Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [40+ years] APC?

 

AI and/or hologram helper programs, not unlike the doctor from Trek.

 

they can direct the soldiers to do first aid, repair the vehicle, maintain the weapons, and speak foreign languages, etc

 

 

Sarge: Hey Friday, where's the nearest watering hole?

AI Friday: The nearest operational tavern is two hundred sixty kilometers behind us at Camp November, and

The nearest cistern of actual water appears to be 70 meters northeast of our present location.

 

In maybe 50+ years, but not in 30. I also don't know if I would invest that kind of processing power on a hologram, when I could put it into a remote unit that I can then put weapons on. I think they were called cybershells in GURPS Transhuman Space.

 

If we want posit that level of tech, I would give the APC itself semi-autonomous AI, with a suite of useful skills such as First Aid/ Combat Surgery, Chemical Biological Decon, Field Expedient Repair, Basic Tactics, Forward Observer, Vehicle and Aircraft Recognition, and so on. That would be in addition to the ability to self-drive and operate it's own weapons systems for close support.

 

In limited situations, the squad could deploy then have the APC move to an overwatch position on its own and provide fire support and engage targets of opportunity. Every troop has some sort of IFF tag on them to prevent friendly fire. If the squad is pinned down or someone needs evac, the APC can move around to make things easier. Eventually, if the tech is good enough, you could dipense with drivers all together.

 

Like you said, even without true AI, the troops could call up the database to handle common situations if separated from the rest of the unit.

 

"Based on diagnostics from his personal uplink, Private Jones is suffering from a sucking chest wound. In the absence of a trained combat medic, please follow along with following steps for immediate aid. Since you have selected audio output, I will dsiplay graphics to assist, as well as reading the steps aloud. Please reply verbally, or touch the screen, when you are ready to proceeed."

[Old Man]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

No no no, it's "Hello Private Jones, your vital signs and distressed expression suggest that you are suffering from a sucking chest wound. You will note that there are no combat medics in the vicinity. I will have to direct you while you perform the appropriate procedure. Please take out your service knife..."

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

No no no' date=' it's "Hello Private Jones, your vital signs and distressed expression suggest that you are suffering from a sucking chest wound. You will note that there are no combat medics in the vicinity. I will have to direct you while you perform the appropriate procedure. Please take out your service knife..."[/quote']

 

Damn, that Private Jones is hardcore.

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

I suspect that the tracked would just be that much tougher

 

That's another misconception, an eight wheeled vehicle takes an RPG hit in the wheels and it knocks out one or two and you've got a damn good chance of scooting along on the 6 or 7 remaining. You take a hit in the tracks with an RPG and you're a bunker. The only moving you're going to be doing is by two boot drive.

 

I was actually referring to the individual wheels vs tracks not the entire vehicle motive system, they are already at parity depending on terrain.

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

So? It's a war.

 

The American Army is dealing with battles in urban terrains that it will eventually have to re-build. We have less ability to "just toss" grenades than we did in, say, Vietnam, because the powers that be realized that eventually America has to pick up the pieces that it tore down. End point, the US war-machine realizes it's a war that they have to pay to put back together again afterwards, so destroying hundreds of miles of blacktop is something that we don't want to do. We are moving away from tracked vehicles and towards multi-wheeled variants.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

That's another misconception, an eight wheeled vehicle takes an RPG hit in the wheels and it knocks out one or two and you've got a damn good chance of scooting along on the 6 or 7 remaining. You take a hit in the tracks with an RPG and you're a bunker. The only moving you're going to be doing is by two boot drive.

 

I was actually referring to the individual wheels vs tracks not the entire vehicle motive system, they are already at parity depending on terrain.

 

I was actually thinking about the vehicle itself, not the tracks or wheels.It seems like the weight they can put on the suspension systems is higher with tracks. More armor.More weapons. I could be thinking about this wrong, but there are no wheeled MBTs.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

The American Army is dealing with battles in urban terrains that it will eventually have to re-build. We have less ability to "just toss" grenades than we did in' date=' say, Vietnam, because the powers that be realized that eventually America has to pick up the pieces that it tore down. End point, the US war-machine realizes it's a war that they have to pay to put back together again afterwards, so destroying hundreds of miles of blacktop is something that we don't want to do. We are moving away from tracked vehicles and towards multi-wheeled variants.[/quote']

 

I would say that you have to go back to WW2 to find the last time the US really prosecuted a "total war." Every conflict since has had a lot of restrictions imposed on operations.

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

I was actually thinking about the vehicle itself' date=' not the tracks or wheels.It seems like the weight they can put on the suspension systems is higher with tracks. More armor.More weapons. I could be thinking about this wrong, but there are no wheeled MBTs.[/quote']

 

Right, but that is current technology. As technology progresses we could have wheeled suspension that are that much more sturdy with wheel materials and fillers that both support the pressure and solidify upon being breached.

 

And while tracked suspension may keep pace, the need for superheavy MBTs just isn't in the near future. The trend is active defenses and point defense weapons.

 

While there may be no wheeled MBTs now, the question is actually what will we see in the next 30 years. In that light, the wheeled MBT with light but effective armor, reactive armor, stand-off slats, and point defense weapons zipping around the increasingly urbanized battlefield makes a lot of sense.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

I was actually thinking about the vehicle itself' date=' not the tracks or wheels.It seems like the weight they can put on the suspension systems is higher with tracks. More armor.More weapons. I could be thinking about this wrong, but there are no wheeled MBTs.[/quote']

 

That's not because tracked suspension is inherently tougher (it is, but only kinda: the tyres are the weak point on wheeled vehicles) but for two reasons - one, conventional tubeless tires can't take the weight of an MBT and two, tracks spread your weight over a much wider area, allowing tracked vehicles to drive right over ground that hopelessly bogs down even multiwheel vehicles. This is one of the things that has the US army looking a replacement for the Stryker: it's been widely criticised for its poor performance offroad, something the continual stream of upgrades has worsened: both the Israelis and Canadians have cancelled planned purchases, largely for this reason.

