From: "Jez Hermer"
To: itsg@hotmail.com
Subject: BVS10 - VIKING / Royal Marines
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 20:38:35 +0000

Sir,

During a routine web seach I came across your interesting site.

I am (and have been for 6.5 years) the Royal Marine lead project officer for VIKING - I now command the newly formed Royal Marines Armoured Support Company.

The BVS10 / VIKING is a project which may interest you - it has huge read across with regard to a number of the key issues you speak of on your site.

Try a websearch with 'Jez Hermer'.. 'Royal Marines' or VIKING or any combination. You will note that I have just returned fom Afghanistan where I lead the very first (ever) operational deployment of the vehicle. The vehicle has been an unprecedeted success in theatre and is rapidly changing the Royal Marines' doctrine and concept of operations.

I include a here a couple of powerpoint slides which I think may interest you.... mostly related to air portability - (C17 - internal and external shots..) incidentally, C17 can carry 7 x VIKINGs... thus making it rapidly strategically deployable - and a shot of the vehicle under-slung beneath an RAF CH47. The vehicle can also be split into two component halves thus allowing for hot and high operations as the AAW is reduced by approximatley 50%.

Anyway..... you are welcome to publish the photographs on your website if you wish.

Regards

JP HERMER MBE
Maj RM

M113A3 Gavins & BV10S Viking Light Armored Tracks in Afghanistan

British Blues & Royals are using Scimitar 8-ton Light tanks in Afghanistan while vain Americans continue to be stuck to roads get blown up in Humvee/other wheeled trucks....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbE63uMtPoo

50 x 11-ton Canadian M113A3 Gavin "TLAVs" light tanks in Afghanistan with 42-ton Leopard C2 medium tanks in Combat

A Tracked LAV (TLAV) manoeuvres into position at Forward Operating Base Ghundi Gar. Having arrived as an escort for a resupply convoy the TLAV now takes up position as part of the Hotel Company Combat Team of the 2nd Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment Battle Group, currently in this location as part of OP HADRIAN. 2 RCR BG is an integral element of the Joint Task Force Afghanistan.

Joint Task Force Afghanistan (JTF-Afg) is Canada?s contribution to NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The focus of this mission is to help Afghans rebuild their lives, families, communities and nation. Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan are working to improve the quality of life of Afghans by providing a more secure environment in which Afghan society can recover from more than 25 years of conflict.

Photo by: Sgt Craig Fiander, JTF ? Afg, Image Technician

www.sfu.ca/casr/np-afghan-06.htm

Armoured Vehicles - NATO/ISAF - Southern Afghanistan - December 2006

Punching at Panjwaii - Canadian Leopard Tanks in Combat CF Tracked Vehicles Tackle the Taliban and Afghan Winters

Stephen Priestley , CASR Researcher / Illustrator

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

In to Action - Canadian Leopard C2 tanks and the TLAV M113A3s in Combat

After a month of settling in and training, the Leopard C2 tanks of B Squadron of Lord Strathcona's Horse (RC) are on the move. On 03 Dec 2006 (Afghan time) the tanks rolled out of the Kandahar Airfield compound heading for Panjwaii District. The Leopards form a new direct fire unit capable of punching through the thick, mud-brick walls (left) that typify much of Panjwaii District and caused Canadian troops problems during Operation Medusa.

Images from Kandahar reveal details about the deployed Leopard C2s. As many as ten tanks are visible (right) all fitted with MEXAS armour kits - more than previously said to exist - and at least one Leopard each is fitted with a dozer blade (right, front vehicle) or with a mine rack (topmost image, front vehicle).

The Leopard C2s aren't the only tracked armour in southern Afghanistan. The first Leo airlift included a Taurus Armoured Recovery Vehicle (ARV). There are also at least two AEV (Armoured Engineering Vehicle) Badgers joining the fight in Panjwaii (left). Both these specialist vehicles are based on a Leopard chassis. Light tracked vehicles also accompany the heavy armour. It had been announced that 40 rebuilt TLAVs would go to Kandahar in 2007. It seems some arrived early.

Images of M113A3s in Afghanistan have been of poor quality so far. [1] The TLAV's rooftop remote-control armament has been covered - until revealed, we must assume that PWS (Protected Weapons Stations) have been mounted. M113A3s will act as infantry section carriers. The arrival of tracked LAVs is well-timed - winter rains are turning the Afghan dust into mud.

The tracked vehicles address some of the mobility limitations that were encountered with LAV IIIs during Operation Medusa [2] which will be worsened by the winter conditions. More important is the Leo's greater firepower - within a day of arriving at Foward Operating Base Ma'sum Ghar, the Leopard's 105s were returning fire on Taliban rocket launcher positions.

Journalists contrast upgraded Leopard fire control, sights, and protection with the cruder systems of the Soviet tanks defeated by Afghan Mujahideen in the '80s. Quite true but parallels can be drawn with Northern Alliance tanks (left) in 2001 - T-55s used as mobile, direct-fire artillery. A Leopard firing from its FOB revetment is simply more sophisticated kit doing the same job.

The CF sees other roles for the Leopards in Afghanistan (among them protecting convoys from attack) but, in Part 2, we will focus on mouseholing mud-brick walls.

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

[1] 'Life-extended' TLAV (M113A3 and long-wheelbased MTVL) emphasized new armament arrangements - either RWS (Remote Weapon Systems) or 'One Metre' turrets (recycled from AVGP Grizzly section carriers). The former is probably the Rafael PWS as planned but may also be the Kongsberg M151 RWS (as on APVs).

Another M113 type in theatre is the remote mine-clearing ILDS Protection Vehicle.

[2] LAV IIIs had difficulties with Panjwaii mud-brick compounds and its irrigation ditches. Tracked M113A3s [without heavy caliber guns] will cope better with the latter but not with the former.

Defense Industry Daily's Coverage of the BV Family

www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/doublejointed-popular-the-bv-family-of-infantry-support-vehicles-updated/index.php#more

MORE EXCLUSIVES! BV-206 Air-Mech-Strike photos from Afghanistan!

BV-206S (M973A2) for 101st Air Assault Division power point presentation

BV-206 inside CH-47D all the way

Backing into the CH-47D Chinook helicopter

BV-206 inside CH-47D

Close-up of BV-206 being backed into CH-47D

Reduced profile BV-206 being backed into CH-47D

BV-206 in mud en route to CH-47D helicopters for loading

BV-206 crew eye contact with guide

Lining up the BV-206 for backing into CH-47D helicopter

BV-206 driving through mud puddle

Nice frontal view of BV-206 "Tonka Toy" in Afghanistan

Two BV-206 vehicles, one the TOW ATGM variant rumbling to the CH-47D Chinook helicopters

Front view of BV-206 backing into CH-47D

What it looks like inside CH-47D with BV-206 inside

Side view of BV-206 being backed into CH-47D

Nice picture of BV-206 backing into CH-47 from side

Ramp toes covered in wood shoring

Additional wood shoring as BV-206 backs into CH-47D

Canadian 3rd PPCLI Soldiers conducting internal CH-47D Chinook U.S. Army helicopter loading rehearsal for Operation Anaconda. The BV-206 at 7 tons is easily carried by the CH-47D and is narrow enough to easily roll-on and off its rear ramp. The Canadian BV-206 variant is armored up to 7.62mm in rear cab but additional armor plating available for front cab from manufacturer is not depicted. Because of current operational security weapon mixes of .50 cal, 40mm AGL and other weapons cannot be depicted as well as the additional armor. The combat configured weight is also sensitive info but suffice it to say the vehicle still provides sufficient power margins for the CH-47D for insertion up to 7500 feet elevations. Which makes up most of the operational areas in Afghanistan.

Editor's notes: The operation Major [now retired Lieutenant Colonel] Jarnot is describing was known as "Operation Harpoon"; some Patricias and 10th Mountains cleared a feature nicknamed "the Whale" in Shah-e-kot. Some more pieces were posted on www.cbc.ca on this.

As well, it seems there's a contingent of Royal Canadian Horse Artillery over there too (with what appear to be 81mm mortars), according to today's Montreal Gazette; they interviewed the first Canadian mortar team to fire shots in anger since Korea (although everyone seems to have forgotten the Medak Pocket).

Copyed from www.strategypage.com:

March 19, 2002: Operation Anaconda saw the first employment of helo-based airmechanized forces by a U.S. field commander in combat. On 15 March, the Canadians attached to the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade/10th Mountain Division used U.S. Army CH-47D "Chinooks" to air assault the armored tracked BV-206 airmechanized vehicles of 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group into the Operation Anaconda fight.

