U.S army wants new tank, no idea what it is supposed to be,

>>31579970
They want light tank similar to Swedish CV90120-T. With capability to be dropped with paratroopers. They want force that could be quickly deployed any where in world and behind enemy lines.

>>31579970
I'll take Sherman tank strategy for 500$ Alex
Also >>31580134
Dropping 500 of these behind enemy lines while Abrams and air superiority keeps everything a fucking mess will make an even bigger mess. As long as it can stand up to an RPG7 and other mild AT weapons it's g2g

File: 2S25-001.jpg (164KB, 1200x803px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1200x803px

>>31579970

If you actually made an attempt to read the article you posted, It's supposed to be a light tank for airborne troops or where an MBT isn't nessecary. Just like the Sheridan was and M8 AGS was going to be.

It's not an MBT and it's not replacing anything.

> a t-90 will make mince meat out this thing

So what? The closest equivalent to this thing in the Russian arsenal is the Sprut-SD. It weighs 14 tons less than the projected US light tank and basically has damp cardboard for armor. It's not designed to take hits. If anything, the US tank's 32 ton weight requirement will let them stick more armor on it.

File: M8-Ridgeway-AGS.gif (206KB, 629x512px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 629x512px

why not just renimate this thing

>>31580134
Man, the faces over at BAE Hägglunds in that case.

>Hi, we have this neat light tank. Anyone want to buy our light tank? Good price! Anyone? Would someone at least take a look at it? A demo? Anyone out there? Please...

>>Oh, nice idea there, we'll have our industry develop something like that. Bye.

>>31580198
The government is determined to forget every good idea they've ever accidentally come up with

File: 0d4badff901444895751.jpg (49KB, 599x401px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 599x401px

>>31580198

>i didn't read the article: the post

>>31580198

It's one of the options too. BAE is putting in the M8, GD is putting in the Griffin.

>>31580229

I hope they go with the M8. As much as I hate how it looks, the Griffin looks way dumber. Maybe the second time's the charm for the M8.

>>31580134
>With capability to be dropped with paratroopers.
>army would be open to a tank capable of air drops, but 32 tonnes weight likely precludes that

How Americans can even compete?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5BJubXwVeo

>>31580134
Most likely too heavy for what the US wants, as the CV90 is nowhere near small and light enough to be air dropped. The 9040C is closing for 30 tonnes, and a 120mm version would be even heavier and it most likely sacrifices space for carrying soldiers.

Otherwise, it would be a pretty solid choice, the AMAP-ADS seems to be really good and the CV90 platform is proven to be as well.

>>31580205
Yeah, that's not how the world works.

>>31580205
Trying to buy anything but specific specialized military equipment from abroad almost always gets torpedoed by congress.

>>31580246

To be fair, the Griffin is just a tech demo concept model, not a finalised product. The early M8's looked derpy too.

Griffin, despite its looks, has by far more advanced components. An Ajax hull with a more modern 120mm gun and an Abrams turret? That is good shit.

The army has said nothing about the MPF needed to be parachute capable.

GDLS's weight goal is 2 in a C-17.

>>31580371
I'm sorta shocked the Stryker ever happened.

Though it's sorta kind Canadian so I guess as far as most Americans are concerned that's close enough.

>>31579970
It's not supposed to be able to take a hit from a 125mm gun, but by the same measure a T-90 will not do well eating an M829A4.

>>31580421
More important is if it can take hits from RPGs/ATGMs. Though if the US finally buys either Trophy or Quick Kill (and I believe there were rumblings a few months ago that a Trophy buy is likely), this may become less relevant.

>>31580450
What level can an Ajax be uparmored to?

File: shillelagh.jpg (10KB, 300x158px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x158px

YES. YES. YES.

OUR TIME HAS COME AGAIN.

File: aai-corporation-rdf-light-tank.jpg (182KB, 800x550px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 800x550px

Reminds me of a G.I.Joe Mauler. A concept for an airborne tank dating back to the late 70s and early 80s.

So who in the Army is going to be outfitted with these new tanks? Are they going to stand up new Armored units or are Air Assault units going to get them or is a new type of unit going to be stood up and equipped with them?

Just build a glider capable of lifting 30-35 tons and being towed behind a C-130, then design a vehicle to fit inside of that.

Paradrop obviously doesn't work with heavy vehicles.

File: onemillion keks.jpg (500KB, 728x640px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 728x640px

>>31580922

>>31580922
We need to bring back the Battle Box concept for the Gavin and we'd be set.

>>31580922
>Glider
Oh lord.

Where's Iceberg Man when you need him?

>>31580941
>>31580939
>>31580934
Why act like its a bad idea, the problem for the US Airborne forces is that they physically have no way to deploy heavy vehicles outside of an airport

Glider solves that easily and cheaply.

You don't need many of them per brigade, but it'll be a massive force multiplier.

>>31580954
Why not parachute them straight out of a C-130?

>>31580954
Because gliders do not solve any problems better than anything else we already have. If you use gliders, you necessarily use the utility of your tow aircraft for other things. It's a waste of resources, only used in WW2 because the technology wasn't there.

>>31580971
because parachutes don't scale up over 20 tons, and they hit the ground hard and get all fucked up.

>>31580981
I meant "lose the utility of your tow aircraft."

>>31580997
The US has the sealift capability to obviate the need for our armor to be airmobile. Never mind the question of why are you airdropping MBTs away from their supply lines and logistical support in the first place.

>>31580981
>Because gliders do not solve any problems better than anything else we already have.

But they do EXACTLY solve the problem.

The problem being, "how do we get large heavy vehicles onto the ground without an airport & without risking our expensive cargo planes"

>>31581015
So what you are saying is that airborne/air assault forces have no purpose or reason to exist, and have never been used?