 

It's not clear whether the Stryker's replacement (the planned Ground Combat Vehicle or GCV) will be wheeled or tracked, at this point: the first prototypes aren't due until 2013. However, FWIW, both of the "artists' impressions" floated so far are tracked and look more like the Bradley than the Stryker. If that's the case, the Stryker probably won't vanish, but it'll likely be shifted to the fast reconnaissance role.

 

As for the APC of the future, what's been covered here is likely:

- Improved, composite armour

- A slightly higher, wider profile, with improved passive blast protection and decreased chance of rollover for IEDs/mines

- Active defences against missiles (lasers/minigun/metalstorm/railgun ... or something)

- Full networking

- A generator and battery packs for recharging all the electronics carried by soldiers these days (that's the other big problem with the Stryker: it tends to run out of juice quickly when using electronics and not running the engine ie: surveillance or battle posture. It's due to get an upgrade to deal with this, but that means rejigging the suspension to take the extra weight, making it even less offroad capable)

 

cheers, Mark

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

That's not because tracked suspension is inherently tougher (it is, but only kinda: the tyres are the weak point on wheeled vehicles) but for two reasons - one, conventional tubeless tires can't take the weight of an MBT and two, tracks spread your weight over a much wider area, allowing tracked vehicles to drive right over ground that hopelessly bogs down even multiwheel vehicles. This is one of the things that has the US army looking a replacement for the Stryker: it's been widely criticised for its poor performance offroad, something the continual stream of upgrades has worsened: both the Israelis and Canadians have cancelled planned purchases, largely for this reason.

 

**snip**

 

cheers, Mark

 

I know we are talking statistics and "over time" and "as compared to" etc. However having spend quite a few years as a tracked wheel driver (113 and 113A1; and yes, I understand these are older tracked designs, but I've even seen ODS Bradleys and Abrams suffer from a good muddy day), but racks are not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to "off roading". honestly I'd rather loose some traction, or even bog down, rather than slip a track during a sustained firefight.

 

Just saying.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

I know we are talking statistics and "over time" and "as compared to" etc. However having spend quite a few years as a tracked wheel driver (113 and 113A1; and yes' date=' I understand these are older tracked designs, but I've even seen ODS Bradleys and Abrams suffer from a good muddy day), but racks are not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to "off roading". honestly I'd rather loose some traction, or even bog down, rather than slip a track during a sustained firefight. [/quote']

 

Would you rather bog down in a firefight? I'm not seeing a big difference between being unable to move because of being bogged down and being unable to move because you've slipped a track - except that the first is easier to fix. But if it happens 3 times as often ....

 

So your first point is the major one - all of this is "statistics and "over time" and "as compared to" etc." But that's what budgets and planning run on: you need to balance robustness in combat with being able to get your forces where they need to be, cost, maintenance and a variety of factors, so what you get will always be a compromise of some kind.

 

cheers, Mark

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

See, I suppose it's a matter of semantics, because to me "bogged down" means running slowly, "Stuck," is a non-mobile designator, in my verbage (I fully acknowledge that is my interpretation of the distinction between the two words). At least in a wheeled vehicle, you can work to move (whether stuck or bogged down) from inside the vehicle, and that provides both concealment and cover for the troops located inside, whereas to get your track back on it's going to take 2-3 troops outside the vehicle upwards of an hour (if it's not bad, if it's been slipped badly, you must then break track, and that's going to run you 3 hours.)

 

So as an infantryman having been in an urban combat zone, I can say, I'd rather go with the wheels. But I know that the soldier really isn't asked in all this and it's just reports that are poured over by men in comfortable offices looking at naked statistics with little to no "on the ground" observations on how things work outside a lab, or otherwise "controlled test" environment. And absolutely it's going to be a compromise between two half-XXX solutions at least till we see anti-grav (lol) that solves all these other than the whole "power" issue, that and who's to say you can't just push an anti grav out of the way, lol.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

That's not because tracked suspension is inherently tougher (it is, but only kinda: the tyres are the weak point on wheeled vehicles) but for two reasons - one, conventional tubeless tires can't take the weight of an MBT and two, tracks spread your weight over a much wider area, allowing tracked vehicles to drive right over ground that hopelessly bogs down even multiwheel vehicles. This is one of the things that has the US army looking a replacement for the Stryker: it's been widely criticised for its poor performance offroad, something the continual stream of upgrades has worsened: both the Israelis and Canadians have cancelled planned purchases, largely for this reason. snip...

cheers, Mark

 

I meant all that in the background of my statement about suspension. I was a little imprecise with my terms, but I kinda sorta remembered some of that stuff from a military history class I had in college many years past. Thanks for jelling the thought for me. Anyway, that's very interesting info about the Styker vehicles. I may read up on that.

 

 

I know we are talking statistics and "over time" and "as compared to" etc. However having spend quite a few years as a tracked wheel driver (113 and 113A1; and yes, I understand these are older tracked designs, but I've even seen ODS Bradleys and Abrams suffer from a good muddy day), but tracks are not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to "off roading". honestly I'd rather loose some traction, or even bog down, rather than slip a track during a sustained firefight.