Canadian Navy Vice-Admiral Greg Maddison had told a 13 March press conference that the 3PPCLI had six over-snow vehicles held in reserve during Anaconda, in case they needed to evacuate people on the ground - as opposed to using aviation assets.

Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison Officer in Afghanistan, noted that the greatest current risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades, but rather the millions of landmines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very lightweight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light ground pressure.

This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine.

The trend might be spreading. On the morning of the 16th, the German TV news program "Das Journal" showed two Wiesel 20mm variants in support of Australia Special Air Service Regiment troops.

Adam Geibel

---

Major [LTC] Jarnot reports:

The war in Afghanistan has seen several combat firsts for the U.S. Military, first use of an armed un-manned aerial vehicle and the first use of the B-1B Bombers in a close air support role to name just a few. Now in Operation Anaconda another first for the U.S. Army, the first employment of helo-based airmechanized forces by a U.S. field commander in combat, complements of the 3rd Battalion of the famed Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry Battle Group.

On March 15, 2002, the Canadians attached to the U.S. Army's 2nd Brigade 10th Mountain Division, used U.S. Army CH-47D Chinooks to air assault their armored tracked BV-206 airmechanized vehicles into the operation Anaconda fight.

Airmechanization is a relatively new maneuver warfare doctrine extensively developed by numerous European armies. First theorized in the 1930s by Soviet Field Marshall Tuchachevskiy, today the Russian, British and German armies have fielded airmechanized brigade and division sized units. The concept involves the vertical insertion of tracked combat vehicles via helicopter and fixed-wing para-drops. The idea is to use aircraft to break friction with the ground and cross vast treks of terrain and obstacles to quickly gain positional advantage. Once inserted, the mechanized vehicles provide the vertically-inserted force with tracked terrain mobility, protection against small-arms and shrapnel and significant increase in firepower via the heavier weapons carried on the vehicles vice foot mobile troops inserted by parachute or helicopter.

The technical challenge to airmechanization is how to build a tracked combat vehicle that has sufficient protection and weapon capacity yet light enough to transported by helicopter or parachute. Advances in information/reconnaissance technology, weapon lethality versus weight and the increases in aircraft lift performance have all contributed to the boom in airmechanization. Today five other countries beside Russia, Britain and Germany, are in the process of fielding airmechanized brigades, including China. The most expensive part of this concept is the fielding of large numbers of heavy lift helicopters and short field cargo airplanes. The vehicles themselves are relatively inexpensive. In the U.S. Military, the critical air component is already in place with over 600 heavy lift CH-47D Chinook and CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters and 500 plus C-130 Hercules aircraft in the inventory.

But what about the risk posed by ultra-light combat vehicles? Isn't massive armor needed to survive? Lightweight AirMechanized Vehicles (AMVs), like those employed by the Canadians in Anaconda, might seem on the surface to be extremely vulnerable. But surviving on the battlefields of Afghanistan may demonstrate a shift in this traditional paradigm. For example, the greatest risk to vehicle movement in Afghanistan is not Taliban/Al-Quedas Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), but rather the millions of landmines laid throughout the country. The Canadian BV-206 AMV used in Anaconda mitigates this risk by virtue of the very light weight and tracked suspension that results in extremely light ground pressure. This not only contributes to its excellent terrain agility but makes anti-tank mine detonation a very small probability since the BV-206 ground pressure is far below the minimum necessary to set off a typical anti-tank mine. [Editor's note: the big advantage of an articulated tracked vehicle like the BV-206, is all-terrain mobility. The low ground pressure of an articulated tracked vehicle allows it to operate in very weak soil strength conditions and deep snow conditions. Also the powered articulation joint between the two units provides for superior obstacle crossing ability because of the joint locking feature for spanning ditches or gaps and the joint pitch motion travel which allows for the climbing of very high vertical obstacles, ie; slopes in Afghanistan].

Wheeled combat vehicles on the other hand, are extremely vulnerable to land mines due to the high ground pressure characteristic of typical wheeled vehicles. The separate cabs of the BV-206 also lessens the potential casualty effects of RPGs by compartmentalizing the blast areas. The light weight also means that it can approach the enemy from terrain deemed non-useable by heavier armor and thus lessens the chances of moving into a planned vehicular kill zone. These features combined with the lethality of high-tech weapons like the Javelin anti-tank guided missile (50 pounds and 2,500 meters range) and light weight auto cannons and grenade launchers like the M230 or ASP-30 30mm and the Mark-19 40mm make AMVs a deadly package for their size.

Airmechanization, a competitor for the Armys planned transformation based on the Striker wheeled armored vehicle? Intuitively all new ideas are intellectually competitive with older concepts and the same is true of the 3-Deminsional airmechanization idea versus the 2-Diminsional Striker program. But in practical application there is no conflict. As most professional Soldiers know, combat is a combined-arms affair where different weapons, platforms and the specialties of different organizations combine to have a collective greater effect than any one part. The Army's Striker transformation is slated for the light infantry divisions and some of the heavier formations. Airmechanization would be more applicable to the Army's Airborne and Air Assault units where the Striker is not scheduled for fielding. As the European armies who have fielded airmechanized formations will tell you. These agile forced-entry units are battlefield enablers to heavier forces and not necessarily their future replacement.

Like the use of the armed Predator UAV in Afghanistan, this first modest employment of airmechanized forces in Anaconda will undoubtedly generate heated debate on the utility of this new and controversial maneuver doctrine. This historical event may be the catalyst for the U.S. Army to convert its own airborne and air assault divisions along the European Airmechanized models or like the ill-fated Pentomic Divisions of the 1950s, be simply a flash-in-the-pan. Still the question that this event will pose for the U.S. Army as whole is the continued validity of parachuting or helo-insertion of dismounted troops close to the enemy's crucible of anti-aircraft fire, shoulder-fired missiles and RPGs. The American public and our enemies, should know that the U.S. Armys leadership in Afghanistan is not tied doggedly to any written doctrine. The first use of airmechanized forces in combat by an American commander demonstrates the mental agility and creative prowess of a unified effort that will leave "no stone unturned" in its effort to defeat the Al Queda and Taliban, to include employing a Canadian airmechanized force!

Major Chuck Jarnot, 101st Airborne Division Liaison Officer in Afghanistan

U.S. Army CH-47D Chinook Air-Mech-Strike 120mm mortars in combat in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda!

PROGRESS IN AFGHANISTAN! Afghan National Army now has M113A2 Gavins and Canadian Army got sick of LAV-III wheeled trucks breaking down has deployed Leopard 1 medium tanks!

Exclusive!

M113 Gavins to the Rescue: Afghan Army Unit Better Equipped and More Capable than Americans getting Blown up in Humvee Trucks

www.defendamerica.mil/articles/apr2005/a042805la2.html

Members of the South Carolina Army National Guard's 218th Infantry Regiment pose next to an M113A2 Gavin with some of the Afghan National Army Soldiers they trained. From left are 1st Sgt. Bobby Duggins of Charleston, Sgt. 1st Class Michael Rector of Union, and Maj. Greg Cornell of Columbia. They are part of a group of embedded training team advisors from Task Force Phoenix assigned to train the Afghan National Army's mechanized kandak. Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mack Davis

Afghan Army Gets Armored Personnel Carriers

South Carolina National Guard troops are tasked to train Afghan Soldiers to operate and maintain the new vehicles.

By U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mack Davis
Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan Public Affairs

KABUL, Afghanistan, April 28, 2005 - The Afghan National Army is getting a new look over the next few months. As a result of a recent equipment donation, they will appear a little less Soviet and a little more like their Coalition partners.

The Afghan National Army recently took delivery of 10 M113A2 Gavin armored personnel carriers from the United States at Camp Pol-e-Charkhi, on the outskirts of Kabul. This was the first shipment of vehicles with more to follow. Lt. Col. David Braxton, logistics operations chief at the Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan, said, "Based on the force structure designed for Afghanistan's internal threat, armored personnel carriers were identified as a requirement for the Afghanistan National Army.

The U.S. M113A2s are an excess defense article, which allows them to be donated. Given the performance and popularity of the M113s around the world, it is an excellent match for the (Afghan National Army's) (armored personnel carrier) requirement."

"The (Afghan National Army) Soldiers in the mechanized 2nd Kandak that we have been working with are just ingenious; they have the ability to take any mission and figure out a way to accomplish it. They have done phenomenal things with minimum resources," U.S. Army Maj. Greg Cornell

The M113s already have a home. They will become part of the 2nd Kandak (Battalion) Mechanized Infantry, in the 201st Corps' 3rd Brigade, located in Kabul.