File: stingray-light-tank.jpg (33KB, 400x201px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 400x201px

>>31580175
I did read the article it sounds like some kind of development fiasco, their is no grounded objective in this program and I quote
"The army would be open to a tank capable of air drops". going anywhere the infantry go is pretty broad in terms of objective and no where is it stated in clear cut. Abrams was built form ground up as defensive MBT. hell the stingray be a better choice. it sounds like their trying to build an expeditionary force, something the army is not built to do really, thats the marines job and the pacific is their problem.

>>31580259
>Sprut-SD
The Russians only have 24 of them.

File: Sprut-SD_airdrop_3.jpg (17KB, 349x524px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 349x524px

>>31580997

If only the US could learn to make their airborne vehicles not weigh 40 tons. Then maybe they'd be able to air drop them like the Russians.

It's a pity the Sheridan was so shit. Much as I love it, it really wasn't a very good light tank in practice.

>>31581036
Russian airborne vehicles have paper for armor.
The US wants something closer to a proper tank to support their airborne forces.

>>31581030
Not at all what I said. If you can't land your heavy armor at a captured runway, you shouldn't bother because you won't be able to support them. They need gas, ordnance, and mechanical support. If you just dump them in a field, they're gonna be fucked.

Also not at all what I said, if you bothered to read it. I was simply saying that you do not and cannot deploy heavy armor the same way you do paratroopers. You use your airborne forces to seize the airstrips needed to land your heavier units, amongst other things.

>>31581073
>Russian airborne vehicles have paper for armor.
Ofc they do, they are fcking airborne, ffs.

>>31580666
now this thing would get the job done and done right that gun was amazing when I read about it

>>31581082
The Sheridan's service in Vietnam demonstrates why the US isn't going to go the Russian route for air-deployable armor.

>>31581073
>US tanks have paper for armor
Fixed for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0nDHV_mkiY

>>31581110
monkey model
export armor
saudi crew
vehicle is still fine, just a little burnt out and needs new ammo

>>31579970
>airborne tank killer
... the gavin isn't a tank destroyer, what are you on about?

>>31581107
Sheridan had paper for for armor, though.

>>31581073

>airborne tank
>proper tank

Can't have both. Which is why the US' airborne tank programs have failed so miserably, because they can't get over the fact that it can't be both well-armored and light enough to drop from a plane.

The Russian airborne vehicles might have paper thin armor, but they fill the role they're designed to do well.

>>31581033

>trying to build an expeditionary force

No? They aren't trying to do anything new, they're still just trying to give their long-standing airborne force a gun platform to support them. Like with the Sheridan, the M8, and the Stryker MGS.

This new attempt is just trying to fill the needs of that force better than the Stryker MGS does.

>>31581110
>Tank gets penetrating hit
>Blowout panels work exactly as intended

Is the krokodil and vodka destroying your brain, Ivan? You ought to lay off.

>>31581122
Exactly. That was my point.

File: scout-ajax-recon.jpg (93KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1200x630px

>>31581121

>gavin

The chassis is the same as the bongs new Ajax, actually.

>>31581134
Well, you either have airborne vehicles that have paper for armor or you dont, but then your paratroopers will have just small arms to deal with the enemy. I'd say its better to have them rather than not.

>>31581129
> because they can't get over the fact that it can't be both well-armored and light enough to drop from a plane.

Which is why they need a GLIDER to get that medium/heavy tank on the ground
It 100% solves the whole problem.

File: mobilitykill.jpg (260KB, 1280x960px)

260KB, 1280x960px

>>31581110

>blowout panels blow out as designed, tank remains fairly intact

Let's take a look at your average Russian tank after such a hit.

>>31580586

Still mostly classified, but it's way above the normal ASCOD2 it was based on. Most rumours point to 40mm resistant front, at least 30mm sides wih the armor packages, plus some ERA options, which are the most important for the RPGs.

>>31581149

Please go away, Sparkshill.

>>31581149
No, it does not. If you have a glider that can take a significant load then it is too big to fit in the airplane and you have to tow it which is slow as fuck and it cant land anywhere but the airfield, which means it is easier to replace it with a fucking C-5 that is powered and can lift 2 Abrams tank.

>>31581148
The problem with the Sheridan is that it lacked the ability to be uparmored enough to deal with the threats it was facing. The M8 with it modular armor system doesn't have this issue.

>>31581149
Gliderfag pls go and stay go.

>>31581158
The T-72 has an ingenious blowout turret though.

>>31580918
IIRC it was a company per Infantry Brigade Combat Team, so that they have an organic means of dealing with things they would normally call in artillery/airstrikes for.

I always liked the idea of airdropped tanks. However, in this day and age, I'm beginning to question it.

What targets would these be used for that a Javelin couldn't handle? Sure, it's more expensive per round, but you save millions on acquisition, maintenance, etc.

For that matter, how about a wheeled vehicle with one of the newer Bushmasters and 4xJavelin?

Another thing to keep in mind is JHL/FVL/JMR-Ultra/whatever-the-quad-tiltrotor-is-today. I haven't seen any firm cargo requirements, but it would behoove an airborne vehicle to stay light enough for the upcoming airmobile transport that's been in the plans for decades now.

After all, wasn't that the reason FCS had such ridiculous weight limits? To be carried on C-130s and their STOVL successors?

>>31581198
"Yuo see Ivan, when ammo carousel get hit and be of blow up, turret eject like escape pod from star wars!"

>>31581191
>The problem with the Sheridan is that it lacked the ability to be uparmored enough
The problem with that is that it is pointless. You cant have maximum armor AND being able to drop it at the same time. Airborne vehicles are needed to be dropped, secure some asset (airfiled, for example) and then wait for more forces with heavier airlifted armor being brought in, after that they are pretty much not needed.