 

Just saying.

 

I spent a very brief period on self-propelled howitzers when I was in the Army. I hated the concept slipped or broken tracks more than anything. I was so happy when my final assignment was not in a mechanized unit.

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

That's not because tracked suspension is inherently tougher (it is, but only kinda: the tyres are the weak point on wheeled vehicles) but for two reasons - one, conventional tubeless tires can't take the weight of an MBT and two, tracks spread your weight over a much wider area, allowing tracked vehicles to drive right over ground that hopelessly bogs down even multiwheel vehicles. This is one of the things that has the US army looking a replacement for the Stryker: it's been widely criticised for its poor performance offroad, something the continual stream of upgrades has worsened: both the Israelis and Canadians have cancelled planned purchases, largely for this reason.

 

It's not clear whether the Stryker's replacement (the planned Ground Combat Vehicle or GCV) will be wheeled or tracked, at this point: the first prototypes aren't due until 2013. However, FWIW, both of the "artists' impressions" floated so far are tracked and look more like the Bradley than the Stryker. If that's the case, the Stryker probably won't vanish, but it'll likely be shifted to the fast reconnaissance role.

 

That's an apples to oranges comparison. The Army is creating the GCV as a replacement for the Bradley, not the Stryker. It is basically the Bradley upgraded to include the squad multiplier features they found so valuable when they fielded the Stryker, such as the intra-squad information links, extra-unit digital communications suite, and reduced fuel consumption. They plan to maintain the the Stryker units for urban environments, which they recognize as being a more likely situation in future engagements.

 

You seem to be discussing engineering questions in a vacuum and avoiding the bigger picture of political truth. The aspect of symmetric warfare is the remote possiblity, not the likely one. Asymmetric warfare is the expected norm. In assymmetric warfare the smaller side (ostensibly the side without the super-APC of the future) would use areas that provide cover such as; cities where wheels dominate, mountains where helicopters dominate, or underground where boots dominate. The possibilty of open field tank battles is becoming more and more remote.

 

A better example of a new vehicle replacement would be the Marines MPC. Before the Stryker even appeared they were using a wheeled APC the LAV-25, and now that the Army has seen the wisdom of the Corp and built their own version with the Stryker, the Marines decided they would like the digital features the Stryker introduced as well. Both branches see the benefit of wheeled vehicles for urban environments, or they would only build Bradleys and AAV-7A1 Amtracks.

 

However, we are talking about 30 years in the future, and with that statement we can let our imaginations slip into the area of science-fiction...

 

If for some reason the world intelligence agencies are wrong and the political climate changes to the point where China feels it can withstand the global financial crisis of calling the US debt due, or the EU decides China or America isn't drinking enough wine or eating enough cheese and will kill to enforce that lifestyle, then here is a good wheel/track comprimise...

 

Imagine in this Sci-fi future that we'll be having our wars with an all-binding accord not to include cities in the warfare. Then we could build a track system made up of three or four of those 'track-pods' per side. The front and back units or pairs could turn to improve manueverability, the pods would be independent and damage to one would not affect the others so if one pod loses a track the others will get the cargo into/out of combat, and then the repairs can be made in a safe area instead of under fire. While the load would be distributed over a wide track-like footprint providing exceptional cross-country traction.

 

Of course, the individual pods would have to support more weight than what we can presently build in small track pods, the coordination/synchronization systems and replicated powertrains would make it more vulnerable than a single track, but that's what the 30 years of science-fiction track development would provide.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

That's an apples to oranges comparison. The Army is creating the GCV as a replacement for the Bradley' date=' not the Stryker. It is basically the Bradley upgraded to include the squad multiplier features they found so valuable when they fielded the Stryker, such as the intra-squad information links, extra-unit digital communications suite, and reduced fuel consumption. They plan to maintain the the Stryker units for urban environments, which they recognize as being a more likely situation in future engagements.[/quote']

 

It was originally intended as a replacement for the Bradley. It is now looking like a replacement for both the Bradley and the Stryker. Originally, the MGV was supposed to be the replacement for the Stryker, but since the MGV has been cancelled, and its role officially folded into the GCV, it now appears the GCV family is going to replace both. That's given currency by the lukewarm assessment of the Stryker M1128 MGS - there are apparently no plans to modify any 1128s for anti-IED protection - removing the firepower they were supposed to provide and the army has not gone ahead with large scale orders. Instead they are pouring money into the GCV and commenting that now the GCV is required "to meet the availability rates of the current Stryker"

 

The latest army opinion piece on strategy contains no mention of the Stryker beyond the phrase "The Stryker’s on-road speed and troop carrying capacity provide a

tremendous operational capability, but it possesses little developmental potential. Both the Bradley and Stryker families of vehicles can be reset in the near term until they begin replacement in the midterm."

 

Translation: we'll keep 'em and upgrade them until we have enough replacements. The only replacement under development now that the MGV is officially cancelled is the GCV.

 

Again, that opinion appears to be supported by the new specs for the GCV - which include full squad integrity - and a swipe at the Stryker stating that it was under-armoured and lacked manueverability, forcing troops to dismount further from objectives.

 

Last of all, the army's most recent 30 year budget projection for wheeled tac vehicles includes lots of trucks, lots of MRAPs, lots of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles — the replacement for some Humvees - and and lots of money for Humvees. Conspicuously absent is any money for Strykers, or a wheeled replacement.

