Skip to comments.Army Considers Trading Armor for Speed
Posted on 02/16/2014 11:52:44 AM PST by null and void
For the past decade, armor protection has dominated U.S. combat vehicle programs. Now, maneuver officials are breaking with that tradition, abandoning armor for highly transportable, all-terrain vehicles.
The Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Ga., recently reached out to the defense industry to see if it could build the new Ultra Light Combat Vehicle -- a new effort to equip infantry brigade combat teams with go-anywhere vehicles capable of carrying a nine-man squad.
Lawmakers recently cut most of the funding for the U.S. Army's Ground Combat Vehicle -- a move that has all but killed the high-profile acquisitions effort.
The ULCV instead would be designed to travel 75 percent of the time across country and on rough trails.
Army officials continue to work with the Marine Corps to deliver the Humvee replacement, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Leaders from both services were forced to pare down expectations for this truck as costs spiraled out of control as officials wanted to increase armor while lightening the overall weight.
Maneuver officials maintain that the ULCV is not competing against the JLTV. The ULCV is designed to fill a capability gap of being large enough to carry a nine-man squad but light enough -- at 4,500 pounds -- to be sling-loaded by a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.
The only way to achieve this weight and meet the capability is to trade armor protection for speed and mobility, Parker said.
"A lot of the stuff we have seen is more ATV-looking rather than enclosed with a cab," Parker said. "Then again, if someone brings something with a cab, we are not telling them not to."
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
Can you name a historical instance when that has happened? Just curious.
World wars one and two?
Yep, That always works out well.
The U.S. Navy took one look at H.M.S Sheffield during the Falklands and said "We can build Aluminum ship that burn brighter and kill our soldiers faster than the British can!"
Dolts, all of them.
Ditto. Between every major conflict navies and armies trade armor for mobility. Once the SHTF, armor quickly becomes relevant.
But why do we have to learn this lesson again? They are selling off the MRAPS that replaced the under armored HUMVEES as we speak.
Rumsfield wanted to get rid of the M1, and Bradley heavy infantry and replace it with the Stryker family of vehicles. When SHTF we needed the armor. Yet here we go again.
Rinse and repeat.
UCAVs or large drones mounted with sniper and mini HeLLFire capabilities.. That’s the future in combat.
Until conditions shut’em down, that is.
And then , it’s back to boots on the ground..
Troops in exo-armored suits..
Look up “battle cruisers”.
WW2 saw the demise of the battleship. And WW1 was fought with heavily armed, lightly armored ships. (Not claiming to be an expert).
Evidently these nimbos never watch youtube FSA knocking out Syrian T55 T72 tanks and BMB`s [going at full speed] with rpg`s, ATM`s, RR`s and IED`s .
WELLL, DUHHHH goombahs
After World War II, the US Navy adopted the Royal Navy’s practice of armoring carrier flight decks due to their experience with the Japanese Kamikazes.
I asked an honest question. Telling me to use my web browser is worse than useless. Maybe a naval historian will come along, but thanks anyway.
I think the Volkswagen Van fits the requirements from Fort Benning. Let’s put the Commandant of the Infantry School in a Volkswagen Van and have him charge into ambushes in Afghanistan. Everybody wants light vehicles until they start receiving fire.
I read the heavily armed/lightly armored squib within the last month or so and though, 'that's interesting', but didn't note the source or fact check it.
This is FR, if it's wrong I'm pretty sure someone will be along shortly with actual facts...
One of the critical lessons learned in WWII was the armored flight deck on carriers. Yes, WWII saw carriers rise to supremacy over the BBs, but the carriers designed from lessons learned during the war were substantially more heavily armored than those taken into the war.
We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. Barack Hussein Obama, 7/2/2008They dont call it a Civil Defense force, that would imply we need (or perhaps that we deserve) defense. The official name is National Civilian Community Corps.
I think of it as the NATCCC, or simply the NATCs...
Sadly, even the super lights can’t drive fast everywhere. And I haven’t seen anything readily available that goes 2500+fps that people/troops can ride in.
I was not being smart. If you do as I suggested you will find everything you need to know about how the battle cruisers stood up to combat. Battle cruisers were armed like battleships and armored like cruisers. They traded armor for speed, range and payload.