File: 1456857835792.jpg (45KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 554x439px

>>31581133
>>Tank gets penetrating hit
>armor doing its job
How Americans do hope to build light tank able to do better than 60 tons tin cans?

>>31581235
>What targets would these be used for that a Javelin couldn't handle?
You cant fit infantry into a Javelin, m8. No one drops airborne right on the target, its suicide, and walking on foot isnt the best idea.

>>31581248
Once it is on the ground, it doesn't matter. The M8 can be uparmored on demand.

>>31581262
>Implying any armor is impervious
>Implying that Saudi armor is the same as mainline American armor

Your smug animu girls will get you nowhere, Yevgeny.

>>31579970
>no idea what it is supposed to be, MBT? airborne tank killer you tell me.

Literally the first couple lines of the article tell you exactly what it is you fucking retard.

>>31581235
>I can't understand what a 30 ton armored vehicle with 30+ rounds of HE and AP that travels at 50 mph and shrugs off anything lighter than a tank gun or missile could possibly be useful for, especially when compared to a missile system that's carried on foot that only shoots 1 top-attack round every few minutes.

>>31581181
Yea ok and then we are back to step 1, where you don't have a safe full sized runway to operate the C-5 off of, and now your airborne forces are still limited to humvees as their heaviest vehicle.

>>31581235
the point is obviously the armor, not the weaponry. Armor is heavy.

File: 1475525899416.jpg (42KB, 344x344px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 344x344px

>WHAT POSSIBLE USE COULD THIS VEHICLE HAVE, I MEAN THE M1 ALREADY EXISTS AND IF IT SEES A T90 IT WILL JUST EXPLODE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Every day, I hate this board a little more.

>>31581317
Then do you admit that the glider is still pointless?

>>31581331
No
I propose the simple, obvious solution to a problem that has been glaring the US in the face for 50 years, a way to airdeploy heavy vehicles without full sized prepared runways.

But the US would rather lose wars than do the practical thing.

>>31580161
are you the same guy that said "Who are the Kurds" in that SHTF thread?

>>31581290
>Implying that mainline American armor is the better then Saudi armor
Does even single case exist when Abram tank armor stopped modern AT warhead?

>>31580198

That's exactly what it is, dumbcuck.

Just

Read

The

Fucking

Article

>>31581343
You just admitted that if we had a glider large enough to carry MBTs it would be "back to step 1" and still leave us without a practical means of deploying armor. If you want something to carry 70 tons of armor, it is going to need a lot of room to stop, regardless.

File: Stryker 1.jpg (90KB, 800x600px)

90KB, 800x600px

>>31579970
Slap some tracks on and you're good to go!

>>31580198
TWENTY FUCKING YEARS LATER THE 82ND AIRBORNE IS GETTING IT'S LIGHT TANKS

TWENTY

On that note: I wonder if the Army's mech brigades might look into buying these to replace the awful M1128.

>>31581368
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_M1_Abrams

Many instances of missiles and Abrams tanks. Plenty of examples of both the tanks and crews surviving to fight again. Now that Abrams tanks have ERA and will get APS, no doubt that they can take the best you filthy vatniks can throw.

>>31581390
>and still leave us without a practical means of deploying armor.

?
A military glider can land in different places than a C-17 or a C-5. It doesn't need a runway, it doesn't even need a prepared surface, it could land on WATER in a pinch.

>it is going to need a lot of room to stop
Braking from 100 mph doesn't need much room. Depends on what sort of approach you are making with your glider.

>>31581368
Saudi M1A2s do not possess any DU inserts. For frontal aspect on armor hits that means they're lacking nearly 250mm-300mm of RHA equivalence and even more against HEAR warheads.

Obviously this won't help you on turret ring hits/side hits, as no tank has any effective armor there.

Leaked armor plans in sekret document groups basically prove that every modern tank has sub 200mm side armor max.

>>31581437
If your glider lands on water with a tank in it, who cares? You lose the fucking tank you slobbering, malformed, inbred, mongoloid. It doesn't matter, then, if your stupid fucking glider lands on water.

Any glider strong enough to carry a 70 ton MBT is going to be big and heavy. It'll be going faster than 100 mph and weigh a lot. Look up momentum and apologize to whatever physics instructors you've ever had for being so fucking dense.

File: stingray tank.jpg (376KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 640x426px

What about high speed, long range, and with only the crew compartment heavily armored.

A 24,000 lb. tank like the scorpion that fires LAHAT missiles can be air-lifted by a v-22.

>>31581430
Could you be more specific? Quick look brings many penetration cases.

>>31581473
>For frontal aspect on armor hits that means they're lacking nearly 250mm-300mm of RHA equivalence and even more against HEAR warheads.
>[citation needed]

>>31581519
a: that wouldn't fit in a V-22 cabin
b: V-22 can't lift 24,000 lbs

You don't get a tank for 12 tons lol

>>31581520
Penetrations, yes. Mission kills are almost nonexistent, and casualties even rarer. Look at the number of KIAs in comparison to the "none" and "WIAs." Few of the vehicles were deemed total losses.

>>31581528
Do the math yourself, dude. There's plenty of pictures of Abrams that ran over IEDs with the entire armor scheme exposed behind it's spacer panels.

>>31581519
1. Stingray tank from your pic weights 48000 lbs.
2. Scorpion tank is 17,800 lb and it can't shoot LAHAT, it has only 76mm gun.
3. V-22 max external load is 15,000 lbs.
4. Scorpion tank will not fit into V-22 internally.

>>31581237
Underrated post

>>31581597
>Do the math yourself, dude.
If you give me scientific papers estimating DU armor protection levels i will.

>>31581537
The AMX-13 was 13 tons, bro. The fv10x family was even lighter.