 

You seem to be discussing engineering questions in a vacuum and avoiding the bigger picture of political truth. The aspect of symmetric warfare is the remote possiblity' date=' not the likely one. Asymmetric warfare is the expected norm. In assymmetric warfare the smaller side (ostensibly the side without the super-APC of the future) would use areas that provide cover such as; cities where wheels dominate, mountains where helicopters dominate, or underground where boots dominate. The possibilty of open field tank battles is becoming more and more remote. [/quote']

 

Not at all: the lesson the army took away from Iraq was apparently that the Stryker was under-protected for urban conflict, and the lesson it appears to be learning in Afghanistan is that its off-road performance makes it too reliant on roads, and therefore too vulnerable to IEDs. In short, assymetric warfare assumptions are what is driving this current path.

 

Note, I'm not saying that they are right, merely reporting on what they appear to be doing.

 

A better example of a new vehicle replacement would be the Marines MPC. Before the Stryker even appeared they were using a wheeled APC the LAV-25, and now that the Army has seen the wisdom of the Corp and built their own version with the Stryker, the Marines decided they would like the digital features the Stryker introduced as well. Both branches see the benefit of wheeled vehicles for urban environments, or they would only build Bradleys and AAV-7A1 Amtracks.

 

In fact, the army and the marines have recently cancelled their joint development program - the army has apparently decided heavy is the way to go - the marines want a lighter faster, more rapidly deployable vehicle. So it looks indeed like we are moving towards a future where you have a Bradley-like vehicle and perhaps an Amtrak-like vehicle (the MPV) for the two services.

 

Of course, it's not clear the MPV will survive, now that the EFV - which was supposed to support it - is dead. The last AoA from the marines raised the possibility of using what it called "legacy" Strykers instead, suggesting that the Marines may inherit the Strykers the Army apparently no longer wants. Financially, that makes a lot of sense, even if it offends the Marines pride

 

Imagine in this Sci-fi future that we'll be having our wars with an all-binding accord not to include cities in the warfare. Then we could build a track system made up of three or four of those 'track-pods' per side. The front and back units or pairs could turn to improve manueverability, the pods would be independent and damage to one would not affect the others so if one pod loses a track the others will get the cargo into/out of combat, and then the repairs can be made in a safe area instead of under fire. While the load would be distributed over a wide track-like footprint providing exceptional cross-country traction.

 

Of course, the individual pods would have to support more weight than what we can presently build in small track pods, the coordination/synchronization systems and replicated powertrains would make it more vulnerable than a single track, but that's what the 30 years of science-fiction track development would provide.

 

Interesting concept!

 

Another possibility, of course, if you want to go more Sci-Fi is that improved body-armour/robotics allow you to dispense with the IFV altogether and use powered armour instead Then you use a lightly armoured, high-profile vehicle - think a lightly armoured monster truck with a V-hull - designed to haul a communications suite, a squad and a big generator. It's only purpose is as a meat-hauler: high speed, long range - not an AFV. Infantry dismount at distance and carry their own support weapons.

 

I'm not entirely being flip - it's unlikely, but possible. After all, in 1910, the warfare fought in 1940 would have been all but unimaginable.

 

cheers, Mark

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

It was originally intended as a replacement for the Bradley. It is now looking like a replacement for both the Bradley and the Stryker. Originally' date=' the MGV was supposed to be the replacement for the Stryker, but since the MGV has been cancelled, and its role officially folded into the GCV, it now appears the GCV family is going to replace both. That's given currency by the lukewarm assessment of the Stryker M1128 MGS - there are apparently no plans to modify any 1128s for anti-IED protection - removing the firepower they were supposed to provide and the army has not gone ahead with large scale orders. Instead they are pouring money into the GCV and commenting that now the GCV is required "to meet the availability rates of the current Stryker"

 

The latest army opinion piece on strategy contains no mention of the Stryker beyond the phrase "The Stryker’s on-road speed and troop carrying capacity provide a

tremendous operational capability, but it possesses little developmental potential. Both the Bradley and Stryker families of vehicles can be reset in the near term until they begin replacement in the midterm."

 

Translation: we'll keep 'em and upgrade them until we have enough replacements. The only replacement under development now that the MGV is officially cancelled is the GCV.

 

Again, that opinion appears to be supported by the new specs for the GCV - which include full squad integrity - and a swipe at the Stryker stating that it was under-armoured and lacked manueverability, forcing troops to dismount further from objectives.

 

Last of all, the army's most recent 30 year budget projection for wheeled tac vehicles includes lots of trucks, lots of MRAPs, lots of Joint Light Tactical Vehicles — the replacement for some Humvees - and and lots of money for Humvees. Conspicuously absent is any money for Strykers, or a wheeled replacement.

 

 

 

Not at all: the lesson the army took away from Iraq was apparently that the Stryker was under-protected for urban conflict, and the lesson it appears to be learning in Afghanistan is that its off-road performance makes it too reliant on roads, and therefore too vulnerable to IEDs. In short, assymetric warfare assumptions are what is driving this current path.

 

Note, I'm not saying that they are right, merely reporting on what they appear to be doing.

 

 

 

In fact, the army and the marines have recently cancelled their joint development program - the army has apparently decided heavy is the way to go - the marines want a lighter faster, more rapidly deployable vehicle. So it looks indeed like we are moving towards a future where you have a Bradley-like vehicle and perhaps an Amtrak-like vehicle (the MPV) for the two services.

 

Of course, it's not clear the MPV will survive, now that the EFV - which was supposed to support it - is dead. The last AoA from the marines raised the possibility of using what it called "legacy" Strykers instead, suggesting that the Marines may inherit the Strykers the Army apparently no longer wants. Financially, that makes a lot of sense, even if it offends the Marines pride

 

 

 

Interesting concept!

