lower bodies the net result should be a manageable G load that would keep occupants from being permanently injured.

The other interesting aspect of this configuration is the possibility of doing away with the top 18" or so of the upward protruding front (base PAV) bulkhead and replacing it with two CF pneumatic tubes perhaps 3-4" in diameter to implement this feature. This would eliminate the radar signature and sightline of the top of the bulkhead and lighten the vehicle somewhat. I see this as especially helpful in ultra-light SEA-CAVE versions of the PAV which must be lifted by AH6 LittleBirds and older Huey choppers.

I have dubbed this a "dejection" seat/pod because it ejects downward, not upward. :D