The 218th Infantry Regiment of the South Carolina Army National Guard, part of Task Force Phoenix, has been tasked with training the Afghan National Army to operate and maintain the new vehicles.

According to 1st Sgt. Bobby Duggins, one of the kandak's embedded training team advisors, "The (Afghan National Army) Soldiers are totally excited about receiving this vehicle. The M113 is a new vehicle for them and there is always a level of excitement when you introduce something new."

"Because this (armored personnel carrier) is so versatile, it can be used in many ways," added Duggins. While the Afghan National Army will use the armored personnel carriers primarily to transport troops, Duggins added that the M113 "can also be used as a squad heavy weapon (to fire mortars), and it can be used by medical units and maintenance teams going into the battlefield." In addition to the 10 M113s that arrived recently, Braxton said, "We expect 45 M113s and 16 M577s (command vehicles) to begin arriving the second week in May. The remaining vehicles will be in country throughout the next month for a total of 63 M113s and 16 M577s."

Because the 2nd Kandak Mechanized team was previously fielded with another armored personnel carrier, the Soviet BMP-1, training on the M113 was a smooth transition.

Prior to the arrival of the U.S. M113s, the kandak Soldiers were trained by the International Security Assistance Force's Norwegian Battle Group using five modified M113s they deployed to Afghanistan earlier this year. According to Lt. Col. Jon Mangersnes, Norwegian Battle Group commander, "We conducted two weeks of practical training. This type of training cannot be conducted in a class room; you have to get hands on the vehicle."

The training covered the basic operation and maintenance of the M113, including how to start, steer and maneuver, and how to manipulate the operator switches. "It was a lot of fun for my guys," added Mangersnes. "The Afghan Soldiers were very receptive to the training and the younger soldiers are extremely proud to be in the Afghan Army."

Cranes are used to download an M113A2 armored personnel carrier from its transport vehicle at Camp Pol-e-Charkhi, Afghanistan, April 20, 2005. Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan photo by U.S. Army Lt. Col. Frederick Rice

South Carolina Army National Guardsman 1st Sgt. Bobby Duggins, the 2nd Kandak's embedded training team advisor, provides last-minute instruction to Afghan National Army Soldiers before they depart Camp Pol-e-Charkhi to drive their M113A2 armored personnel carriers to Kabul for a fresh painting. Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan photo by U.S. Army Capt. Mark Stachelski

This is not the first time the Norwegians have worked with the Afghan National Army. The battle group provides security in the Kabul area and often trains and works with the Afghan National Army.

Future training on the M113s will be provided to new Soldiers during basic training at the Kabul Military Training Center by U.S. and Coalition mobile training teams. The total donation, including repair parts, is estimated to be worth $10 million.

The U.S. is the only country providing the M113s, ensuring that all the M113 variants are the same so they will be less expensive to maintain. "To sustain the M113s here in country, the Afghan National Army's 3rd Brigade is receiving a one-year stock level of repair parts," said New Hampshire Army National Guardsman Chief Warrant Officer Gill Colon, the Task Force Phoenix logistics officer and embedded training team advisor to the 3rd Brigade. In order to support the M113s in Pol-e-Charkhi, several changes had to be made. "We have converted our warehouse to accommodate the (armored personnel carrier) spare parts and have converted some of the Quonset huts into maintenance bays," said Colon.

The maintenance for the M113 fleet will be conducted by Afghan National Army mechanics who will be trained by U.S. mobile training teams.

An Afghan National Army Soldier looks out from the driver's hatch of a recently donated M113A2 Gavin armored personnel carrier. Office of Military Cooperation-Afghanistan photo by U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Mack Davis

The South Carolina Army National Guardsmen who normally train the 2nd Kandak will be leaving Afghanistan in a few months.

According to the unit's executive officer, Maj. Greg Cornell, "We want to get the (Afghan National Army) mechanized team at least to team-level proficiency on the M113 before we leave. A special range is being prepared so that we can work on maneuvers and team-level live-fire exercises."

Cornell added, "The range training will teach the (Afghan National Army) Soldiers to take two vehicles, placing one in an overwatch (security) position, and the other in a position so that the dismounts can flank the enemy and engage. We also want the (Afghan National Army) to be able to move and provide weapons fire."

Cornell said, "The (Afghan National Army) Soldiers in the mechanized 2nd Kandak that we have been working with are just ingenious; they have the ability to take any mission and figure out a way to accomplish it. They have done phenomenal things with minimum resources. As we (coalition partners) are able to provide more resources and support, there won't be much they will not be able to accomplish."

The Afghan people will get their first look at their army's newly painted M113s at the Afghan National Day Parade, scheduled for April 28 in Kabul.

Bv206S ARMORED M978A2 SUSV: INFANTRY CARRIER AND LIGHT TANK

As Americans, we in the AMS-SG do not always know what's going on around the world in armored vehicle development. We do know that the German Army uses the armored Bv206S infantry squad carrier as an AMS vehicle rolling on/off from inside CH-53G helicopters, and this vehicle or a reduced-size M113 "Mini-Gavin" should be obtained immediately to meet the 75^th Ranger Regiment's requirements for a Ranger Armored Direct Action Vehicle operated by ideally a 160^th SOAR ground cavalry squadron to prevent "BlackHawk Down!" type incidents.

However, we recently learned that our ideas of an external gun equipped assault gun are not new and have been made into actual working platforms by the Swedish Army using a cut-down Bv206S hull.

www.mainbattletanks.czweb.org/Tanky/udes-20.htm
www.ludd.luth.se/~antenna/t2k/wi/ikv2000.htm
http://members.tripod.com/Strv102r/strv_2000.htm

The UDES-XX-20 could be revived with a lighter gun turret--doesn't have to be an external gun, it can be a conventional turret---to attain a heli-transportable AGS to compliment the infantry-carrying Bv206S (M973A2 armored SUSV). All that is required is a little WILLPOWER and some funds diverted from the on-going lav3stryker disaster.

A scientist from Europe who alerted us to this prototype writes:

"I totally agree with you on the UDES20 and Bv206S/BVS10 combination. It's a much better combination than the Stryker wheeled vehicle and its variants. Although tires have some small advantages in some areas of operation, they are absolutely not favourable in a fighting-situation. The development of tracked vehicles is also progressing, so the disadvantages are quickly dissapearing. I think the U.S. Army is making a big mistake by choosing the Stryker. I'm sorry for the American Soldiers who will suffer (probably with there life) from this mistake when it becomes clear in a future battle. I'm worried that also other countries, like my Country the Netherlands, is acquire wheeled vehicles for basic combat-roles.

In the past I looked into this field while I, as a polemologist, was 'designing' a new European after-Cold War defence structure based on a strategy I supported (non-provocative defence). I read a lot about armoured vehicles and their functions. I came to the conclusion that the road to ever heavier vehicles was a dead end. In my plan, for example an M2 Bradley or Warrior was replaced by 3 small Wiesel 2-like vehicles. Two in the APC-role (2+5 12.7mm gun and a light mortar) and one in a fire support version (FSV)(crew 2, 30/40mm gun and grenade launcher) which would support the dismounted infantry. All vehicles were heavier armoured than a Wiesel-2, to the same protection-level as a Bradley, but in total would weight less than one Bradley (18 iso 28 tons). There small size give them a much better mobility, agility and survivability. It would simply cost an enemy 3 ATGW to destroy a platoon-sized unit instead of one with a Bradley. They could use the terrain better and have less problems with small roads, weak brigdes and snowlike conditions. They can be transported even inside helicopters like the CH-47 and CH-53. All this advantages would counter the disadvantages of maybe a little bit more fuel-consumption and logistical support (more parts). In this configuration I also looked at the Bv-206 in combination with the Wiesel-2 as the FSV. I still think this is the best way of countering all the different mission-profiles.

In my plan the tanks would look like the UDES-XX-20, so they to, splited in two, could be transported by planes like the C-130. Also the use of high-velocity rockets next to tankguns was part of the plan. For special operations there would still be a few more heavely armoured tanks (with short distance heavy gun 152mm) for "shock"-attacks and missions in urban-areas.

