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 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

0500mm 482,343 -- 241 tons Carl Gustaf 84-M3 ERA and 500+mm, PG-7VL RPG warhead
0390mm 376,227 -- 188 tons RPG-22 http://www.taos-inc.com/smarms.htm#rpg-7v
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-30-350 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 (Panhard VBL) to 386 tons (nothing on earth) 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!

The armor thickness exhibit is intended to show how there is a synergy when armor is placed at an angle beyond the increased amount of metal the bullet must pass through (LOF thickness). While this chart is specific to a 7.62 AP M2 projectile, this synergy is present even in feet thick battleship armor. If this obliquity had to be traded off against some other configuration for better mine protection the case for V-hulls would be much harder to make. Happily though, this is NOT the case and in fact both ballistic and mine protection are dramatically increased by making use of this same obliquity synergy. Since ceramic/composite armor systems typically weight about 1/3rd of steel systems this should yield a armor system weight equal to a 2mm thickness in steel - about 3.2 lb/sqft. For the 4x5x4x8ft wheeled hull this would imply an armor weight of about 335lbs. The actual weight of a good armored cockpit door is 2.6lbs/sq ft using a honeycombed door. http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/transp...ockpit-door.php


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

Attached Images

 

I've started to suspect that somethink like a disposable short range mortar (rocket would work too, I guess...) that basically delivers a single Skeet/SADARM/etc over the target might be a target for future development.

It should be able to be fired from behind cover and be VERY difficult for active defenses to engage.

Perhaps using some of the technology of the multimode locaas warhead would allow it to have a direct fire mode for bunkers and such.

Just a thought.

I think these are all examples of your idea. I would like to see a 60mm or 81mm single warhead version though. I guess the sensor package costs too much to deploy for a single warhead??? It would allow organic 60mm mortars to deploy sensor-fused top-attack smart anti-armor muntions with a 10,000 sq meter search area though. Nice for SOCOM.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

Those are similar, but I was thinking about something that you point in the direction of the target, click the support to the approximate range, and thump one round out over the target. With the area of search from the spinning payload, it wouldn't have to be directly overhead. I suspect it would weigh about 12 lbs, but I could be wrong. The advantages that I see are that it would hit from a significant distance overhead, making "Arena" and other active protection suites less effective. It could be fired from behind cover. It could be fired remotely, with several set up rapidly to cover choke points or points of vulnerability as a stand-off anti armor mine. I'm not talking about something that will kill MBTs at 2000 meters. I am talking about something that is set up and fired in a moment to engage tanks at 600meters or less. I understand that the improved versions are pretty effective versus bunkers too, but I have my doubts.




A version that could be fired from mortars is a good idea, but I belive the diameter is too large for the smaller mortars. Once you have to use a 120mm mortar, you might as well deploy a couple to hit a larger area/ or hit single targets more times.

Spike (the 6lb naval weapons mini missile) is another technology that imo should be hustled up. Not anti tank, per se, but if you have a guided 2.2lb EFP warhead that can hit targets like trucks and machine gun nests at up to two miles (iirc) you can save your heavier anti armor weapons for what they were designed for.

The weight would put it in an 81mm mortar quite nicely. I think there is a need for this capability ... and also an anit-radiation mortar round which could be fired from behind protection and find an enemy radar or com facility. The weight of an 81mm mortar can be brought down to 12 lbs, making it man-portable in a pinch, or for quick relocation to make use of alternate cover. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/avail...9172003-225551/

This need came up when considering a heliborne SEADS deep penetration strike where the enemy used MANPADS like Stinger to defend their radar and C3I installations. In addition to SA-10/20 Grumbles, this prohibited both high altitude and heliborne attacks unless the choppers could bring along a PAV and drop it where the threat level got too high for the chopper to continue farther. The PAV could then proceed on the ground to the general contact area and launch a salvo of anti-radiation mortar rounds.

With a range of 8-14km (I'm using the laser-guided guided glide-mortar rounds as a basis for the anti-radiation mortar, somewhat like a Sidearm adaptation of the Sidewinder http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...itions/pgmm.htm) the PAV could launch 3-7 rounds before the first one hit, maneuver to avoid courter-battery fire, and once the tangos are confused and on the defensive THEN the choppers could move in with Sidearms and Hellfires - while the PAV continues to launch while on the move.

McGreagor in his first book "Transformation" details a similar scenario where TBMs are hunted down using choppers. The Israelis have formalized in doctrine the inevitable fact - which McGreagor asserts will be true for US forces as well - that for the first week or so all CAS assets will be hunting TBMs, and we all know how much harder it was finding SCUD missiles than anticipated so this estimate may be optimistic. This makes large numbers of PAVs roaming for contact very valuable as a way to augment airborne searchs but they need a way to accurately hit radiating targets on their own as air assets may not be able to engage with acceptable losses. (The AGM-159 looks to me to be an answer to the Grumble being able to engage Tomahawk missiles. It seems close to the LOCASS in general operation.) A powered stand off missile with a 3-700km range would be a lot more effective if there were ground teams to designate the target on site on the ground and a well timed "Forearm" mortar attack would not only be a good punch on its own, but should be able to defeat all or most of the target's defenses before the PGMs get there.

In summary, I like the general conept and would like to see it developed.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

I'll check that link later, I read about a lighter 81mm mortar at DTIC, iirc the final weight was about 40 % lighter due to some parts not being as conducive to being lightened.