 

Another possibility, of course, if you want to go more Sci-Fi is that improved body-armour/robotics allow you to dispense with the IFV altogether and use powered armour instead Then you use a lightly armoured, high-profile vehicle - think a lightly armoured monster truck with a V-hull - designed to haul a communications suite, a squad and a big generator. It's only purpose is as a meat-hauler: high speed, long range - not an AFV. Infantry dismount at distance and carry their own support weapons.

 

I'm not entirely being flip - it's unlikely, but possible. After all, in 1910, the warfare fought in 1940 would have been all but unimaginable.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Your sources don't support your suppositions. The first link is in direct opposition, even the title states, "US Army Moves Ahead with V-Hull Strykers" and the latest update (Dec/10) is that $92M has been allotted to upgrade the program. The very first paragraph states there are currently 7 medium armored brigades, and an 8th is on it's way. They are expanding their use of Strykers, not mothballing them as you contend.

 

The second link states they are going forward with the GCV and talks about it merits but does not state it is replacing the Stryker. In fact, the second link is dated (Feb/10) while your third link titled, "U.S. Army's GCV Delay: Lesson Unlearned?" which is dated (Aug/10) states the GCV has been put on hold due to 'overreaching', and the pentagon has asked for too much from the FCS program and want to re-evaluate the GCV to see if the same is happening to this 50-70 ton super APC. Only the contractors are "surprised" at the delay, and that's only because building this monster would be a gold mine for them. As far as the 'swipe' in the third link, that the Stryker offers a lower level of protection simply states the obvious what is expected from an airliftable APC. That's not a condemnation, just a division of roles. However it does say this about the GCV, "What will I get with the GCV that an upgraded Bradley [armored fighting vehicle] won't give me?"

 

And as far as the fourth link goes, it just looks like the Marine Corp wants to distance themselves from the Army's 70-ton APC boondoggle that, as per your third link, even the Army is now unsure of.

 

But all of this goes back to the question of are you considering the types of battles we'll be fighting in the future. Set piece armored conflict, or asymmetric skirmishes? If you really think we'll mostly have wide open Kursk tank battles from now on the Abrams and 70ton APC chugging along the open field towards the enemy makes sense. (well, except for the 70ton APC part) If, on the other hand, you think we'll be fighting more of the same asymmetric battles that have dominated the second half of the 20th century, then the Marines have it right with light airliftable wheeled vehicles zipping through the cities getting out of trouble as quick as they get into it.

 

As far as powered armor in the next thirty years, well as huge an Iron Man fan as I am, I'd love to see it, but just don't think so.

[lapsedgamer]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

The Marines have always been really adept at taking stuff that the other services throw away and making use of it and keeping aging weapons systems in the field for extended periods of time.

[Old Man]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

They've had to be because they don't get any budget and are treated like a red-headed stepchild by the Navy.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Your sources don't support your suppositions. The first link is in direct opposition' date=' even the title states, "US Army Moves Ahead with V-Hull Strykers" and the latest update (Dec/10) is that $92M has been allotted to upgrade the program. The very first paragraph states there are currently 7 medium armored brigades, and an 8th is on it's way. They are expanding their use of Strykers, not mothballing them as you contend.[/quote']

 

Actually the links shows that they are retrofitting the Strykers - albeit only 83 of them - in a way that will make them more suitable for a patrol role (it's exploratory, not a general upgrade). They are specifically not going to upgrade any of the variants that were designed to give the Strykers sufficient firepower to operate independantly: meaning that the concept of Stryker brigades operating seperately from tracked support is now officially dead. It's why the Canadians cancelled their order: if they have to use Leopards to support the Strykers, why would they buy Strykers in the first place? They already have cheaper lighter LAVs.

 

The original justification for the IBCT/Stryker Brigade was the capability to put brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours and pose a "credible threat". Apparently Army no longer thinks they pose a credible threat. Which means in current army strategy, they no longer have a clear role.

 

Sigh. If you want the infodump, here's the info dump.

There is no budget for the purchase of any more strykers post 2010. We can talk about their "possible role" until the cows come home, but unless they are delivered by the magical Stryker fairy, that's all she wrote. There is an upgrade and modification budget plan for the Stryker out to 2015 .... almost all of which has been cut from the current budget request.

 

In short, all talk aside, the only money the Army is setting aside is for upgrades and maintenance - and even that is less than planned. That, to me, speaks volumes. After all, the Army is spending 215 million USD on upgrading Bradleys, in the 2011 budget. Does this mean they plan on "expanding the use of the Bradley"?

 

I wasn't suggesting that they are going to scrap the Strykers next week. It's just like the Humvee: 2011 marks the last planned purchase of that vehicle, too. Funds planned for subsequent budgets are for refits and upgrades, out to at least 2015 (and realistically, both kinds of vehicles will be around much longer, in some roles). It doesn't mean that the vehicles will suddenly disappear.

 

But if there is a replacement for the Stryker under development at Army, or even a development project for any wheeled IFVs feel free to point me at its budget. Right now there is a budget for one and only one IFV - and that's the GCV.

 

The second link states they are going forward with the GCV and talks about it merits but does not state it is replacing the Stryker. In fact' date=' the second link is dated (Feb/10) while your third link titled, "U.S. Army's GCV Delay: Lesson Unlearned?" which is dated (Aug/10) states the GCV has been put on hold due to 'overreaching', and the pentagon has asked for too much from the FCS program and want to re-evaluate the GCV to see if the same is happening to this 50-70 ton super APC. [/quote']

 

Actually the "overreaching" comments specifically to the FCS, which has been cancelled. And it was an accurate description: the FCS was supposed to be fast, light nimble - and also heavily armed and armoured - and capable of taking a whole squad plus a crew of three. They might as well have asked for the squad to be able to dismount with unicorns. But it looks like given the choice between those options, Army has chosen heavily armed and armoured over light and nimble.