Greetings,

XXXXXXX"

UDES-XX-20

price: $450.000 (R/-)
Armament: 120mm MainGun, Ksp 39 (coax)
Ammo: 36 120mm, 2400 7.62mm
Fuel Type: D, A
Load: 500 kg
Veh Wt: 25 ton
Crew: 3
Night Vision: Headlights, Thermal/IR
Fuel Cap: 680
Fuel Cons: 140

From the http://members.tripod.com/Strv102r/strv_2000.htm web page:

STRV 2000

The never realized supertank

In the late eighties it became apparent that Strv 101R, 102R, 103C and Strv 104 were inadequate against the evolving threat. To prepare for purchase of foreign tanks an M1A1 and a Leopard 2 were borrowed for a year to help formulate technical specifications for a new tank. A Swedish concept was studied as well. It was influenced by the experiences with the "S" and the lessons learned from the trials with the UDES-03, UDES-19 and the UDES-XX-20 in the late seventies and early eighties.

UDES-19

The UDES-03 was a test vehicle were the concept of an elevating gun mounted on a turretless chassie was tested and found workable. The UDES-19 was a German Marder with a 10.5 cm (105mm) gun was mounted on top of the vehicle to test the feasability of a external tank gun in a low profile top mounted turret.

UDES-XX-20

The UDES-XX-20 was ready for testing in 1981. It was based on the Hägglunds Bv206S and had double waiststeering and an external 12 cm (120mm) tank gun. While mobility was very good the concept is more expensive than tracksteering. The vehicle weighed 25 tons.

The two concepts described below. They are not to scale.

The earlier experiences led to two different concepts for further study. The first with an external gun mounted on an almost invisible turret and the second with a compact turret. The second concept was chosen for further study and a full scale wooden mock up was constructed. The tank was to weigh 55 tons and have modular armor for easy upgrading, a front mounted engine, a 14 cm smoothbore autoloaded gun firing APFSDS only. For softer targets than tanks the co-axial 40mm autocannon firing APFSDS and HE was to be used, or the 7.62mm coaxial Ksp m/39. The gunner and commander was to sit on the right side of the turret. The tank was of course to have a state of the art C3I-system. The importance of IRV had not been recognized when the study started so instead of an adequate IRV the Lyran illumination round mortars were to used. But the studies had clearly shown that the cost for developing a swedish tank was prohibitive compared to foreign purchase. In 1991 the decision to buy a forign design was taken.

Strv 2000 with its components.

The Strv 2000 was a tankers wet dream. With firepower that isnt matched even ten years later and a level of protection that not even the Strv 122 can compete with it would have been the totally dominant titan of any battlefield. Sadly but naturally its cost was equally impressive. The possibility to export it was slim as most potential customers had already bought the Leopard 2. One must also consider the unavoidable delays and cost increases the design inevitably would have suffered from. But what a mashine!

This picture of the wooden mock up shows the 40mm coaxial autocannon and the turret and hull front.

This picture of the wooden mock up shows the well-sloped hull front and the low turret. The muzzle brake is rather impressive in size. The left frontal sidecover is in its raised position for maintainance.

C-23B Sherpa

DID's coverage of the WALRUS super-heavy cargo airship's cancellation noted complaints from combat commanders that C-130s were not able to get equipment close enough to the front lines due to short airfield restrictions. Delays in buying a small cargo aircraft to fill that role, replace aging C-23 Sherpas et. al., and ferry troops, supplies, and/or small vehicles within a theater of operations were making that problem worse. "The JCA Program: Key West Sabotage?" looked at the different levels of urgency and priority in the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force and the resulting Congressional SNAFUs, and covered early-stage developments.

JCA could be worth up to $6 billion before all is said and done, and the finalists were a familiar duo. After EADS-CASA's CN-235 and a shortened version of Lockheed Martin's C-130J were disqualified for failing to meet requirements, JCA became yet another international competition between EADS-CASA's C-295M vs. Alenia's C-27J. The decision was expected in March 2007, but it seems we now have a winner. Oddly, we can't quite tell yet how much they've won - and of course, there's a GAO protest in the works...

Canned Feud: The Transport of Seville vs. the Spartan Salesmen

C-295 hits American chill

EADS-CASA partnered with Raytheon for the JCA competition. Their finalist the C-295M has a longer fuselage that can carry more cargo pallets than the C-27J, comes with a nifty pallet loading system, and is cheaper to maintain and fly. On the other hand, it lacks the internal dimensions and/or floor strength required for tactical loads like Humvees, small helicopters, et. al. Wins have included Spain, Algeria, Brazil, Finland, Jordan, Poland, and Portugal.

Alenia partnered with L-3 Communications and Boeing to offer the C-27J Spartan, aka. "Baby Herc" due to its profile, engine, and avionics commonality with the C-130J Hercules. EADS-CASA claims the C-27J's fuel and maintenance needs give it operational costs that are over 50% more expensive than the C-295's; but C-130J commonality may bring those numbers down slightly, and the C-27J's internal dimensions and floor strength give it the flexibility to carry light tactical loads. Wins include Italy, Greece (who had some issues but appears to have resolved them), Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Romania.

Surprisingly, word was that the U.S. Army wanted the C-295 despite its tactical limitations, and the USAF wanted the C-27J despite is operating and maintenance costs. If the rumors about service preferences were true, the USAF got its way - and the Army got more tactical flexibility.

Hello, My Baby, Hello, My Honey...

C-27J Spartan

The GMAS team's C-27J "Baby Herc" will replace the U.S. Army's 43 C-23 Sherpas, and fill some roles currently flown by the C-12 (based on the Beechcraft King Air twin turboprop) and C-26 Metroliner (based on the Fairchild Metro 23 twin turboprop) aircraft. In practice, it will also augment the U.S. Air Forces' aging and partly-grounded fleet of C-130E/H intratheater airlifters, and replace a number of missions that are using very expensive-to-operate CH-47 helicopters as in-theater supply aircraft.

The new Joint Cargo Aircraft will be in high demand from the first day they're delivered. The USAF has been making extensive use of intra-theater transports, and even C-17s with their short-field landing capabilities, in order to reduce the number of road supply convoys in Iraq. The C-27J's ability to use even shorter runways will expand the number of sites available for use in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other fronts of the war. Maj. Gen. Marshall K. Sabol, Air Force deputy chief of staff for Air, Space and Information Operations, Plans and Requirements, adds that the under-utilization of the C-130 is another reason the JCA program makes sense:

"The Air Force flew C-130 Hercules aircraft many times in Iraq, carrying just a few passengers or a single pallet of medical goods, because that is what the warfighters needed at that moment, he said. This is not a very efficient use of an aircraft, but the warfighters' needs come first."

Meanwhile, state National Guard forces have seen their air transport assets dwindle as C-130s are based elsewhere in realignments, or just not flyable. They will be clamoring to host C-27Js, whose short-field landing capabilities will be very welcome in the at-home disaster relief role.

Under the joint Memorandum of Understanding signed in June 2006, JCA could grow into a $6 billion program. Initial plans contemplated 145 aircraft - 75 USAF and 70 Army - but the first orders goes beyond the Army's projected number, and Finmeccanica projects a possible total of 207 JCA aircraft over the next 10 years.

The C-27J team is led by GMAS, a company owned 51% by Alenia Aeronautica and 49% by L-3 Communications. L-3 is formally the prime contractor within the USA, and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is also a partner. Rolls Royce will supply the AE2100 engines.

A Great Big Bunch Of You: Contracts and Key Events

June 26/07: Tell 'em what they've won... uhmmm.... Stephen Trimble of Flight International Magazine says JCA should stand for "Just Confusing Aircraft":

"The plot continues to thicken on the mystery of the Joint Cargo Aircraft contract. As I reported in Flight International magazine this week, I have received three different official estimates for cost and aircraft quantity, The joint programme office says the contract will cost $2 billion to buy 78 aircraft [DID: $26.15M each]. L-3 Communications, the selected prime contractor, claims the $2 billion will buy 55 aircraft [DID: $37.1M each]. The U.S. Air Force, meanwhile, tells me that they're both wrong and that the whole $2 billion figure is a "misprint". According to the USAF, the actual cost is $1.5 billion and it's going to buy 40 aircraft [DID: $37.5M each]. I have not seen a more confusing post-contract award scenario yet."

June 22/07: The Team JCA partnership led by Raytheon Company and EADS CASA North America files an award protest with the US Congress' Government Accountability Office.

The protest centers on 3 key claims: (1) That the JCA source selection board rated Team JCA equal to its competitor on all non-price factors in its criteria, including technical, logistics, management/production and past performance. (2) That they beat its competition's price by more than 15% (3) That there were errors in the specific evaluation of data and the application of the evaluation criteria. Raytheon release.