I suspect that even the Wiesel and Wiesel 2 are really about as small as an armored vehicle can reasonably go. The W2 model iirc can use a 120 mortar, but it is NOT a fire on the move weapon. For that kind or role, I wonder if a rocket launcher would be better.

Also the PGMM program should have some huge advances in mortar capabilities, and if the follow through with the Fiber optic guided mortar round, a simple ESM antenna on the vehicle could tell them in what direction and at what range the target radar should be. Then lob a fiber optic guided 120 mm round toward it, (using the man in loop/autopilot to use a path that is NOT a straight line and hopefully confuse counterbattery systems) and I doubt any radar system is likely to be very functional after a 120mm mortar round hits, even if it sacrifices some payload for the guidance.

The Guided 70mm rocket systems (APKWS) should be interesting for similar roles too, though they will need a laser designator. I understand that the revived program realized that the original was ONLY going to be useful for the standard HE warhead, and there are so many varieties available... I like the Flechette versions, particularly when combined with the high thrust CRV-7 motors. I suspect that modern technology has created a situation where the 5" airborne Zuni rockets might be worth resurrecting, or perhaps one of the (swedish?) 120mm systems should be bought/further developed.

I am trying to remember whether the damask IR sensor was going to be integrated into APKWS1/2???



LOCAAS sounds like it is going to be very nasty, if it can be kept from targetting friendly troops...

I don't have time right now to give a proper response as there is so much in your post for discussion...kudos...this will be a long thread.

A few thoughts...

LOCAAS is too expensive, but for some SEAD missions its worth the cost. Glide bombs would be much cheaper and would justify very heavy bombers in the 1.5 - 2.25 million pound class flying at altitudes > 60,000 ft. (NASA, Boeing, GE and P&W did an advanced research project to find the upper limit on aircraft size given current technology and 2.25 million was their number. They used EXACTLY the same configuration I do in my book.. An average engineer with a little imagination can come up with the optimal configuration.)

The reason for the very high altitude is quite simple. Current SAMs can't hit them and they can glide bombs with 8-10:1 glide ratios up to 120 miles from such altitudes. This puts the power source on the bomber, not the bomb and makes for cheap and MASSIVE standoff bombing capabilities. Using the SDB at 250 lbs (twice what it needs to weight if you look at the capabilities of 120mm mortars at 1/10th the weight by contrast) such an aircraft could deliver 2-3,000 bombs with enough punch to defeat any armor AND a 15 meter+ kill diameter for soft targets. (I am basing this on the IMI M80 submunition) With AGM-154 sensor fused armor killing bombs in the mix a few of these bombers could destroy an entire heavy division in minutes - PROVIDED it was in a fairly tightly packed configuration. Using C-17s and C5s and 747s and A380s for bombers works just fine. With PGMs you can drop bombs from an outhouse if you can get it airborne. The concept was studied and works just fine - except that all of the cargo planes will be busy flying 30-85 ton behemoths around in a tribute to five star general's profound stupidity about their survivability in an era of ATGMs. (The US Army's heavy divisions now weight a staggering 200,000 tons! )

The Wiesel is a very bad set of tradeoffs. The French VBL is a much better set of tradeoffs. I think the PAV is much better still and easily beats either of these and any other vehicle on the planet on a weight-equalized basis using 2,500lbs as a base weight for the PAV. My contacts with industry have been interesting in this reguard. They are telling me my estimates of materials and capabilities are too conservative - to my amazement.

The LOCAAS and other PGM are great for engaging large, grouped forces. The way to kill your enemy in an era of PGM is to find them, fix them, herd them into large, concentrated groups and then annhilate them. To do this you need MANEUVER warfare. The PAV is the absolute state of the art for this kind of warfare. I was just watching something on Boyd on the Military Channel, and the USMC adopted his theories and more importantly, the famous "hail Mary" plan of ODS was not Schwartzkoft's (sp), it was Boyd's via Chenney. Boyd is the master of maneuver, and this plan worked wonderfully.

The ability to air-drop or sea launch 5,000-25,000 PAVs in 24 hours deep behind enemy lines or from stand-off distances when each weights less than an unarmored HumVee and has the punch of an AmTrac or Bradley will completely change warfare. Yes, a PAV with an RMK-35-350 and MK19 towing a StarShip will weight 12-15,000lbs, but that is more firepower than 2-3 BFVs and will most likely anchor a platoon of 25 or more. The same is true for PAVs towing DragonFire III 120mms and 500 120mm mortar rounds, but OMG, what capabilities. Top speeds in desert environments between 100-130mph for a more typical 3,500lb loaded vehicle with a seamless transition across water at up to 30 knots. All of this with a range much greater than 2,000km.

This makes the ground war very fluid, using PGM as hammers to smash what they cannot take care of organically when and as airpower is available. The problem with PGMs is they are not available 24x7, they are there for fleeting minutes and then have to rearm and refuel. This drives one to the conclusion that ground forces need to be self-sufficient for long periods of time and then be able to take on MASSIVE stores of ammo, fuel and food in very little time to provide continuous crew sustainment and combat effectiveness for days or even weeks if PGMs or CAS is not available for military, technical or political reasons.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

Actually, bomber support could be there, theoretically for 24/7. All you have to do is take your B1Bs or B52s and orbit them near enough that the glide bombs are in range. Then stack them to the gills with approriate sized munititons. Swap out one bay for defensive munitions, such as AIM9X Sidwinders (or other updated weaponry such as a flack firing Phalanx system for anti missle defense) and you have a self defending flying battle ship. You want to keep it up there for a day? Mid air refueling, and make sure the crew has enough food and air. Crew needs rest? Cycle the bombers in and out at regular intervals, keeping someone on station at all times.