If you design armor with modern tools like Trophy APS, you could get even lighter. But you're not doing it to be light, you're designing like this to fire out of range of a Russian MBT on the move.

A V-22 and a CH-53 have a limit of 24,000 lbs, which is the reasonable starting point for designing a new tank.

Look under payload:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53E_Super_Stallion#Specifications_.28CH-53E.29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Specifications_.28MV-22B.29

>I realize I'm a retard because the v-22 only lifts 20,000 lbs.

File: b23[1].png (473KB, 600x706px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 600x706px

>people here unironically suggesting using a glider to carry 35 TONS
yeah ok we'll just make a glider the size of the fucking empire state building and tie it to a C130

>>31581496
>If your glider lands on water with a tank in it, who cares?

Are you an idiot? Obviously they would have planned for it, and it would be fine. Tanks can manage a certain depth of water.

>It'll be going faster than 100 mph and weigh a lot.
The stall speed of a fully loaded glider is obviously dependant on its design/size, so hand waving about momentum just shows your stupidity

The showstopping problem is that the US lacks any ability to move heavy vehicles from the air, onto the ground, without a secured full sized runway/airport. A glider solves it.

And in a peer vs peer conflict, that runway/airport is going to be cruise missile bait anyways.

>>31581641
They can say the V-22 takes 20,000 lbs, but it's mostly bullshit because thats with a fraction of a full fuel load and the cabin floor probably couldn't handle the weight. It needed special inserts to carry the growler.

That 13 tons for the AMX-13 is it empty, says 14.5 tons combat loaded.
And the armor of these old light tanks was laughable, they would just be RPG/HMG fodder today.

File: 466.jpg (45KB, 700x299px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 700x299px

>>31581651
What is the problem with big glider?

>>31581655
>Bringing up momentum is handwaving
Retard confirmed. A large glider carrying a large tank is going to need a lot of room to stop.

Are you seriously telling me that you don't think that a glider large enough to carry a 70 ton MBT will not have considerable requirements to safely land its cargo?

>>31581705
They don't work.

>>31581686
Ok, so if you had to pick a point to the practical weight limit of a light tank, what do you use?

I used the lifting limit of commonly used vehicles. Can you think of something better?

>>31581651
The Hamilcar could carry 18 tons and it was only 68 ft in length.

>>31581730
Design the vehicle to be whatever size/weight it needs to be to do the mission & handle threats, then design the glider to be able to carry it.

In this day and age of ATGM's/autocannons being everywhere, I'd say 40+ tons will be a necessary weight.

>>31581686
Don't forget V-22 cargo bay is mere 1.80m in width.
FV101 Scorpion width is 2.134 m (probably smallest among mass build AFVs)
AMX-13 - 2.51 m.

>>31580161
That strategy would only work wile fighting a defensível war or against a 3rd world country
Whend will the us realise the shock and awe strategy hás major flaws whend dealing with a proper enemy

File: 48544.jpg (117KB, 960x640px)

117KB, 960x640px

>>31581722
>They don't work.
But the did.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OvyOeXnW0k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxfGpBAMO1E

>>31581816
They got shot down en masse by fucking bombers, dude. They were a waste of resources.

>>31581705
NO. NO. WE ARE NOT FUCKING DOING THIS AGAIN.

>>31581848
Yea sure they didn't work in WW2, but a large heavy glider whether self-powered or towed is a very possible thing to build.

>>31581913
IF IT'S SELF POWERED IT ISN'T A GLIDER, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WANT IT TO CARRY MAIN BATTLE TANKS.

Then you just have a rehashed C-5 and a less effective one at that.

>>31581848
>he thinks fighters can't shot down C-130

>>31581655

I've been lurking your guys conversation and this is the point where I think you went off the deep end and show your lack of understanding with the physics of what you're proposing. Your glider would have to be big, heavy and fast in order to even keep itself in the air.

>>31581969
>He thinks gliders are, somehow, immune to the issues aircraft face

>>31581992
No i don't think that. Main reason of Me-321 losses was enemy air-force. All modern transport aviation are siting ducks against air-force and require air dominance to deploy (at least local). In that light gliders have no specific vulnerability disadvantages comparing to para-drop.

>>31582080
And no advantages to make them worthwhile. What's your point?

>>31582080
Fist of all gliders are more vulnerable, since they are several times slower, second is that if you have to choose between a plane and a glider that are equally vulnerable you should always pick a plane. Because it is better in literally everything.

>>31582117
>Because it is better in literally everything.
Except in the key essential component of landing on rough unprepared surfaces

>>31580954
While we're at it let's restart Battleship production.

>>31581327
You are a newfag getting triggered by the weekly gliderfag bait.

>>31582128
>Implying that the US will ever have to do so
>Implying that aircraft cannot land on rough surfaces
>Implying a glider carrying 70 tons can land on surfaces rougher than a grassy field

>>31582106
1. Gliders can be made with much lower stall speed than transport cargo crafts and break distance is inversely proportional to the square root of the landing speed.
2. Gliders are cheap and suited better for one way mission when you don't try to recover cargo system after landing (and recovery possibility is huge tax on system capabilities)

>>31582128
There are plenty of planes that are capable of landing on rough unprepared surface. And there are no gliders capable of landing on rough unprepared surface, while carrying more than planes that are capable of landing on rough unprepared surface.

>>31580387
>still discussing airdropped tanks after this post

Wasn't this like the whole point of the Stryker brigades and the mgs? Air drop capable vehicles with big guns able to stop small arms fire

>>31581985
Well, It would be as big/heavy as it needs to be. Yes you'll likely have 200 ft wingspan. But no, it'll be designed with as low as possible stall speed for easy landing, cargo planes have to be able to cruise at 500+ mph which forces certain design elements.