June 12/07: L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, LP of Greenville, TX received a firm-fixed price contract estimated at $2.04 billion for up to 78 Joint Cargo Aircraft (C-27J Spartan). This includes pilot and loadmaster training, and contractor logistics support for the United States Army and Air Force. A total of 4 bids were received under the full and open competition in response to the March 17, 2006, request for proposals (Team L-3/Alenia's C-27J, Team Raytheon/EADS-CASA C-295M or C-235, Lockheed Martin's C-130J).

The contract consists of three 12-month ordering periods for Low-Rate Initial Production, plus two 12-month options for Full-Rate Production. Work in the United States will be performed at Waco, TX; Aircraft manufacture will occur in Pomigliano (near

Naples) and Turin-Caselle, Italy (and The Czech Republic). Work is to be complete by June 30, 2012. The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command at Redstone Arsenal, AL issued the contract (W58RGZ-07-0099). GMAS release [PDF format] | Finmeccanica release [PDF format] | L-3 release [PDF format]

Additional Readings

 Alenia/ L-3/ Boeing JCA Team (C-27J) official site
 EADS-CASA/ Raytheon Team JCA (C-295M) official site
 The Aviation Zone - Beech C-12 Huron
 Global Security - C-26 Metroliner
 DID - DynCorp Receives $30.9M to Upgrade USAF VIP Transports. But the upgrades don't include defensive systems, whose absence is a problem in theater. The JCA will be equipped with defensive systems.
 DID (Aug 2/07) - RAND on Counter-Insurgency Airlift. Lots of implications for the JCA; it mostly serves to make a strong case for the buy.
 U.S. Air Force Link (June 13/07) - C-27J Spartan named as Joint Cargo Aircraft
 U.S. Air Force Link (Jan 15/06) - Hub-and-spoke missions provide tactical airlift in Iraq. The JCA aircraft would be expected to play strong roles in these kinds of missions.
 Inside the Air Force, via USAF Aim Points (March 27/06) - Could nimble JCA become 21st century 'surrogate' for C-130 fleet?

120mm mortars in battle

ParaGator 4x2 ATVs flown by CH-47D Chinooks into battle to transport mortars and ammo

John Deere M-GATOR in combat

U.S. Army M113A3 C-130 air-transportable Mech-Infantry unit OPERATIONAL in Europe as the SETAF Immediate Reaction Force (IRF); ready to reinforce XVIII Airborne Corps Task Force 180 in Afghanistan and win the war on terrorism

USAEUR Immediate Ready Force-Medium @ Ramstein Air Force Base

WHAT WENT WRONG? U.S. Army and marine individual Soldier field gear failures in Afghanistan combat: how to fix these problems NOW

www.geocities.com/usarmyafghangearproblems

The Case for Army SOF Air-Mech-Strike Capabilities: TF 180 in Afghanistan, why are the bad guys still out of reach?

Washington Times reporter, Rowan Scarborough reports that TF 180 in Afghanistan often concludes their planned missions to locate, encircle and kill/capture hiding sub-national terrorists are "too risky", and therefore doesn't do them. He tries to pin the blame on the Special Operations Forces (SOF) having concepts of operations (CONOPS) that are too risk-taking for the "conventional Soldiers" in charge of TF 180; a common complaint but one that fails to address the validity that SOF has a propensity to get itself decisively engaged if missions go wrong because of their own foot-mobile force structure and a hubris that doesn't "what-if" plans to provide a "Plan B". That TF 180 is not getting the "bad guys" goes beyond just petty rivalry and bureaucratic inertia; its because they are NOT getting or requesting all the physical tools they need for myriad reasons. Scarborough, a non-Soldier doesn't fully explore WHY this is so from self-imposed Army culture and faulty roles/missions assumptions.

The real reason missions are being vetoed in the planning stages is because we are still fighting the enemy EVEN, on foot M16 (M4 carbine) versus AK-47 (AKM) and would indeed take preventable U.S. casualties. If a SOF foot unit takes effective enemy fires; its likely to take casualties because of its exposed nature and become "decisively engaged"--meaning it must win the firefight or die; it doesn't have the option to shrug off the enemy fires and break contact anymore. Consider former Senator Kerry's SEAL mission in Vietnam now thought to have incurred civilian casualties when they took enemy fire from a village. SOF units lack the "plan B" means to dominate a firefight after their stealth/surprise has worn off; so they depend on pleas for help from stand-off aircraft firepower like AC-130s which can quickly kill a lot of friendly civilians in a close fight where the enemy intermingles. Why AFSOC does not have their own armored A-10 attack jets that can get low and be closely directed to strike fleeting targets during the daytime instead of relying on just vulnerable AC-130s high overhead (available only at night) is puzzling.

Army SOF and the Airborne of late (since retirement of 17-ton M551 Sheridan light tanks in '97) DO NOT HAVE LIGHT TRACKED ARMORED VEHICLES to fight the enemy from a position of on-the-ground superiority--overmatch---both outfits suffer from a bad case of "light-itis". For example if the 160th SOAR had a ground cavalry squadron of Army-standard 10.5 ton M113A3 Gavins, "BlackHawk Down" in 1993 Somalia probably wouldn't have happened AT ALL. CH-47Ds could have heli-lifted the Gavins short distances if need be to get into blocking/support-by-fire positions precluding the need for UH-60s to fly "shotgun" vulnerably overhead which is how they got shot down in the first place. The tracks of the Gavins could have busted through any road barricades and junked cars to insure the link-up force arrived and left on time to conclude the mission; what do you think rescued TF Ranger, anyway? Pakistani tracked tanks and M113s broke through the urban barricades--why depend on a foreign ally to rescue you when you could have your own Gavins? The 3-4 ton German Wiesel or the Swedish armored version of the Army SUSV, the BV-206S can roll off from INSIDE CH-47D/Fs or be sling-loaded by smaller UH-60L BlackHawk helicopters. The point is ALL of these light tracked AFVs can be easily parachute airdropped from C-130s to bust the whole light-itis paradigm; giving SOF units superiority on the ground in terms of heavier firepower, cross-country mobility, armor protection if fires are received and a whole lot of supplies on board to wait out hiding terrorists from blocking positions. Tracks provide a barricade break-through capability in urban fights that rubber-tired wheeled vehicles cannot do; to get in and get out quickly, you must remain mobile. We did similar tactics in Panama in 1989 and our ad hoc assembled light tracked armor (re: SOF General Downing's "Panzergruppe") was decisive to us winning with light casualties.

However, Army SOF cultural hubris will generally not accept the need for light tracked AFVs because some have broad-brushed armored vehicles as tools for the unwashed "leg", to use as a crutch because they are castigated as "weak, flabby and don't do (sports) PT (for half of every day)". The real clincher is that the Army has a M113A3 Gavin unit in Germany ready to fly by USAF aircraft to include C-130s called the Immediate Ready Force-Medium (IRF-M) that could have flown into Afghanistan right after the Rangers parachute dropped to seize Kandahar air base instead of waiting for weeks for marines to be shuttled in from ships as the enemy escaped. We could have used this Forward Operating Base (FOB) as a "turning movement" (study Grant at Vicksburg) to threaten the enemy's escape routes across the Afghan-Paki border or made them uncover themselves into the open to attack our base, which would have given our aircraft, mortars and infantry easy targets to hit. However if the venerable M113A3 Gavin became the media darling, then it would be "budgetary curtains" for less capable, lav3stryker vulnerable rubber-tired 19-21 ton armored cars; when push-comes-to-shove, $7 billion dollars of budget seems to come before battlefield RESULTS to thwart future 9/11 attacks on America's homeland.

So if the "bad guys" are getting away because in our mission analysis SOF unit CONOPS are deemed too WEAK, we cannot continue to wail about "how risk-averse our society has become" or that a rival unit type has "hooah envy"--we lost public confidence forever in the disastrous helicopter-delivered, foot-mobile and rubber-tired unarmored truck raid of October 3, 1993--SOF needs to significantly GET STRONGER in FORCE STRUCTURE so their plans are not ruled out from the get-go; petty jealousies or not. "Inter armus silent legus" = "in the face of arms, the law is silent"; be powerful enough that red tape cannot stop you.