Oh, and on the ground, make sure everyone has a laser designator strapped to thier AR. 6.5 too light? 40mm won't do it? Mortars out of range or not powerful enough for a reinforced position? Here comes the 1000 pound guided munition. Need more than one? Think: Dial a kill . I think that will do the job.

Your idea for a "bay" or palleted system for cargo planes to dispense AARAM or PGM munitions is dead on, has been studied in depth, and only has one problem. We have lots of special-purpose bombers and far too few cargo/fueler/troop transporters. Why? Because bombers are sexy, and the ChairForce can get a good hard-on over a bomber, but a good cargo jet? Hell NO! This is pure insanity and needs to be addressed ASAP. More C17s P-L-E-A-S-E!!!

On the other hand, it’s not practical to keep your airforces spread out all over the theater on the odd chance a target presents itself. Your enemy can see those bombers and will wait you out, plan feins to suck bombers away from the real attack, and most importantly, they will use SAM missiles to deny you free reign of the sky for a very large % of the time.

This makes it important for your ground force to find the enemy and shape the battlefield so that when SEAD from ground, air and sea converge to take down EAD for a few minutes the bombers can engage in force and really smash the hell out of the targets ground forces have been able to find, designate, and upload the coordinates of into the USAF central targeting system so when the heavies show up they can just "unwrack the ship".

In the future I think it will literally be true that "Rangers lead the way". Airpower will follow as the servant Coke dispenser of bombs under ground control. The idea that some guy 12 miles up in the sky has control over the munitions is insane and is just pure and simple ChairForce horseshit. Any ground IFF-verified reliable ground personnel should be able to pick a munition type, number and destination and have the authority to release the munition. In short, the ChairForce should be used like a personalized arty system as it has those capabilities. There is no reason why such a system cannot be used as organic fire-support and this tactic should be adopted wholesale. With 20 super-heavies able to dispense 40-60,000 bombs there is no need to hoard these resources like they are gold bricks. They are no more expensive than a Cargo mortar shell, don't need any ground apparatus to "fire" them or protect them from enemy ground forces or counter-battery fire, so from a system's cost perspective, they are no more precious and should not be fought that way.

As we have discussed before, there are active defensive systems under development which will require massed fire to defeat. Giving the guys with the eyeballs on the targets the discretion to mass this fire by using GLMGs, organic mortar, command arty and MLRS and massive aerial bombardment is the best way to coordinate such attacks.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

All I was thinking of was a bomber or two tasked for each unit...depending on geographical concentration. All it would require is for your "bombers" to either be too stealthed/high/well defended for the SAMs and air threats, or just stick them up in orbit.
Take it up that high and you might as well drop KE rounds and dispense with explosives all together, but now I am just getting too sci fi.

And as High up and far out as Glide bombs can be deployed, SAMs and air threats might not even be an issue. I don't know the actual specifics, but the range has to be better than arty strikes. Time on target might be a problem, but if you have to bring in something that heavy, an extra couple of minutes might be worth it. And if the target is moving, just keep the laser designator/GPS marker on him as long as it takes.

On a same thread, why not use guidance for all CAS and arty strikes as well. We have the technology...Let the pilots and arty guys have command authorization for targets of opportunity, but if they are in range, just have our guys call them, get them to switch over to remote firing, and as soon as they are in postion (auto targeted in the case of the arty fire) the weapon is fired, released and there you go.

The SA-10/20 Grumble system has a ceiling of over 100,000 ft and a range of up to 400km. It is a modular system of 6 or more parts spread over up to 150km that is linked by optic fiber, microwave, land-lines, UHF ... what have you ... so it cannot be killed - only degraded. During these periods where, for example, local search radars, or launchers, are destroyed, you have to bring in your heavies and have a long list of pre-registered stationary targets. This is the work of the PAV crews. Once in range the bombs are dispatched to engage the list with a certain amount of over-kill while the mobile or semi-mobile targets are actively designated in the time window available. A computerized system should be built to match targets with munition types so each target is optimally engaged. This is NOT parts of TIITS, but is something the USAF should be working hard on.

Part of the impetus for TIITS was to use a system that could provide centimeter precision by designating everything relative to a single precision GPS coordinate. If I have one precision GPS location and then vectors with magnitides of everything in a 10km radius I can have incredible precision that is not jammable. The basic problems with GPS is it is a coordinate system for the whole damned planet, and I only need to worry about the currrent battlefield, not the whole planet. The 2nd thing is it is a coordinate system, not a vector system. I don't need to tell you where on planet earth something is for you to hit it - just what direction and how far from where you are now. In fact, without the means to convert a GPS coordinate into a direction of fire having a GPS coordinate is worthless. IE: coordinate systems do not provide information that is immediately useful, they have to be converted into vectors to be useful. It's a fine point, but an important one given the desire of TIITS to be so persavasive and having the ability to use vector processing to do computational perspective shifting in real-time. Obviously long range LOCAAS type weapons will have to navigate for most of their flight using GPS, but the close-in targeting would still benefit greatly from TIITS and eyeballs on target intel.