 

And you are right: there is nothing specifically stating that the GCV will replace the Stryker: army spokemen are not stupid enough to say to Congress "Oh, that 18 billion Stryker program? Turns out we didn't actually want that". There are however in several of those links, comments that the GCGV will have to provide Stryker level range and reliability (something the Bradley most definitely does not). And, as noted there is no budget for either continued Stryker production or replacement. How do you translate those facts?

 

If you want to know where the army is going don't listen the PR guys: look at the budget. Actually, that applies to any large organization: follow the money.

 

Only the contractors are "surprised" at the delay' date=' and that's only because building this monster would be a gold mine for them. As far as the 'swipe' in the third link, that the Stryker offers a lower level of protection simply states the obvious what is expected from an airliftable APC. That's not a condemnation, just a division of roles. However it does say this about the GCV, "What will I get with the GCV that an upgraded Bradley [armored fighting vehicle'] won't give me?"

 

It's a damn good question, actually: one that DoD should ask more often. The answer with the GCV seems to be "even more of the same". You seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of a giant IFV. I'm not - at least in principle: let's see what it looks like. I'm merely pointing out where the funding is going. Again, as noted, if you can find indicators that the Army intends to buy replacement Strykers beyond their current upgrade plans or that they have a development plan for a wheeled successor, feel free to point it out.

 

And as far as the fourth link goes' date=' it just looks like the Marine Corp wants to distance themselves from the Army's [i']70-ton[/i] APC boondoggle that, as per your third link, even the Army is now unsure of.

 

They don't appear to be unsure of it - the RFPs have already been sent out, and over 1.5 billion is already budgetted in the short term. What they are unsure of is what the final vehicle will look like - since the contractors have yet to respond. It's entirely possible that the final product will be lighter than the monster envisaged (not very likely, given the spec.s though: there's only so much you can do with those requirements). It does look like it'll be tracked, given the spec.s.

 

The marines naturally enough want a light fast vehicle because that suits their role - so I'm not surprised they don't want the GCV. However, their own development pathway is pretty limited right now. As noted, they already use stryker-like LAVs - and have been doing so for quite a while now: as noted, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with Strykers the army doesn't want.

 

But all of this goes back to the question of are you considering the types of battles we'll be fighting in the future. Set piece armored conflict' date=' or asymmetric skirmishes? If you really think we'll mostly have wide open Kursk tank battles from now on the Abrams and 70ton APC chugging along the open field towards the enemy makes sense. (well, except for the 70ton APC part) If, on the other hand, you think we'll be fighting more of the same asymmetric battles that have dominated the second half of the 20th century, then the Marines have it right with light airliftable wheeled vehicles zipping through the cities getting out of trouble as quick as they get into it.[/quote']

 

Right, like the light and nimble Bradleys and Abrams that became the weapon of choice in urban combat in Iraq.

 

You are the only person in this discussion who is fixated on large scale armour battles. Meanwhile people in the Army are talking up a larger more heavily armoured IFV for deployment in asymmetric battles in urban environments. This article quotes the Army's own assessment: "The Stryker is a superb transport, “but lacks the protection and versatility for high-intensity combat,” while its “limited growth potential was acceptable for an interim vehicle,” it “poses significant risk for future operations.”

 

The Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office rated the Stryker vehicles sent to Iraq "effective and survivable only with limitations for use in small-scale contingencies."

 

Certainly from a doctrinal point of view, the idea of light forces zipping in and out trouble, protected by "information" instead of armour, promoted by Shinseki and Rumsfeld, was one of the casualties of Iraq. The army is now moving back to "boots on the ground" and "Clear and hold" in asymmetric warfare, which means high intensity combat. Not vast tank battles in Fulda Gap, but localised high intensity combat. Hence the requirement for a vehicle that can dismount troops close to target, carry a full squad, provide good IED protection, and sufficient backup power and firepower for the squad to operate independantly of tanks. Actually, that's the basic spec sheet for the GCV.

 

That was kind of the idea behind the Stryker: a swiftly deployable force that could face low level combat without a need for heavy armour. Iraq killed that idea. The beating the Strykers took in the first few month's in Iraq in urban settings meant that all future urban combat operations were spearheaded by Bradleys and Abrams: at Falluja, for example, the Strykers were assigned patrol duties outside the city. It's worth noting that the Army's response to questions about the Strykers' survivability in urban settings was to make data on Stryker losses classified: not exactly confidence-inspiring. However, more and more the job of patrolling is being done by MRAPs (the original plan was to buy 2500 MRAPs: the army's now ordered 17000 of them) which are cheaper and easier to maintain and have better survivability vs large IEDs.

 

It's not because it's a bad vehicle: the troops, by and large have been very enthusiastic, and hell, I'd far, far, rather be in Stryker than a Humvee! It's just that it looks like it can't fulfil the role of a general spectrum IFV - which was its major reason for existing. If you check out the Styker brigades pages, you'll find lots of endorsements of the vehicle - and complaints that it's gotten a lot of bad press, because it was deployed wrongly: it's not an AFV and doesn't do well in mid to high intensity combat ... like say, in urban areas. And that's one reason for the repeated assertion that it's not suitable for COIN in urban areas.