Our SOF's roots in foot commando raids in WWII should not be seen as the epitome of warfighting, but as a starting point. We can make light tracked AFVs roll on silent rubberized band-tracks and be propelled by hybrid-electric drive--how much "stealth" do you need? A Romulan cloaking device to be invisible? An internal CH-47D transportable light tracked AFV could be purchased to stand-up a ground armored cavalry squadron of the 160th SOAR to enable operations into/out of Landing Zones offset from the enemy to prevent helicopters from being shot down as they were in the fight for Robert's Ridge when they tried to land on top of the enemy. Weaponry could range from powerful ASP-30mm autocannon, 2.75" Hydra 70mm rockets, guided missiles like the laser-beam-riding Starstreak with 7km range that kills aircraft, tanks or bunkers to rapid-fire 7.62mm gatling miniguns---the same ammunition used on 160th SOAR helicopters. Ranger 120mm mortars instead of being towed and needing their baseplates secured into rocky terrain could be fired from inside light tracked AFVs to range out to 7km and hit fleeing terrorists hiding behind mountainous terrain. The Ground Armored Cavalry squadron would be primarily composed of "18H" MOS Special Forces Vehicle Sergeants who would be school trained to operate anything from a pack mule to an armored vehicle to provide SOF overmatching ground mobility/firepower options for operations deep behind enemy lines be they SCUD missile hunting or Direct Action snatches of enemy leaders as worked in Panama in 1989 when Noriega was captured.

If SOF continues to go after "high-value" targets that are "heavily defended" often in confined urban areas as SHOCK TROOPS, they need SHOCK ACTION (armored fighting vehicles) at least as the plan B every-goes-to-shit eventuality. Its reasonable to assume you can SNEAK IN to strike a high value target, but to SNEAK OUT--without an extremely powerful overmatching trounce the enemy and get out capability?

Not wise.

So plans will continue to get vetoed.

If we continue bombing civilians to protect foot troops who cannot take even the slightest amount of enemy firepower, we may lose the war at the "hearts and minds" level as the Afghan people turn on us as occupiers instead of peacemakers and nation-builders. Air-transportable, light tracked AFVs would enable SOF units conducting cordon/search operations to shrug off some enemy firepower, determine where the fires are coming from and not just fire indiscriminately into civilians intermingled with the terrorists. Look how the IDF does it--M113 Gavin light tracked troop carriers all over the place as "motherships" for infantry to venture out and search for the bad guys while in the background as a "mailed fist" by firepower and tracked shock action to crush any opposition. The M113A3 Gavins of the IRF-M are available now, its time for SOF and TF 180 leaders to demand they be sent to Afghanistan to help them win their fight with the overmatching capabilities they lack.

The Russian Army: BMDs, BMPs and 2Ts: TRACKED

Mi-26 Heavy Lift Helicopter off-loading a BMD Armored Fighting Vehicle and its Airborne/Air Assault Infantry Squad from its rear ramp

The latest BMD-3M model has the exact same formidable 100mm gun/30mm autocannon/7.62mm medium machine gun co-axial weapons turret used on the feared BMP-3. The 100mm smooth-bore cannon makes it a light tank capable of destroying enemy heavy tanks, bunkers and can shoot guided missiles for top-attack, long-range engagements against enemy tanks and aircraft. The 30mm autocannon will kill enemy light armor, bunkers and troops. The 7.62mm machine gun can suppress/kill infantry. This is on top of an ability to carry some Paratrooper dismount infantry in the back. Why the U.S. Army that developed its fantastic airdroppable, amphibious 10.5 ton M113 Gavin before there was a BMD---has not provided its 82nd Airborne Division with a modernized M113A3 over the years for mobile infantry capabilities is puzzling. A "M113A4" could today have a 1-man shoot-on-the-move 20-40mm autocannon turret with laser rangefinder/designator to shoot Starstreak HVMs, unguided and laser-guided 2.75mm Hydra 70mm rockets as well as hybrid-electric dive, infared camouflage, band tracks and waterjets for ship-to-shore amphibious operations. The BMP-3 has waterjets for ship-to-shore amphibious operations and is drastically more powerfully armed than the bloated USMC AAAV/EFV being developed at great expense.

The Russians have also learned the hard way in combat in Chechnya that rubber-tired armored cars are unsuitable for firefights due to their predictable road-bound nature and the inherent vulnerabilities of air-filled rubber tires. The star of their on-going war when the BTR and BRDM armored car motorized rifle units were chewed up has been the light tracked MT-LB multi-purpose armored vehicle--their version of a M113 Gavin. A Russian writes:

"Its funny that while the Russian Army moves away from its wheeled vehicles (the BTR series), learning lessons from the brutal combat in Chechnya, the U.S. Army is moving towards them.

Below is a picture of the MT-LB6MB, a dedicated APC variant of the MT-LB, acknowledged as the Soviet/Russian equivalent of the M113 APC, which your site gives well deserved praise to.

The MT-LB is usually referred to as a 'tracked multi-purpose armored vehicle' and has probably been used for more roles than any other vehicle in the Russian army inventory, including artillery prime mover, command vehicle, armored ambulance, transporter-erector-launcher for ATGMs and SAMs, armored recovery vehicle, combat engineer vehicle, repair vehicle, chemical/ radiological reconnaissance vehicle and battlefield surveillance radar platform. It has also been used as a self-propelled mortar (mountng the 82mm Vasilyek automatic mortar) and as a purely ad hoc air defense and fire support vehicle with the ZU-23 AA gun. Last, but not least, it has been used as an APC, and can carry 11 men. In Chechnya Russian BTR-80 equipped Motorized Rifle units have often exchanged their BTRs for MT-LBs and the recently the Russian Army has been so impressed with the performance of the MT-LB that the construction of a dedicated APC variant with improved armament and armor has gone ahead. Its impressive performance obviously comes (like the M113) from its excellent cross-country performance (due to its very low-ground pressure, lower than the ground pressure of the M113 even) robustness, ease of maintenance etc.

Like the M113, the MT-LB is an 'old' vehicle, being introduced in the late 1960's I believe. In 1995 however the vehicle was modernized with a new engine and improved steering by Muromsk Diesel Locomotive Works. The vehicles (approximately 5000 in the CIS total) were stripped down then overhauled and at the same time the steering system was replaced by a new hydrodynamic steering mechanism, which improved the ride of the vehicle and also made it easier to handle.

I could not find a larger picture of the MT-LB6MB, I apologize, but this vehicle has had the single PKT 7.62x54R machine gun removed and replaced with a drop-in turret called the Modular Weapon Station, which is mounted on the roof near the rear of the vehicle. This turret was first seen on the new BTR-80A and is equipped with the 2A42 30mm autocannon first seen on the BMP-2, a PKTM coaxial machine gun, and six 81mm smoke grenade launchers. The turret also has a much improved day sight.

The MT-LB6MB has a 290hp engine (more powerful than the engine on the M113A3 even). Like the M113, in its original form the MT-LB weighs a little over 11 mt. The addition of the MWS and the strengthening of the armor probably has increases the weight of the MT-LB6MB by an extra mt or so (the BTR-80A weighs 14.6 tons compared to the 13.6 tons of the original BTR-80).

Russian infantry preferred to ride in a tracked MT-LB with a 7.62mm machine gun rather than a wheeled, supposedly better protected BTR-80 APC with a 14.5mm heavy machine gun. While the BTR-80 choked on the debris strewn streets of Grozny and rocky roads up in the mountains the tracked MT-LB didn't break a sweat. Now that the same superb tracked APC has been equipped with the firepower of an infantry fighting vehicle and has had its armor improved, its ridiculous that the U.S. Army is ignoring their own excellent M113A3 and instead going for the wheeled LAV-III deathtrap option.

While I was writing this email I thought I'd tell you about the latest Russian BMD development. The BMD-3M has been identified. The main difference between the BMD-3 and BMD-3M is that it is fitted with a new turret based on the BMP-3 design. The Russian Airborne now has not only the 30mm autocannon at their disposal but the 100mm main gun of the BMP-3M for direct-fire, shock action. I have also attached a picture.

Regards,

Dorian

P.S. There is also an MT-LB6MA version with the same features of the 6MB except instead of the MWS there is a BTR-80 style turret with the 14.5mm heavy machine gun, coaxial PKT machine gun, etc."

Russian Air-Mech Visionary: General Margelov

The BMD-1 is one of the truly innovative weapons systems that came out of the Soviet Union, and still stands out as one of the most fascinating concepts they ever managed to get into production.

The Soviet Airborne Forces, or VDV, were created in the 1930s and considered an elite force even then. But when they entered into combat in WWII, in places such as the disastrous drop at Vyazma, they found themselves at the mercy of heavily armed and armored opponents. Attempts to provide them with "flying" tanks - T-60 tanks with wings and engines or ones that could be airdropped with the paratroopers - came to naught. Postwar, the Soviets did develop the diminutive ASU-57 with a powerful 57mm antitank gun, but it had no armor protection of which to speak. The later ASU-85 gave them more punch, but was much larger at around 16 metric tons. They also were poorly suited to do anything in regard to transport of troops.