The bottom line is it is not practical to keep bombers on station in the early stages of a high-intensity (near peer) battle. You will only have windows of opportunities you blow open, and your enemy will attempt to evade your PGM and CAS and perhaps even bait them for destruction. You need ground maneuver to be able to go around, through, and over great distances, mine fields, and terrain with such speed your enemy cannot cope and is left on the defensive and vulnerable to your traps in reacting to your battle-shaping threats. To do this you need a few men to have stunning firepower in a platform that is light, has great range and speed, and can sustain the crew with food, WATER it aquires from air and contaminated sources, and is tolerant of damage so it can take a lot of damage and still provide offensive and at some point, if sustaining enough damage, escape and evade to insure survival. I believe this is defacto the USMCs battle doctrine. They just don't have the PAV they need to make it happen.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

I agree with you on that. I'm just saying that having the modern equivalent of the B36 and using it as a mobile "arty" platform would allow alot more flexibility. As well, most bombers have done away with all but the tail gun (and that too). I see the re-emergence of the bomber gun turret as benificial due to the fact that with a .50 cal to 20mm gatling, mounted on a turreted system, any missles that get through your fighter screen jamming and chaff will have to deal with the CIWS. The planes already have all the sensors, and it would probably only take an addon to the computers, avionics and reduce your fuel load or war load by a few thousand lbs. When you are talking about a B-52 or a B-1, thats not a significant amount.

And for early engagements, use B-2's. you can't hit what you can't see.

The Grumble can see the B2, F117, and even the Tomahawk missiles. I do not believe it can see the AGM-159, another invention I dreamt up for my book that is now reality. It has a 300km+ range and is made with stealth technology. Unlike the stupidly wasteful Raptor which touts its "SuperCriuse" technology without ever mentioning that its supersonic flight would make it trivial to target with acoustic sensors far more crude than what the USN has been using for years to detect enemy subs, this missile is subsonic.

You are dead right, and dead on that the larger you make a bomber the more CIWS Phalanx type weapons you can have and still keep their weight below some threshold % of total aircraft weight. Operating at 65,000ft, as in my book, you are in 2.5% of sea-level density air so bullet drag is not a concern and range is much greater. Like WW-II shipping convoy defense, I use specialized heavies with thousands of AMRAAM-120 missiles and retrievable cruise missiles with these as sub-munitions which are retrievable and mid-air refuelable to provide constant, tiered-altitude bomber convoy defense.

Of course my "bombers" are just heavies with the appropriate bomber paletted system installed and filled. They also carry cargo, fuel, troops or all of the above. The "Sharks" though are dedicated convoy defense craft and can track 2,000 targets and engage 400 simultaneously. This system has already been developed for the USN, so no stretch here. At 65,000 ft though they can see 400-500 miles and share all info cooperatively, even with the missiles and cruising robotic picket craft mentioned above. Carrying a staggering 500,000 lbs of air-to-air, HARM and AGM-154, 158 & 159 missiles and 13 PHALANX CIWS pods they fly above every fighter's max ceiling and can shoot entire air forces out of the sky single-handedly. They can also overwhelm even massed Grumble fire from the Grumble. As it is too stupid to maneuver, simple IR seeking missiles like the Sidewinder hone well on the nose-cone heat. The CIWS system takes care of the rest.

The Sharks also have a super-AWACS and Rivet Joint capabilities. My story would be very short if these planes were not still in testing and had been deployed in large numbers. You have to create plot tension somehow. The really sickening thing is for the $300 million per copy we are blowing on the Raptor we could actually build these planes as highly modified 747s. In such a world we could have had a billion pounds of weapons, men, PAVs and have ferried short-legged fighters in large numbers (assuming anyone really needs a fighter anymore) into Afghanistan (or anywhere) within 48-60 hours after 9/11. With 5,000 PAVs and 15,000 men air-dropped into even a land-locked country in 24 hours or less, with the PAV's 2,000km unrefuled range, we could roam the earth and kick ass and take names. Even the heaviest version of the PAV with StarShips and DragonFire's in tow will go from Karachi to Tehran AND BACK unrefuled. Think of the possibilities. Who the hell needs an Abrams tank? One, two at most, 25 lb Javelin missiles will blow it into shrapnel as easily as any other heavy.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/strix.htm
Strix Precision Guided
120mm Mortar Launched Weapon

Produced by Saab Bofors Dynamics

Projectile guidance technology has already been used since 1994 in 120 mm mortars, with the IR homing Bofors/Saab Strix. This weapon can engage targets at a range of 7 km, operates in an autonomous heat-seeking mode which can intelligibly recognize targets and discriminate targets among decoys and burning targets. Strix has been in service with the Swedish Army since 1994 and also has been ordered by the Swiss Army. It is optimized as an anti-armor weapon, defeating targets with top-attack.

Reading between the lines, the SPIKE is the Javelin without the expensive guidance parts - the cryogenically cooled IR seeker. It uses visible light instead, so it is a smaller, cheaper, lighter "daylight" Javelin. One of the most interesting uses of the SPIKE is as a Javelin decoy.