>>31582202
Stryker is not airdroppable, the point of the stryker was being transportable in the C-130

>>31582166
Again, if you make your glider capable of carrying an MBT (or several) it may as well be a conventional aircraft in what it needs for both a safe flight and landing. It is going to be big, it is going to be heavy, and if it is big and heavy it won't have a very low stall speed before it falls like a brick. Regardless, I have a chem exam to study for and you have exhausted my overly generous patience.

How about a low-level delivery airdropping plane with the ability to carry your 40 ton tanks, but also the horizontal space for giant airbag systems for extremely low alt (50 ft max) drops into fields?

>>31580134
>They want force that could be quickly deployed any where in world and behind enemy lines.

Is this even a good idea, outside of Hollywood?

File: huem3.jpg (313KB, 1024x768px)

313KB, 1024x768px

>>31579970

>>31582223
Conventional craft needs its own engines and fuel tanks. This doesn't help mass, wing loading and therefore stall speed.

Not single use low speed craft would be shit as general purpose transport vehicle. Because low speed means less trips per time and fuel economy of craft build around huge wing for minimum possible landing speed would be total shit too.

Such vehicle only feasible if it is focused on one mission with low landing speed and distance in mind. But you want single mission system as cheap as possible engines don't help that.

>>31582337
>>31582373

You could 1 just use a plane easier and 2 not double post.

>>31582373
Gliders are mature technology. If gliders were feasible as transports, at all, then there would be gliders in use right now.

There aren't.

>>31579970

It will be known as the Sherman II. It will win by superior numbers.

>>31582534
Do you understand that general purpose transport aircraft and transport aircraft designed around landing on unprepared grounds have different requirements? Next thing you would be asking why everyone don't ride in amphibian cars.

Vickers mk 5 200mm of spaced armor
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/vfm_5.htm

>>31582571
Do you understand that transport gliders were discarded before heavy lift aircraft even existed because they performed so poorly in the real world?

Why not save the weight and use the super high velocity telescopic caseed 76mm ammo used by AAI RDFLT , could fire 3 burst rounds http://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=655

>>31582604
They performed well enough to build thousands of them in WW2

>>31580666
Don't insult that, that's my tankfu and she is perfect as she is unless you are adding heavy aamp add on armor

>>31582627
Thousands were built in WW2, they showed themselves to be an abject failure and waste of resources, and no one has touched them for 70+ years.

>>31581394
this thing always reminds me of gundams.

>>31582627
Because nothing else at that time could fill the niche. We have helicopters now.

>>31582668
They showed themselves to be better than parachuting
But because of the paratrooper mafia they were gotten rid of before any replacement existed.

>>31582690
>sprey plz go

>>31582682
Nothing fills the niche now either, they just make do and accept the casualties.

File: CH47_frame1.jpg (31KB, 533x399px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 533x399px

>>31582627

>They performed well enough to build thousands of them in WW2

Helicopters do the same stuff in a more effective way.

>>31582690
>They showed themselves to be better than parachuting

No, they didn't.

>>31582708
We are talking specifically about airdropping/glider landing tanks.

Show me a helicopter capable of lifting something that weighs over 30 tons

>>31582751
Can you post a glider thats in production that can carry even 20 tons.

because a Mi-26 can beat that.

>>31582751
>talking specifically about airdropping/glider landing tanks.

Which is irrelevant shitposting in context of the OP, as the US Army does not require an airdroppable tank.

>Show me a helicopter capable of lifting something that weighs over 30 tons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_V-12

>>31580161
But what about Kornet, etc?
In a war with a modern CIS state those would be the bare minimum anti tank weapons utilised.

I think this tank is being designed for COIN ops, to reduce the cost of operating tanks in such an environment (Abrams maintenance is expensive as fuck).

It's the same idea behind arming trainer craft and using those for COIN ops instead of F16s, etc.

>>31582814
So 44 tons.

>>31582141
>While we're at it let's restart Battleship production.

You mean the Zumwalt?

File: m60_Elbit.jpg (63KB, 696x392px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 696x392px

>>31582835
Well, you could jam a 105mm tank gun onto a Bradley and call it a day.

Parts commonality ftw.

>>31580175
I thought the Sprut was being replaced soon?

>>31582859
But Bradley's did not have great survivability without upgrades - the platform is well and truly at its end.

A new light tank platform, with a 120mm gun and composite armour is what's needed.

>>31581015
>The US has the sealift capability to obviate the need for our armor to be airmobile.

Yeah, because the US only rights wars in countries that share a border with the ocean right? It's not like the US has been fighting a war in a landlocked country for a decade right? Oh wait.

>>31582840
Zumwalts are guided missile destroyers.

>>31582263
>Is cutting off supply lines to your enemy's primary defensive line whilst you're trying to break it a good idea?

>>31582916
Is that why they carry less cruise missiles and have less VLCs but more guns and their predecessor?

>>31580198
Pretty much the best idea. That's why it won't make it. The govt will come to its senses and realize they is more money to waste.

File: 14380034610_93c8d1e3a9_b.jpg (266KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1024x680px

Problem solved years ago.

File: 1464875990252.gif (2MB, 295x254px)

2MB, 295x254px

>>31581237

File: this is you.jpg (666KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1280x1024px

>>31581496
>resorting to baseless personal insults
>saying "hurr durr physics" without bringing up or citing any actual numbers to prove your argument
>projecting own failings and insecurities at end of post

How to recognize when someone has lost an argument but refuses to relent.

P.S. You do realize that an object dropped out of a plane has the same issues with momentum right?

>>31579970
This looks like such a fucking throwback to late-80s/early-90s futuristic armor.

>>31582880
The AMPV says the Bradley platform has a long life ahead of it.