Three years after the new armored infantry-fighting vehicle BMP appeared and went into service, a new design was created by the designers at the Volgograd Tractor Factory as Object 915. This was a lightweight vehicle that used the complete weapons system and turret from the BMP on a specially designed chassis that could be rigged for airdrop. To enhance its mobility, the new chassis had an adjustable pneumatic suspension that could be set to provide from 100 to 450 mm of ground clearance (the former was for hiding the vehicle or rigging it for air drop, the latter was the maximum setting for crossing rough terrain.) The new machine used a 240 HP diesel engine and weighed only 7.6 metric tons.

This vehicle fit the concepts of Soviet VDV theoretician and commanding general Vasiliy F. Margelov, who knew that airborne forces dropped deep in the enemy's rear area needed a combat vehicle to do their job of raiding and destroying lines of communication up right. He worked out the design of the Kentavr (centaur) system for airdrops, which used parachutes with rocket braking to drop heavy vehicles safely. To ensure that this worked right, Margelov wanted the crew - gunner and driver-mechanic - to drop inside the vehicle to prove that it worked. He used two cosmonaut seats rigged inside the vehicle, and to prove to the Soviet Army it worked, had one of his favorite commanders and his own son (by then a VDV officer as well) drop in the first manned test. It worked, and the Soviets were off to the races with the new vehicle, dubbed BMD-1 (D for "desant", a word used for troops that leave a vehicle or aircraft to assault an objective.)

The BMD-1 served from 1968 when it entered production until 1985, when it was upgraded across the board into the BMD-1P. The P differed from the first production models in adding new radio equipment, new sights and replacing the over-the-barrel 9M14 Malyutka ATGM (AT-3 SAGGER) with a new mount for the 9M111 Fagot or 9M113 Konkurs (AT-4 SPIGOT or AT-5 SPANDREL).

In 1985 there was also a new model, the BMD-2, introduced with a 30mm 2A42 cannon similar to that in the BMP-2. But the turret was tiny and this system does not seem to be as popular or widespread as the BMD-1/1P. A new vehicle created in the late 1980s, the BMD-3, was accepted as a replacement but so far few have been purchased by the Russian Army. The BMD-1/1P fought in Afghanistan and Chechnya with the Soviet Union and Russia, and in Kuwait with the Iraqi Army.

www.ipmsottawa.ca/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=96&FORUM_ID=13&CAT_ID=3&Forum_Title=Armour+kit+reviews+%26+articles&Topic_Title=Eastern+Express+1%2F35+BTR%2DD+Airborne+Links+Vehicle

In 1965, when the Soviets felt that their airborne forces would be cut to pieces if they landed in the rear of NATO troops with no support, legendary airborne General Margelov created his "centaur" - the BMD-1 or airborne infantry combat vehicle. Mounting a complete BMP-1 turret on a very lightweight hull, it created an 8 metric ton vehicle that could be airdropped, provide room under armor (albeit quite cramped) for six men, and provide airborne forces with overwhelming firepower against rear echelon forces.

In Airborne and Airmobile Forces, Russian, Peter Antill writes:

Post-War Developments

The VDV ended the war in some disarray. The operations had been bad fiascos, but the units had fought with courage and heroism, with some 196 soldiers receiving the Hero of the Soviet Union medal. In 1946 the VDV was transferred from the Air Force to direct control of the Ministry of Defence to serve as a strategic reserve. It languished over the next decade, while the role of the airborne divisions was examined in light of the experience gained by all sides during the war. The Soviets concluded that with the exception of the German operations in 1940 and 1941, most airborne operations were failures or made no real contribution to conventional campaigns. Successes were only forthcoming when facing weak or demoralised opponents, and when facing quality opposition the results were usually catastrophic (as at Arnhem). Despite this there remained a conviction that airborne forces did have a role to play in dropping behind enemy lines and causing mayhem in the enemy's rear areas. In 1956 the VDV was switched to the Ground Forces and came under the command of General V. F. Margelov (a wartime hero of the Naval Infantry), who set about modernisation with determination. The first results were the introduction of the An-8 transport (followed by the An-12) and the increase in firepower with the new B10 82mm Recoilless Rifle (followed by the B11 107mm Recoilless Rifle) in the mid-1950's, and the RPG-2 around the same time. What really helped was the development of light armoured vehicles that could be dropped with the paratroopers. The Soviets had realised that previous operations had ". . . . ended with the landing of the force. Manoeuvre was largely at the speed of the infantryman. Soviet recognition of this weakness formed the key to further development of this force. In the Soviet concept of the vosdushnii desant (airborne assault) the landing of the force is simply the beginning of the operation." [note 2] The first of these were the ASU-76 and ASU-57, the latter of which entered service in 1955. This was followed by the ASU-85 (based on the PT-76 scout tank) in 1960 and could be airlifted by the new An-12. With the embarrassment over the Cuban missile crisis, the Politburo decided that the Soviet Union should substantially enhance its ability to project military power abroad. As a result, the VDV was again transferred back to direct Ministry of Defence control in 1964.

Sightseeing in Prague and Kabul

The invasion of Czechoslovakia was designated Operation Danube. The Soviet Army formed a Strategic Direction composed of three Fronts (Central, Carpathian and Southern) and the VDV mobilised two of its divisions, of which the 103rd Guards Desant Division was to deliver the coup de main against Prague, with elements of the Polish 6th Airborne Division designated to take the airfield at Pardubice. On the evening of the 20th August 1968, an unscheduled Aeroflotte An-24 aircraft made an unscheduled landing at Ruzyme Airport at around 2030 hrs, and was soon followed by an aircraft from Lvov in the Ukraine at about midnight, which unloaded a number of Soviet 'civilians' who talked with Czech officials and then departed. As the troops of the three Fronts crossed the Czech border, the 'civilians' took up positions around the airport. At around 0200 hrs, two An-12 aircraft, escorted by MiG-21 fighters, landed at the airport, and two companies of desantniki (about 180 men) were disgorged and took over from the 'civilians'. After the airfield was secured, the command An-24, which had been the first aircraft to arrive, ordered the rest of the 103rd Guards Desant Division to start landing. This contained a number of ASU-85s and armoured personnel carriers, and a special assault group was to take the presidential palace, with the rest of the division seizing key points around the city. Not long after, the lead elements of the Central Front, the 6th Guards and 35th Motor Rifle Divisions entered Prague. For the invasion of Afghanistan, a larger VDV force was allocated than for Czechoslovakia, presumably because of the greater expectation of resistance. The VDV were to again provide the coup de main against Kabul, and were to eliminate the Afghan President, Hafizullah Amin, and replace him with a puppet regime under Babrak Karmal. One regiment was to be used from the 103rd and 104th Guards Desant Divisions, as well as the entire 105th Guards Desant Division in the operation. In early December 1979, the Soviets transferred the regiments from the 103rd and 104th into the country to assist in controlling Bagram airport just outside Kabul. Meanwhile, Soviet advisors all over the country began attempts to paralyse the armed forces. On the 24th December, the VDV forces at Bagram seized control of the airfield and the main elements of the 105th Guards began to arrive from their base in the neighbouring Turkestan Military District. The main Soviet forces began crossing the border on the 25th December, and the VDV assembled the main battle group to assault the presidential palace. After a brief but intense battle, the Soviets took the palace, and then spread out to take key locations around Kabul, and other population centres, such as Kandahar. Later in 1980, the airborne forces were reorganised, with the 105th Guards being disbanded, apart from the 345th Guards Airborne Regiment which became an independant air assault regiment, and both it and the 103rd Guards Desant Division were stationed at Bagram during the Afghan conflict.