Imagine an enemy with some kind of active defense system trying to defend against a Battalion of PAV equipped USMC. Take these 3,000 men and put them in 1,000 PAVs ( more or less, with some AAAAAAAAAAAV/EFVs to soak up lots of heavy lift capacity and carry the general's tea set ) Using 3-man crews for the Javelins, two shooters and one loader per PAV crew, each PAV can launch one "any-armor-in-the-world" killing Javelin every 5 seconds, or 12 per minute for a combined 1,200 per minute - about 2 heavy divisions per minute !!! This assumes of course that the targets do NOT have an active defense and are bunched together.

If on the other hand the PAVs are spread out and trolling on SEAD missions, and they find what they are looking for, they will likely be few, and the enemy many, and in the case of the Grumble SA-10/20s, will be defended by heavies which we should assume will have some kind of active defensive systems in the mix. (The roots for which are already appearing on Russian missile launcher systems) In this case the SPIKEs could be fired in volleys along with the Javelins to overwhelm the defensive system. At 1/5th the weight of a Javelin many more SPIKEs could be carried and there would be a huge cost savings as well.

(I have to somehow get the USAF to buy the PAV. Only the ChairForce has the audacity to walk into Congress with a straight face and ask them to fund BILLION dollar bombers -AFTER the fall of the Soviet Empire - AND 300 million dollar useless Raptor fighters. IMO a fighter is an AI guided missile with a human brain standing in for the AI until it can be perfected. Nothing more. Note to self. Change diplomatic approach to enticing ChairForce into buying PAV )

"Forearm" HARM mortars, dumb mortar shells and even GLMGs such as the MK-19 can also be used for overwhelming active defenses, which is why each PAV is capable of being packed with such weapons. One of the most significant achievements of the PAV is the ability to carry 5-6 times its own weight in fuel and equipment. If anyone thinks this is unachievable I will remind you that the Rutan/Scaled Composites jet that flew around the world unrefueled carried 83% of its total takeoff weight in fuel... so there is no reason a well-designed land vehicle cannot carry the same percentage in crew, ammo, water and fuel. The PAV in fact, from hundreds of calculations I have performed to estimate such capabilities, does just that.


The US Army needs to learn from the ChairForce that to get funding they need to ask for capabilities they need, not just bigger and heavier versions of what worked, or would have worked if they had not failed to field it in WW-II. (the Pershing tank comes to mind http://www.michiganhistorymagazine..../tanks/m26.html
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/tit...e=S2024~ser=NVG
in the fall & winter campaigns after the successful Normandy landings)

As a service, the US Army has neither the technological savvy of the ChairForce, nor the doctrinal penchant for innovation of the USMC. In short, they seem to be a rather dull, boring, unimaginative crowd. McGregor makes exactly the same point - about his own branch of service. Sad but true, especially for those in the Army fighting to overcome such intransigence.

PS: http://www.strategypage.com/bookreviews/184.asp

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

L-3 AND HORSTMAN SHOW OFF ACTIVE SUSPENSION ON LANCER CHASSIS

21 Jun 05. L-3 Electronic Systems (ES) and Horstman, the UK’s leading suspension systems company showed off its new active suspension system, ECASS, on the United Defense Lancer vehicle during demonstration at Bovingdon on Tuesday.

L-3 ES and Horstman are leading the development of an electronic suspension system for ground vehicles called, ECASS that will greatly enhance the mobility and mission effectiveness of military vehicles.

ECASS improves the off-road mobility and manoeuvrability of both wheeled and tracked vehicles. This substantially increases ground force mission success rates by providing stable mobile platforms for firing weapons. It also enables troops and vital supplies to be transported faster and safer to where they are needed, arriving combat ready.

Features include:

Mobility and maneuverability - Two-to-threefold increase in speed over off-road terrain quickens the tempo of battle for combat forces.

Enhanced survivability and mission effectiveness - Improved vehicle handling and stability enables more accurate C4ISR and weapon delivery, and active recoil management, which minimizes time between weapon firings.

Crew effectiveness - Crewmembers experience six-to-eight times less vibration and shock, thereby reducing soldier stress and fatigue and maintaining soldier efficiency for longer periods of time.

Vehicle safety - ECASS can reduce Centre of Gravity height during severe cornering manoeuvres to reduce vehicle roll over susceptibility.

Reliability/cost savings - ECASS’ ability to minimize absorbed energy from terrain-induced shock and vibration can significantly reduce motion related vehicle and electronics failure rates, protect shock/vibration sensitive munitions and potentially reduce overall life cycle costs. Additionally, increased payload flexibility without significant degradation in suspension performance can provide opportunities for reducing transportation costs and expanding mission capability.

Fuel economy - The ability of ECASS to store and regenerate damping energy reduces vehicle off-road rolling resistance and fuel consumption compared to vehicles with conventional suspension systems.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-11...14K_Hellfire_II

I've been doing a little head scratching here and have come to the conclusion that a MIRV version of the Hellfire should be developed that contains 3 independently targeted Javelin missiles. The inspiration for this came from a desire for the USMC to use the same weapons on its helicopters as its PAVs so they could share ammo for optimal prosecution of the battle. The 110 lb Hellfire is a bit much to launch from a PAV if you have a Javelin at 26 lbs and 1/4th the cost already available.

My next leap of reasoning was to use Javelin missiles instead of Hellfire on the choppers, but then there is the 2.5km range restriction, vs 8.5km, which is too short a range to give the choppers a reasonable chance to evade return fire. Here's where things start to get interesting. How much would a Javelin weight if given the Hellfire's range of 8.5km?