>>31582982
>You do realize that an object dropped out of a plane has the same issues with momentum right?
Yes, thats why no one drops 70 ton MBTs on parachutes, retard.

>>31583031
You are correct we roll them out of planes because unlike gliders planes are 1 reusable 2 can lift a tank and 3 not a meme.

>>31583056
1. Gliders are reusable
2. Gliders could lift just as much as plane could lift
3. you're a meme

>>31582982
>Baseless personal insults
Not when you see some fool say that being able to land a glider on water makes them viable for delivering MBTs.

>Hurr durr physics
Because numbers aren't needed for me to say with certainty a big heavy glider carrying a big heavy tank will need lots of room to land in order to safely deliver its cargo.

>Projecting
Naw, I love physics and kicked ass in it. Thinking about majoring in it, actually.

>>31582939
They have less VLS cells because the cells are better protected and capable of launching more powerful missiles. They have 2 6" guns (that fire missiles) as opposed to the 1-2 5" guns on Burkes/Ticos.

Neither difference makes a Zumwalt anything but a guided missile destroyer.

>>31583067
>Gliders are reusable
Then why do most arguments for them center on their disposable nature? Never mind that they aren't likely to be reusable.

>Lift as much as a plane
No, because the plane towing the glider is carrying both the cargo and the glider itself. You get less usable payload out of that set up.

>You're a meme
no u

>>31583104
>You get less usable payload out of that set up.
You get more because the glider provides its own lift

>Never mind that they aren't likely to be reusable.
They were regularly reused in WW2, however if necessary they can be used in a disposable manner because they would be made cheaply.

>>31583067
>Gliders are reusable

Not according to real life use.

>Gliders could lift just as much as plane could lift

A glider capable of carrying the load of a C-5M would need an aircraft comperable to a C-5M just to tow it, completely negating any theoretical benifit.

Just a question why are we taking gligerfags bait we all know he is wrong and a retard?

>>31583127
>They were regularly reused in WW2,

No, they weren't.

>>31583127
>Provides own lift
In the sense that it doesn't drop out of the air, yes. It doesn't provide its own thrust. Using a glider does not magically increase payload capacity.

>Regularly reused
First, citation fucking needed. Second, if you want a glider capable of carrying a fucking 70 ton MBT it'll be neither simple nor cheap and at that point you may as well build more C-5s.

>>31583147
Because most of us have too much time on our hands.

>>31583165
>It doesn't provide its own thrust

It could, if that was what it needed to be able to be towed by a C-130

>Using a glider does not magically increase payload capacity.
I believe you are wrong there and it does in fact increase payload capacity.

File: image.jpg (23KB, 200x300px)

23KB, 200x300px

>>31582211
Not even with retro rockets?

>>31583127
>You get more because the glider provides its own lift
It does not provide its own thrust, therefore towing aircraft carries less, therefore their capacity remains the same.
>They were regularly reused in WW2
They were never used to carry fucking 70 ton tanks.
>because they would be made cheaply.
No, a glider capable of carrying 70 ton tank cant be made cheaply, ffs.

File: image.jpg (18KB, 300x125px)

18KB, 300x125px

I'll just leave this here.

>>31583256
The problem is not lack of retro rockets, the problem is that it was not designed to be dropped. A vehicle must be designed to accept massive parachutes and be able to survive the impact.

>>31583015
It's a fucking Frankenstein platform at this point.

>>31582668
Thousands of gliders were built in WW2, that had the payload of a Blackhawk and were one time use.

>>31583244
An aircraft that provides its own trust is not a glider and does not need to be towed.

And do you have any proof that towing a glider improved payload?

>>31583244
If it provides its own thrust, then why bother with it?

You are incorrect. The tow aircraft has to bear the weight and drag of the glider in addition to the glider's payload. That is not, in fact, how you increase payload capacity.

>>31583276
Wow an at gun on treads.

>>31583244
You would have a larger payload just using the C-130 and not have to buy a new glider every mission.

>>31583340
An air droppable AT with treads!

Show some respect!

>>31583285
Most parachute systems I've seen don't attach parachutes, etc to the vehicle; they attach to the platform under the vehicle.

>>31583322
I'm not gliderfag, but are we talking about the total payload of a (eg) C-130 being improved with a glider? If so, it seems pretty obvious that it would; you need more runway for takeoff, but once you're in the air you're just trading speed for extra lift / the induced drag that comes with it. More wing area (from the glider) = more lift = more payload.

Unless you can produce gliders for super cheap they're still stupid though.

In this thread we have learned that the parasitic drag and weight of a glider actually increases payload.

>>31583346
>You would have a larger payload just using the C-130
No, you will not, since the drag of a 70-ton capable glider will stall it instantly.
>not have to buy a new glider every mission.
It will either not be able to land on rough terrain or it will be single use with significant chance of simply crash and loose the payload.

>>31583324
>>31583322
C-47 had a payload of 6000 lbs, but could tow a Horsa which had a loaded weight of 15,000 lbs

>>31583410
If you claim to learn anything in a /k/ thread these days your either completely clueless or a really good liar.

>>31583435
The vast majority of the time even landing on rough terrain will require replacement of crumple zones on the bottom/front, but the glider would still be more or less intact.

Bear in mind I am not saying abandon cargo planes & helicopters.
I am saying produce limited numbers of gliders for SPEIFIC MISSIONS that they are fit for, and choppers/cargo planes are not.

File: PdtUniv344.jpg (38KB, 484x301px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 484x301px

>>31583408
>Most parachute systems I've seen don't attach parachutes, etc to the vehicle; they attach to the platform under the vehicle.
Yes, but there are several problems with attaching the platform to the stryker and with stryker's suspension that will desintegrate on impact.

>>31583459
So no glider missions because they don't exist and just continue using planes/choppers for everying.