 

As far as powered armor in the next thirty years' date=' well as huge an Iron Man fan as I am, I'd love to see it, but just don't think so.[/quote']

 

Sad but true .. still, you never know

 

cheers, Mark

[dmjalund]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Powered armor, probably - flying powered armor, probably not.

[Markdoc]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Powered armor' date=' probably - flying powered armor, probably not.[/quote']

 

I'd say Powered armour maybe, flying powered armor, probably not The problem facing the army is that as it adds more and more electronic geegaws is the ever-increasing need for more electrical power. One of the things telling against the Stryker is its inability to haul a large enough power source: the army recently reduced its requirements in that aspect by over 90%. Powered armour faces the same problem, but in spades: where is your power coming from? Battery technology is going to have to make a huge leap to answer that question. Not impossible, but not too likely.

 

You end up with two competing futures. If powered armour is possible, then up-armouring your vehicle is probably unnecessary. That future has fast light IFVs, with armoured troopers and a big ass battery pack .

 

If it isn't, then the continuing improvement in RPGs and IEDs means that that IFVs are likely to get bigger and heavier. That's where we look like we are going right now. Based on their experience with Hezbollah, the Israelis turned down the Stryker in favour of the Namer: the most heavily armoured IFV ever. They don't have to worry too much about long-range force projection like the US, but the school of thought is the same - if light IPVs are having problems with RPG-7s, RPG-29s turn them into coffins.

 

cheers, Mark

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

This: http://www.news.com.au/technology/rewalk-bionic-legs-get-fda-approval/story-e6frfro0-1225989332272 plus 30 years might just get us power armor, no guarantee of course, but that's the first thing I thought of when I saw this article. Yes that technology has a LONG way to go, and total jumps in tech that we can't necessarily predict (powerful, light weight batteries for example), but I'd say +30 years wouldn't be too bad of a time hack given the above story.

 

However if you check out the Steampunk thread, they just put up a site with postcards of what they thought the year 2000 would be like back in 1900, and MAN, the focus was in the wrong direction on a few of them... Anyway, to me it illustrates that we see both the past and the future based on the now (and that's cool), and we really can't ever tell... the world post 2010 is really nothing so spectacular as I was waiting for.

[Robot_Nixon]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

Actually the links shows that they are retrofitting the Strykers - albeit only 83 of them - in a way that will make them more suitable for a patrol role (it's exploratory' date=' not a general upgrade). They are specifically [b']not[/b] going to upgrade any of the variants that were designed to give the Strykers sufficient firepower to operate independantly: meaning that the concept of Stryker brigades operating seperately from tracked support is now officially dead. It's why the Canadians cancelled their order: if they have to use Leopards to support the Strykers, why would they buy Strykers in the first place? They already have cheaper lighter LAVs.

 

The original justification for the IBCT/Stryker Brigade was the capability to put brigade combat teams anywhere in the world within 96 hours and pose a "credible threat". Apparently Army no longer thinks they pose a credible threat. Which means in current army strategy, they no longer have a clear role.

 

Sigh. If you want the infodump, here's the info dump.

There is no budget for the purchase of any more strykers post 2010. We can talk about their "possible role" until the cows come home, but unless they are delivered by the magical Stryker fairy, that's all she wrote. There is an upgrade and modification budget plan for the Stryker out to 2015 .... almost all of which has been cut from the current budget request.

 

In short, all talk aside, the only money the Army is setting aside is for upgrades and maintenance - and even that is less than planned. That, to me, speaks volumes. After all, the Army is spending 215 million USD on upgrading Bradleys, in the 2011 budget. Does this mean they plan on "expanding the use of the Bradley"?

 

I wasn't suggesting that they are going to scrap the Strykers next week. It's just like the Humvee: 2011 marks the last planned purchase of that vehicle, too. Funds planned for subsequent budgets are for refits and upgrades, out to at least 2015 (and realistically, both kinds of vehicles will be around much longer, in some roles). It doesn't mean that the vehicles will suddenly disappear.

 

But if there is a replacement for the Stryker under development at Army, or even a development project for any wheeled IFVs feel free to point me at its budget. Right now there is a budget for one and only one IFV - and that's the GCV.

 

 

 

Actually the "overreaching" comments specifically to the FCS, which has been cancelled. And it was an accurate description: the FCS was supposed to be fast, light nimble - and also heavily armed and armoured - and capable of taking a whole squad plus a crew of three. They might as well have asked for the squad to be able to dismount with unicorns. But it looks like given the choice between those options, Army has chosen heavily armed and armoured over light and nimble.

 

And you are right: there is nothing specifically stating that the GCV will replace the Stryker: army spokemen are not stupid enough to say to Congress "Oh, that 18 billion Stryker program? Turns out we didn't actually want that". There are however in several of those links, comments that the GCGV will have to provide Stryker level range and reliability (something the Bradley most definitely does not). And, as noted there is no budget for either continued Stryker production or replacement. How do you translate those facts?

 

If you want to know where the army is going don't listen the PR guys: look at the budget. Actually, that applies to any large organization: follow the money.

 

 

 

It's a damn good question, actually: one that DoD should ask more often. The answer with the GCV seems to be "even more of the same". You seem to be under the impression that I'm in favour of a giant IFV. I'm not - at least in principle: let's see what it looks like. I'm merely pointing out where the funding is going. Again, as noted, if you can find indicators that the Army intends to buy replacement Strykers beyond their current upgrade plans or that they have a development plan for a wheeled successor, feel free to point it out.