To my surprise I found that the Javelin actually has a LARGER warhead (8.4 vs 8.0 kg) than the Hellfire, so its not the warhead that is taking up so much weight. Subtracting the 18.5lb warhead from the 26lb total Javelin weight I get about 7.5lbs for the rocket motor AND all of the guidance stuff. If I assume the guidance stuff is 2.5lbs then the weight of the rocket motor is 5lbs - for 2.5km - or 2lbs/km. To extend the range of the Javelin to 8.5km then would require and additional 12lbs of motor. The total motor weight would then be 17lbs, well short of the Hellfire's 31lbs and producing a Javelin missile weighting 38lbs. So for 38 lbs we can have a F&F anti-tank missile with an 8.5km range for PAV and helicopter use. Not bad!

Things get still more interesting when I started to wonder why the Hellfire weighted 110 lbs to deliver the same warhead the same distance as a 38lb Javelin. Assuming the Hellfire isn't filled with rocks I conclude that the guidance system is ancient and should be ditched altogether. Now lets suppose instead that each of those 16 Hellfires that an Apache carries kept its 31lb motor - capable of delivering 3 standard Javelin missiles with a 2.5km range and weighting 26lbs each about the same 8.5km as it does now. Wa-La, we get 3x26lbs plus 31lbs for a system weight of 109lbs! Now speaking strictly for myself I would add another 8lb warhead for the Hellfire and 2.5lb Javelin guidance system so I get a fourth warhead on target for a mere 10.5 lbs.

The bottom line is I get complete compatibility with the existing Javelin missile used by ground vehicles AND compatibility with all existing helicopter launchers AND I quadruple the number of warheads the Apache can deliver for a total weight increase of 10.5lbs/missile x 16 missiles or 168 lbs - less than the weight of a crewman! Guess what? A single Apache can now destroy 64 targets in a single volley WHILE PAVs provide SEAD protection using more Javelins and Stinger QuadPacs, engage with RMK cannons at close range and flatten or suppress everything within 10-17km with 81 & 120mm Cargo mortar rounds!

Given the PAV's ability to carry up to 5 tons of munitions for up to 2,000km unrefueled, or use part of their fuel load to refill the Apaches, and provide security while these fueling and resupply ops take place, I can see hunter-killer platoons of 10 PAVs and 4-6 Apaches doing deep penetration search and destroy missions in spite of very well developed enemy integrated air defenses. Of course even such a small group ( this is a group of 20 PAV crew and 10-12 Apache pilots ) could annihilate a battalion of heavy armor in minutes. Assuming Javelins can be packaged in QuadPacs like Stinger missiles and have each of the 4 missiles see its target before launch for volleying, each PAV could potentially launch 2 QuadPacs from the base PAV and 2 from the side hardpoints on the StarShip at once.

PAV launches = 4x4x10 PAVs initial volley then 3-4/minute after that

Apache launch= 6x16x4 until resupplied

First minute volley of 160 + 40 PAV launched and 384 Apache launched

Total Javelin missiles launched = 584 in first minute

At the current hit rate of about 90% that is 525 dead MBTs and or IFVs IN THE FIRST MINUTE!

As you can see, driving the weapons system development down to the PAV's scale is paying unexpected dividends for the combined arms weapon.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

I don't see anything wrong with your calculations, but there must be something we don't know about. Here's why:

An extended-range version of Javelin was being developed by Texas Instruments in the mid-1990s for the Army's Follow-On to TOW (FOTT) program. Hughes was also working on a FOTT candidate. Range was 4-5km, well short of Hellfire's 8.5km. Weight of the fire & forget missile (in the launch tube/storage container) was circa 65 lbs.

Unfortunately, FOTT was cancelled several years ago.

Stan,

I carefully avoided the problem by NOT going with the 8.5km, 38lb Javelin, but stuck with the standard Javelin and MIRV version of the Hellfire. I had a gut feeling there was something I was missing and I think I know what it is. The propellant weight per range is not a linear function, it is some log function.

When you start to add a lot of fuel for more range a greater and greater percentage of the initial weight is required not to move the warhead, but to move the rest of the fuel. This is a bit less than straight forward though as that fuel burns off very quickly during flight so that initial weight penalty is quickly left behind. To further complicate matters the engine size and geometry must be large enough to handle the initial combined weight, even though a smaller, more efficient engine, would do just fine a few seconds into the flight.

I chose to stay with the Javelin because field tests show that operators had trouble positively identifying friend from foe past 3km. I think this may well have changed somewhat with the introduction of the TOW-II's ITAS targeting system, but I suspect a better parsing of the problem would let the choppers use their better vantage point to engage at long ranges using the MIRV idea (same system weight as the current version so no engine or range changes needed - except for possible sub-sonic separation of the MIRVs) and let the ground pounders use the existing Javelin.

Several simplifications I made were
1.) The possible need to keep the HellFire host missile sub-sonic for cleaner MIRV separation, (which should require less energy and extend the range)
2.) Not taking into account that there is likely still more weight savings in the MIRV concept as the Javelin's initial "soft launch" motor would not be needed if the HellFire host was delivering it at high sub-sonic speeds.
3.) I did not add the Javelin's 2.5km range to the HellFire host's 8.5km range
4.) I did not consider the added range effect on the Javelin MIRV sub-munition when starting its launch at some altitude and high sub-sonic speeds rather than from ground level and whatever speed the soft-launch motor accelerates it to.