>>31583476
Use more crush honeycomb and drop it from a C-5 to allow more payload height ;)

>>31583459
>The vast majority of the time even landing on rough terrain will require replacement of crumple zones on the bottom/front, but the glider would still be more or less intact.
No it will not. A 70-ton capable glider will be fucking humongous, with huge wingspan. Good luck not breaking the wings anywhere C-17/C-130 cant land.

>>31583440
Looking at some numbers on wikipedia about the CG-4 Waco would tell you that its useful payload is actually less than that of the C-47. I imagine that the same can be said for the Horsa.

>>31582204
> cargo planes have to be able to cruise at 500+ mph which forces certain design elements.

Wich means that a glider configuration will be much slower and use a lot more fuel than a regular transport aircraft.

>>31581110
>>31581158
muh monkey model blowout panels!

>>31582263
>enemy lines
will cease to exist, non-linear operations are the future; see panama

Objective force will be entirely light armour, this is the future. The US army will truly be an expeditionary force, peer threats no longer exist.

>>31583440
>C-47 had a payload of 6000 lbs, but could tow a Horsa which had a loaded weight of 15,000 lbs

A C-47 normally carried 28 troops, a Horsa normally carried 20-25.

>>31583476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQwJnVad5L4

>>31583940
was the vehicle intact ?

>>31583976
Yes.

>>31581278
You can fit infantry into a light tank? Because that's what you're arguing.

Otherwise, drop a light vehicle, and let the infantry squad (or Javelin section) ride in that, rather than dedicating a 20-40-ton vehicle to carrying a big gun and flimsy armor.

Again, I want to like light tanks, but... what situations would they be superior against compared to light APCs with AC+ATGM or that transport troops who carry ATGMs?

>>31581316
Vs a 20-ton APC with a 30-50mm Bushmaster, Javelins, and the ability to carry troops, with armor designed to defend against shell splinters, 14.7mm, and maaaybe 23mm or even 30mm from the frontal arc?

Just how much additional value does a 105mm give you over that, and in what scenarios?

File: 1470350656043.jpg (68KB, 620x387px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 620x387px

>>31582951

>>31582211
This.

It's like most of you guys were too young to remember the '90s, and the whole lightweight, expeditionary bent that the Army got into as a result of all of the Clinton deployments.

Heck, there were plans to develop a mechanized brigade that could be deployed from CONUS within 24 hours, with the rest of its division landing within 96. There were plans to perform operational-level maneuvers using C-130s to swing a company or battalion out hundreds of miles in a few hours to an enemy's flank or to seize key terrain to shape upcoming battles.

There were crazier--well, no, but almost as crazy--ideas than gliders, too, like the Pelican, which would have been the largest airplane ever built, capable of making 10,000' but optimized for massive cargo capacity operating in ground effect, or massive airships for strategic heavy lift. Eventually, the lack of practical heavy-lift-from-CONUS options led to the FCS requirements, which just weren't possible with existing technology. In the meantime, DoD kept the tried-and-true MSPS+warehoused brigade sets+REFORGER-style deployments, despite its vulnerabilities (e.g., requiring friendly ports and airbases). This is what was used in OIF (1 BDE set each stored in Kuwait, Bahrain, and MSPS/Diego Garcia, Marine gear pulled together from phibs, prepos, and transports, plus 4ID shipping directly from CONUS to Turkey, where they got backstabbed and had to re-route all the way to Kuwait).

There is nothing fundamentally new here, much less revolutionary; this is part of a larger debate around tactical requirements vs. logistic requirements, and the desire to deploy expeditionary forces from CONUS but have them be strong enough and protected enough to win with minimal losses. We still don't have a good answer to the problem.

>>31583940
Impressive. Would the crew survive the fall or would they need to recover the vehicle later?

File: 9may2015Moscow-01.jpg (2MB, 2250x1455px)

2MB, 2250x1455px

just leavin dis here

>>31581036
The Sheridan is actually a really good idea.... It's a shame it is 50's and even 40's technology....

If we looked at it again and decided to do the Gun/Launcher route, the tech is there now.

For instance, the combustible case is standard versus a highly volatile number that had to remain in a plastic bag to protect against moisture that was the Shillelagh.

>>31586151
You won't get all of that in a 20 ton package, and one of the defined requirements for MPF is the ability to defeat things you would normally call in airstrikes or artillery for, meaning big HE rounds like you get with a 120mm.

>>31586856
you just gonna leave it there broken down in the street you mean?

>>31581804
>That strategy would only work wile fighting a ...3rd world country
yes, and?
have you forgotten how the US DoD has earned it's pay the last few decades?

I can't believe people are actually making a case for gliders..... What happens when you get to the drop zone and there are stake and tank traps in the field?

>>31580134
Why not just create Mobile Infantry Suits While We are at it.

>>31587580
?
Why are you doing air drops into some area you haven't scouted first?

>>31587580
I can't believe you bumped this thread to comment on a serial autist.

>>31581237
>I read this and heard the voices of the Russian Dancing Men.

>>31587727
I know :(
>at least my Mom thinks I'm cool
>>31587693
Well I'm going to assume the enemy knows you have gliders and how big they are, which means they can find out by process of elimination where they might land, especially if they're transporting 70 ton vehicles, which would require a lot of space as shown multiple times in this thread.

>>31580384
Ehh, I would go with hull and turret designed for light tank than re-purposed elements from other vehicles

With XM8 you get
- turret with an autoloader
- lower base weight
- lower profile
- better mobility in hard terrain
- potentially higher power/mass ratio
- potentially same level of protection with lower mass (M8 has less volume)

For the light tank, the best protection is to not get hit, so it should be sanic fast, small, covered with modern multi-spectral camouflage and have light anti-missile ADS.