 

 

 

They don't appear to be unsure of it - the RFPs have already been sent out, and over 1.5 billion is already budgetted in the short term. What they are unsure of is what the final vehicle will look like - since the contractors have yet to respond. It's entirely possible that the final product will be lighter than the monster envisaged (not very likely, given the spec.s though: there's only so much you can do with those requirements). It does look like it'll be tracked, given the spec.s.

 

The marines naturally enough want a light fast vehicle because that suits their role - so I'm not surprised they don't want the GCV. However, their own development pathway is pretty limited right now. As noted, they already use stryker-like LAVs - and have been doing so for quite a while now: as noted, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up with Strykers the army doesn't want.

 

 

 

Right, like the light and nimble Bradleys and Abrams that became the weapon of choice in urban combat in Iraq.

 

You are the only person in this discussion who is fixated on large scale armour battles. Meanwhile people in the Army are talking up a larger more heavily armoured IFV for deployment in asymmetric battles in urban environments. This article quotes the Army's own assessment: "The Stryker is a superb transport, “but lacks the protection and versatility for high-intensity combat,” while its “limited growth potential was acceptable for an interim vehicle,” it “poses significant risk for future operations.”

 

The Pentagon's operational test and evaluation office rated the Stryker vehicles sent to Iraq "effective and survivable only with limitations for use in small-scale contingencies."

 

Certainly from a doctrinal point of view, the idea of light forces zipping in and out trouble, protected by "information" instead of armour, promoted by Shinseki and Rumsfeld, was one of the casualties of Iraq. The army is now moving back to "boots on the ground" and "Clear and hold" in asymmetric warfare, which means high intensity combat. Not vast tank battles in Fulda Gap, but localised high intensity combat. Hence the requirement for a vehicle that can dismount troops close to target, carry a full squad, provide good IED protection, and sufficient backup power and firepower for the squad to operate independantly of tanks. Actually, that's the basic spec sheet for the GCV.

 

That was kind of the idea behind the Stryker: a swiftly deployable force that could face low level combat without a need for heavy armour. Iraq killed that idea. The beating the Strykers took in the first few month's in Iraq in urban settings meant that all future urban combat operations were spearheaded by Bradleys and Abrams: at Falluja, for example, the Strykers were assigned patrol duties outside the city. It's worth noting that the Army's response to questions about the Strykers' survivability in urban settings was to make data on Stryker losses classified: not exactly confidence-inspiring. However, more and more the job of patrolling is being done by MRAPs (the original plan was to buy 2500 MRAPs: the army's now ordered 17000 of them) which are cheaper and easier to maintain and have better survivability vs large IEDs.

 

It's not because it's a bad vehicle: the troops, by and large have been very enthusiastic, and hell, I'd far, far, rather be in Stryker than a Humvee! It's just that it looks like it can't fulfil the role of a general spectrum IFV - which was its major reason for existing. If you check out the Styker brigades pages, you'll find lots of endorsements of the vehicle - and complaints that it's gotten a lot of bad press, because it was deployed wrongly: it's not an AFV and doesn't do well in mid to high intensity combat ... like say, in urban areas. And that's one reason for the repeated assertion that it's not suitable for COIN in urban areas.

 

 

 

Sad but true .. still, you never know

 

cheers, Mark

 

Sorry Mark, but you are losing your credibility fast. Your previous post contained links that were in direct opposition to what you said they contained, and this post contains 3 to 4 year old links and the last link you provided is from some fly-by-night site that hasn't even filled out their 'about' page, and call some guy that runs a weekend-warrior surplus store a 'military consultant'.

 

I'll save you from spending your workday researching bad links and typing out multi-quote box replies that are as long as the one above, and even a possible health issue after your emotional last post and let this whole 'I got the last post' iArgument drop. Cheers

[Wolf]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

The only experience I've got with a Striker is from one of my buddies who actually went to Iraq (this guy is by best friend, I joined the Army with him, it's just that I got out in early 2001, on a medical charge, so I missed Afghanistan and Iraq).

 

He was one of the dudes who was training the Iraqi military, so he didn't actually work with the American vehicles. But as he was going to the chow hall (he ate on the American side, but lived on the Iraqi) Anyway he passed this kid (probably 19ish) who was looking a little pale. So he asked if the kid was fine, and his sergeant looked over and said, "yah, he's a little shaken up, he's just hit his second IED today." Apparently while in a striker (he was the driver) he was able to maintain a functional (single) striker after being hit by at least one IED. Now this says nothing of the power of either explosion, but he survived a forward hit twice, and the Striker survived at least one, and kept it's crew alive for a second one, and then at least kept together enough to make it back to base.

 

I've heard tell, from others (who mainly used Brad's) that they had little trouble hearing about Strikers, but the rumor from service men is that you can hit an IED with a Striker, use your dismounts to roll it over (ie back on it's wheels), and drive it away. Again, my last (and first) conflict was a few years before the whole "trouble in the mid east" and all we had were 113s (by the way, an AK 7.62 will penetrate both sides of 113 without slowing much) and the first gen up-armored Hmmwv's.

 

Side note: the military HMMWV is named so as to be abbreviated for of Highly Mobile Multi-Wheeled Vehicle, gotta love that military naming then acronym... sigh.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Barring weaponry, what's in a slightly futuristic [30+ years] APC?

 

coming into this thread way late... been snowed in while out of town on assignment for work, and just got a chance to catch up on things tonight.

 

couple of questions/ideas come to mind.

1. what about a flexible chassis tracked vehicle? the swedish BVS series and the ancient Gamma Goat come to mind as examples

2. for power, I figure on a multifuel turbine or plasma turbine unit. possibly with an auxilary electric drive unit