It may be that for a StarShip, which is spec'd with hardpoints that can use any system used by USMC helicopters, such as the SideArm, HellFire, small GAUs, etc, the best solution would be to use the HellFire MIRVs and then mount the Javelin QuadPacs on the base PAV. One advantage of this arrangement is in the area of crew focus. When traveling X-country I could easily see the StarShip "captain" taking over driving duties or overall command while riding 12-15ft off the ground to get a better view, first look, and get up out of the dust. When on S&D or SEAD missions the StarShip captain would likely focus on airborne threats while the ground crew focused on ground level threats. The officer in the base PAV's driver position would take over more weapons system management, communications, and system monitoring duties and generally fly with his head in the cockpit - very much like a RIO or WSO in a fighter-bomber - while the HOOOW and StarShip captain are striving for max situational awareness and immediate reflexive engagment of any threat that presents itself.

The idea for Javelin and Stinger QuadPacs - one on each side of the captain's armored pod - is to allow him to engage immediately with his GAU, RMK, or Gast gun, (whichever one he picked for the mission) fire Stinger missiles at longer range threats, and fire on armor or fortifications in volleys with Javelin QuadPacs. In a situation like 73-Easting where you come up over a rise and there's a whole division of heavies, the StarShip would have a split second jump on the ground crew and it would be best therefore to give him the maximum punch possible. If equipped with an Apache style quad missile station holding 4 MIRV'd HellFires this would give the StarShip captain a much bigger punch.

I used "captain" in quotes because using the PAV's fly-by-wire system there is no designated driver - although by default the PAV commander is the driver - and I would expect that the StarShip captain would take over driver duties when his elevated position gave him better situational awareness. There is another important implication of the fly-by-wire system - killing the driver will not disable or even degrade the PAV system. Once the enemy understands this it takes the bulls eye off the driver's butt. Even if the entire crew were killed the vehicle could be tele-operated by others in the squad/platoon or even by some CIA geek in Langley, Va. so crew would not be targeted to disrupt the operation of the vehicle, and in general, the weapons systems. (The HOOOW's function is by definition the hands-on operation of weapons, so killing him would take that weapon station out of action, but he is given the best view possible at ground level, a fearsome amount of firepower - a 6-barrel .338 Lapua GAU is my favorite - and a lot of armor protection to compensate.)

I have remarked on this before, but I am always struck anew that this thing "flys" like a B-17 in terms of crew coordination - right down to hi and lo threats, zones of fire and offensive and defensive crew functions. Unlike an IFV, in this thing EVERYONE is in the fight all the time by design. No crew and passengers, everyone is crew.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

one of the big reasons the extended range Javelin hasn't been built yet is the inability of the crews to aquire and lock on to targets at those ranges.


Spike is NOT a cheaper javelin. It is more closely related to a guided long range grenade launcher. Javelin is 28 some pounds, you could carry about 5 spikes and the fire control system/launcher for that. Sure, they won't kill MBTs, but there aren't THAT many MBTs out there.



As you pointed out, hellfire's warhead weighs about the same as a Javelin's (roughly) So how do you intend a Hellfire to carry three complete Javelins?

Perhaps a cluster of SADARM or something, but I think that would only allow two.

... because if you take the 110 lb Hellfire and subtract the 31 lb engine you get 79 lbs of payload - which is more than enough for 3 complete Javelin missiles. Each of those Javelin 25lb missiles has an 8.5lb warhead.

I assume you realize by now that the SPIKE missile we are discussing is the SPIKE mini, which is much cheaper than the Javelin. Reading between the lines, it is the Javelin sans the expensive cryogenically cooled IR targeting system. Instead it uses the much cheaper COTS visible light CCTV technology - but I would be shocked if it didn't use the same exact software. After spending billions developing such AI software it would be stupid in the extreme not to use it.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

Putting my thinking cap on here for a minute, there is an interesting implication if the SPIKE mini is the same system as the Javelin sans the expensive cryogenically cooled IR seeker. The Javelin's IR system is roughly equal to the Stinger's and one of the great advantages of the Stinger QuadPac is the missiles that are "on deck" have their refrigeration units started so the missiles that are "on deck" are able to be ququed and can lock on very quickly.

Now if we could get rid of this IR mess entirely by using COTS visible light CCTV technology there would be no such wait and if you put 30-35 missiles in a Zuni 2.75" sized rocket type pod, or a count perhaps better suited to a light vehicle like a PAV, then all of the missiles could be ready for immediate launch. This becomes a lot more interesting if you are in a TIITS world because operators who are nowhere near the launch aparatus can tele-operate the missile target and control system.

In this world reinforcements inbound on choppers could be using iPaq handhelds - or something a bit better in the near future - to fight the SPIKE and Javelin weapons while still inbound to the battle. In fact, while the refer delay would still be there, they could operate Stinger and HUMRAAM SEAD assets on the PAV via TIITS and cover their own insertion! It's just amazing what a few tweaks like allowing any device to stand in as the human interface for any other device does for battlefield synergy!

Putting these two ideas together I can easily see Katyusha rocket http://www.veteranen.info/~cedarsou.../kat/kateng.htmtype launchers packed with SPIKE and Javelin missiles going on a killing spree the likes of which the world has never seen - and you don't need weight to anchor this system at all.