So how will they airdrop this 32+ ton tank without gliders?

>>31588043
They are designed for airlift, not airdrop.

>>31587820
The only thing you listed that is an advantage for the M8 is the lower profile.

File: 1398706413807.jpg (87KB, 600x600px)

87KB, 600x600px

>>31579970
>U.S army wants new tank
Uh-oh! What is it? M1A3 takes too long to develop?

>>31588159
Do you mean the SEPv3, which goes into low rate production by the end of the year.

Or do you mean the T-14, which is a development of the Soviet era Object 477.

>>31588807
No, I mean M1A3.
>T-14, which is a development of the Soviet era Object 477
You mean Russian Object 195.

>>31588975
T-14 has a very long lineage, that includes 477, 640, 299, 195 and more.

Basically they looked up what worked and what didn't in older projects and then distilled the knowledge into T-14.

Why does the abrams even need to be replaced

>>31588995
>No autoloader.
>Crew compartment not sealed off from breach or immediate ammo storage.
>No functioning APS.
>120mm gun is reaching end of service life.
It's still an above par tank, but with military technology you need to be prepping for your needs two decades from now.

File: iDU7cGOGSeU.jpg (82KB, 1384x825px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1384x825px

It's going to be a lot heavier.

File: Leo2DK6_k.jpg (64KB, 700x500px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 700x500px

Leo 2

File: prototypes.jpg (566KB, 3240x546px) Image search: [Google]

566KB, 3240x546px

>>31588988
None of these projects have anything to do with T-14, except for the Object 195. The closest you got is Object 299 family, which conceptually is the Armata family predecessor. You also forgot Objects 450 and 490. And Object 640 is a fucking T-80 modification, it doesn't belong to this list whatsoever. You might just as well bring up Object 292 and it would be about as much irrelevant not only to T-14, but to this entire development branch whatsoever.
>Basically they looked up what worked and what didn't in older projects and then distilled the knowledge into T-14.
They have been doing this ever since they first got this idea with the Object 450 in the early 70s. That's how R&D works. But it doesn't make all these projects related to each other. The idea of a modular vehicle family was first tried out with the Object 299, constructively direct T-14 predecessor is Object 195. Neither of them are constructively related to Object 299, previous unmanned turret protptypes or, god forbid, Object 640.

>>31589013
Autoloader isnt such a big deal

crew compartment is sealed off from ammo

APS is plug and play, just gotta chose the one you want at this point as long as its not a shrapnel based APS

gun could use an upgrade for sure. Armour is infinitely upgradeable

File: Abrams Tank Aug2010 042.jpg (40KB, 640x480px)

40KB, 640x480px

M1

>>31589108
>Autoloader isn't a big deal.
It reduces the need for a crewmember, it allows you to actually seal the ammo off from crewmembers and modern autoloaders are much faster than manual loading.
>Crew compartment is sealed off from the ammunition.
Not properly, and you will never be able to without an autoloader.
>APS is plug and play.
Yes, but its still one way that the M1A2 is falling behind where the US needs to be.
>Armour is infinitely upgradeable.
See
>>31589022
When you get to the point that you're haphazardly bolting armour panels to the outside of your hull, then your design is reaching its last iteration.

The US needs to upgrade its M1 fleet whilst designing a replacement, otherwise twenty years down the track the M1A3 won't cut the mustard anymore and there won't be a replacement ready.

>>31582951
How the hell is a Tiger tank supposed to solve this?!

>>31589145
those plates are weight simulators for the suspesion, a test for the added weight of the new armour package.

File: 1398881708228.jpg (420KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1280x854px

>>31589172
Looks more like three Tiger tanks and a few Panthers to me.

>>31581110
Whatever happened to all those Iraqi armor divisions?

>>31589013
>No autoloader.

Not an advantage.

>Crew compartment not sealed off from breach or immediate ammo storage.

Not a danger to crew like openly storing ammunition in the crew compartment is.

>No functioning APS.

Abrams will have an APS before the T-14 enters service.

>120mm gun is reaching end of service life.

Uh, no.

File: dae0f484af3cbfb362e0a775158ae6e4.jpg (69KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 700x525px

>>31580134
hmmm, where have i heard this before?

File: 4916858_orig.jpg (337KB, 1066x800px)

337KB, 1066x800px

>>31589707
"By 1944 it was also realized that the design of the tank was actually obsolete. The armor of the M22 in several areas was found to be so thin that it was incapable of even resisting the armor-piercing ammunition of a .50 caliber machine-gun. Complaints were also made about the 37mm main armament, which was not powerful enough to penetrate the armor of most tanks used by the Axis powers."

>>31589145
>It reduces the need for a crewmember

A 4th crewman spends 99% of his time doing other tasks, having a 3 or 4 man crew is a doctrinal choice

>it allows you to actually seal the ammo off from crewmembers

Your ammunition storage is the danger to your crew, not your breech.

>modern autoloaders are much faster than manual loading.

Except they aren't.

>Not properly, and you will never be able to without an autoloader.

See above.

>Yes, but its still one way that the M1A2 is falling behind where the US needs to be.

The US has developed and has access to multiple hard kill APS, with the US finally deciding to mount an APS on its AFV's they will have one before the T-14 enters service.

>When you get to the point that you're haphazardly bolting armour panels to the outside of your hull, then your design is reaching its last iteration.

Those are weight simulators, at least try to do some research beforehand

>>31589707
>>31582951

Goddamn, I wanna go bombing around the bush in a tankette.

File: 1469706737643.png (1019KB, 1075x815px) Image search: [Google]

1019KB, 1075x815px

>>31589089
>unmanned turret makes tank smaller

>>31589507
kek

File: 1045_0.jpg (164KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 500x375px

>>31589840
Why wait?