Since a big part of TIITS, and the part we are discussing here, is the simple ability to move the display device and user controls further than a really long monitor cable allows for, and the replacement for the cable is some freq using RF or IR light, to keep the bandwidth demands to a minumum we'd need something like a PDL (page discription language) such as TruType or PostScript, but targeted to display devices instead of the once-only rendering of a printed page. Guess what? XML was designed to provide for just such things and my guess is there is plenty of power in an iPaq to parse the XML and render the rather limited info displayed on the Javelin's targeting screen and the 8 or so indicators and very few control inputs. I also think the entire TIITS implementation could be done as a freeware project for zero cost. Cool!

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

The following is admittedly a rather bizzare idea, but hey, so was welding a cow catcher onto the front of a tank to fashion a hedgerow cutter. Remember the 16ft long horse spears in the movie BraveHeart? Well, I have this idea for a giant RPG swatter. Using a very lightweight pole with a 2x4ft skeletal diamond tread wire mesh on it. Dismounted mech infantry in MOUT attempt to hold the mesh up into the LOS of the RPG as it is fired at its target. This comes from my observation that properly timed a bag of rocks thrown in the air would defeat any ATGM ever made - paired with the idea of slat armor. It's a pretty bizarre idea, but I'll bet it would work too.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...-37/chap2.htm#1

http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-9/iss-5/p29.html

.. with a 64x64 pixel picture...

http://www.rockwellcollins.com/optr...in/page765.html
... or a 1024x768? ... which is it quys?

Either way, I can easily use XML as a DDL and pipe the core image down a UHF or better link.

Attached Images

 

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?

...from
http://www.bragg.army.mil/www-82dv/...August%2013.pdf
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...-22-37/appe.htm

Mumma and his team were cresting
a hill in western Iraq when they spotted
a pair of Iraqi tanks positioned about
1,800 meters away dug into U-shaped
bunkers at the base of the hill.
Mumma grabbed the Javelin from his
team’s Humvee, engaged the target and
fired two missiles at the tanks.
Both missiles were direct hits and
produced what Mumma called “catastrophic
results,” destroying each tank
almost instantly.
Each Ranger saw similar results after
firing the system.
Kithcart said there was no doubt
about whether the target was destroyed
when he fired a Javelin because the explosion
was so large it could be seen
from about a kilometer away.
They also said they were impressed
by the range and lethality of the weapon
and found additional uses for the Command
Launch Unit, which is basically
the brain and eyes of the Javelin.
The Javelin sight (CLU) was such an asset
that the Rangers said they used them during
patrol and surveillance missions.
“As far as surveillance goes, the
CLU was better” than the thermal
A two-man team fires an anti-armor missile
from a Javelin.
Courtesy Photo
sights the Rangers carried, Mumma
said.
“If we picked up something on the
thermal (binoculars) and couldn’t tell
what it was, we would pick up the CLU.”
Kithcart said the CLU was the best
surveillance device they had when it
was dark and during the frequent sandstorms
because they were able to see
things with much more detail than with
the thermal binoculars.
He said the CLU helped with their
mission so much he would have carried
it even if he didn’t have any ammunition
for the system.
“The complete system performed
magnificently,” said Col. Mike Beasock,
TRADOC Close Combat Missile Systems
system manager. “The CLU was the
best surveillance device they had. The
missiles effectively destroyed each target
they shot at, ranging from tanks to
light vehicles and bunkers.
“Tanks used to scare us,” he said,
“but now we are looking for armored
targets to attack.
“Now we can find them, get out of
the vehicle and attack on foot,” Beasock
said. “To have one infantryman on foot
attacking a tank is amazing, and the
system is so accurate, if you lock on to
a target, it’s an assured defeat of that
target.
“People were even locking on to mortar
positions,” Beasock continued. “It
is a very reliable system.”
The Javelin system has already begun
to change the way the Army looks
at tanks and other armored vehicles, he
said.
The Javelin has proven itself to be
so valuable that it is one of the few
weapons systems to be designated by
name to be in the Army’s Objective
Force, Beasock said.
“It has such promising growth potential
and such ‘leap-ahead’ compatibility
that we must have it in the future,”
Beasock said.

--- and ---


Background:
The Javelin is the Army’s only legacy-to-objective force missile system and the only light and mechanized infantry fire-and-forget anti-tank missile system now in fielding. Nine (9) Army National Guard units will not be fielded with Javelin due to the reduction for funding in the Army’s FY04-09 POM.
Javelin’s offensive firepower, versatility, and high lethality against armored and alternate targets such as bunkers is the reason why the Army accepted the risk of not attaching M1 tanks to the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams. Javelin is proven go-to war system, where first time gunners have more than 92% hit range against targets 65m to greater than 2,500m. Javelin Command Launch Unit (CLU) has performed superbly in combat operations in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Javelin’s fielding plan had sufficient CLUs and trainers to field all Army and Marine Active and Reserve Components. The Army’s Transformation to Stryker BCTs increased the number of CLUs and trainers required to complete fielding to all Army units. The recent funding cut the Army FY04-09 POM has resulted in a shortfall of 1,074 CLUs and associated trainers for all Guard and Reserve units.

__________________
6.8 SPC: Rejected by the DOD. What's your excuse?