Going Solo

It was its reorganisation as a semi-autonomous branch of the Soviet Armed Forces that marked a major shift in the VDV's nature. During the 1960's the Soviet Army had embarked on a shift in doctrine and tactics that emphasised the ability to fight on a nuclear battlefield (particularly in a European conflict). The VDV realised that they could be very useful in a theatre devastated by nuclear weapons but the troops could not survive in contaminated areas unprotected. So the VDV decided to follow the same route as the Ground Forces and develop a smaller lighter version of the BMP, which appeared in 1970 as the BMD (Boyevaya Maschina Desantnaya - Airborne Combat Vehicle). This marked the move from the light infantry role, to a mechanised air assault force, as the BMD equipped one, and eventually all three regiments (making around 320 BMDs) in a division. The BMD is a smaller version of the BMP, sharing the same turret and engine, but having a new hull and suspension design. The internal configuration is different and is more cramped. There are stations for three crewmembers (driver, gunner and commander) and for three passengers. The BMD-1 shares the same 73mm low pressure gun with the BMP-1 and has a revolving magazine of forty rounds, with an AT-3 'Sagger' missile launcher on top of the main gun. The engine and transmission are housed at the rear, and the suspension can be lowered and locked down for air transportation. Fuel is carried by a tank in the right rear corner of the vehicle and was supplemented on later models by two small external tanks. It is fully NBC protected, and has armour sufficient to withstand small arms and artillery shrapnel. However, "its light weight and small size have resulted in some performance and handling constraints. The armament system shares the same shortcomings as that on the BMP: the Malyutka (the Russian name for the AT-3 'Sagger') missile is difficult to aim due to its primitive guidance system, especially from a moving armoured vehicle; the main 73mm gun is short ranged; and its finned projectile is vulnerable to cross-winds to a greater extent than more conventional ammunition." [note 3] There were also problems with the poorly supported fuel tank, fragile transmission and poor ventilation when the crew fires the main gun. Many of these problems have been addressed to a greater or lesser extent in the BMD-1 M1973 model or the heavily redesigned BMD-2 which featured new grill vents, an internal redesign, new roadwheels, a 30mm automatic cannon in place of the 73mm gun, and an AT-4 'Spigot' or AT-5 'Spandrel' launcher in place of the AT-3 'Sagger', and first appeared in 1980. While it was initially unclear whether the BMD-2 had the complete turret of the BMP-2, it was later discovered that the turret was a new more compact design housing just the gunner (on the left), day / night sight, anti-aircraft sight, the 30mm 2A42 stabilised cannon and co-axial 7.62mm PKT machine gun. In 1990, a new airborne assault vehicle entered service, with the first production units going to the airborne forces, with delivery to the naval infantry to follow. The BMD-3 has a new chassis design and is fitted with the complete turret of the BMP-2. The vehicle is reported to have much better amphibious capability (hence the acquisition by the Naval Infantry), a more spacious interior, better firepower and improved command andir Assault Brigade employs CVR-Ts during aggressive TActical AirLand Operations (TALOs) nicely depicted in Patrick Allen's book, "Rapid Reaction Forces". TALOs begin with British Paratroopers jumping in under radar at 250 feet using their amazing Irvin low-Level Parachutes, securing the runway for C-130 turboprop aircraft to airland CVR-Ts with armored mobility and heavy firepower to sweep the area clear of the enemy. Follow-on aircraft to include leased C-17 turbofan jet transports bring in attack and transport helicopters like Chinooks can then sling-load CVR-Ts for tactical moves like when they flew over mines to get into Kosovo in 1999.

The British Royal Marines have bought an enlarged version of the Alvis/Hagglunds BV-206S called the BV-10S which is reported to be CH-47 sling-loadable and can swim from amphibious ship-to-shore.

The British Army is developing a Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) that will have a high rate-of-fire autocannon, digital C4I situational awareness, composite construction and hybrid-electrc drive derived from the US/UK FSCS Tracer program. Indications are that it will be tracked and not on road-bound, vulnerable to enemy fires wheels.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF): M113 Gavins TRACKED

d M551 Sheridans?

If we were smart TODAY, we'd do the same thing with our M113 Gavins for our Airborne 3D maneuver forces!

EXCELLENT WEB PAGE ON RUSSIAN AIR-MECH CAPABILITIES: www.thatcherthunders.org/ttruscom2.htm

NEW! Russian 3D Maneuver combat vehicle is TRACKED

Military Parade 2002. January: Exclusive, Armored Vehicle for Special Operations

Russian and Belarusian designers offer a new reconnaissance vehicle, the 2T

Wars and local conflicts of the past decade demonstrated that overhead platforms, including remotely piloted vehicles, are inadequate for continuous reconnaissance of enemy assets. This is caused by several factors, primarily, by the dependence of an aerial platform and its sensors on weather conditions, camouflage and active air defense countermeasures, as well as problems related to time delays, data interpretation, target identification, including the disclosure of civil population in specified areas. Also, high target mobility and concealment measures significantly reduce the probability of target destruction if the time between target detection and engagement is long.

Foreign experts believe that these problems can be resolved by developing highly mobile automated ground reconnaissance vehicles (for example, the Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) that has been under development by the USA and Great Britain since 1996). Used for tactical purposes, these high-speed, maneuverable and stealthy vehicles are supposed to be equipped with data collection, processing and transition systems. They will have advanced armament and crew protection. The vehicles developed to these principles will make it possible to review old tactics of using main battle tanks as an armored force designed to break through enemy defenses, and develop a new approach under which light tanks equipped with high-accuracy targeting systems and, if necessary, high-precision weapon systems will operate in «automated battlefield» conditions. These vehicles could become indispensable in low- and medium-intensity conflicts, patrol missions in front-line zones and raids in the enemy deep rear. Following this concept, the Minotor-Service company of Belarus, jointly with Russias and Belarus design bureaus and military agencies, developed a reconnaissance/special operations vehicle (RDM). The new vehicle, currently known as 2T, is undergoing manufacturer tests. Several versions of the vehicle have been developed to operate in various physical, geographic and climatic conditions. The vehicles modular design makes it possible to change the configuration of its armament, target detection and communications systems at customer request.

The British Army: CVR-Ts, BV-10S Vikings and FRES: TRACKED

The British Army and Royal Marines have long realized the need for TRACKED light tanks that are air-transportable for 3D maneuver. In the 1970s they realized that building an 8-ton class Scorpion family of armored reconnaissance vehicles would fly two at a time in a C-130 and one at a time underslung by a HR2 (CH-47) Chinook helicopter for 3D movement. The exploits of the very low ground pressure BV-202, Scorpion and Scimitar Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance-Tracked (CVR-Ts) in the Falklands War where wheeled vehicles bogged down are legendary. In several battles these light tanks made the difference between heavy casualties and almost no casualties. The 16th Air Assault Brigade employs CVR-Ts during aggressive TActical AirLand Operations (TALOs) nicely depicted in Patrick Allen's book, "Rapid Reaction Forces". TALOs begin with British Paratroopers jumping in under radar at 250 feet using their amazing Irvin low-Level Parachutes, securing the runway for C-130 turboprop aircraft to airland CVR-Ts with armored mobility and heavy firepower to sweep the area clear of the enemy. Follow-on aircraft to include leased C-17 turbofan jet transports bring in attack and transport helicopters like Chinooks can then sling-load CVR-Ts for tactical moves like when they flew over mines to get into Kosovo in 1999.

The British Royal Marines have bought an enlarged version of the Alvis/Hagglunds BV-206S called the BV-10S which is reported to be CH-47 sling-loadable and can swim from amphibious ship-to-shore.

The British Army is developing a Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) that will have a high rate-of-fire autocannon, digital C4I situational awareness, composite construction and hybrid-electrc drive derived from the US/UK FSCS Tracer program. Indications are that it will be tracked and not on road-bound, vulnerable to enemy fires wheels.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF): M113 Gavins TRACKED

Major Martin L. Musella, USMC

1 April 1985

marine corps Command and Staff College, marine corps Development and Education Command Quantico, Virginia 22134

EXCERPT: 1973 Arab-Israeli War

On the morning of 12 October the IDF commander on the Golan front received intelligence that a Iraqi troop and equipment convoy would move that night from Bagdad to Damascus. At 1000 hours on 12 October the decision was made to execute a contingency plan to interdict the Iraqi convoy by helicopter transported Paratroopers and fighter-bombers.

At approximately 2300 hours a lone Israeli Air Force CH-53G lifted off from Israel with 12 Paratroopers an internally loaded, jeep-mounted, 106mm recoilless rifle. To avoid detection by Syrian radar and air defense artillery sites the helicopter flew low level north along the coast of Lebanon and inland to the ambush site, which was located 100 kilometers northeast of the Golan front on the Bagdad-Damascus highway. The landing zone was reached by 2400 hours.

After the Paratroopers off-loaded, the helicopter was parked several hundred meters from the highway in a covered position. Demolitions were emplaced on the bridge, and mines were employed forward of the Israeli ambush position. Shortly after 0100 hours on 13 October the Iraqi convoy arrived. Expecting no threat at night over 100 kilometers behind the battle lines, the Iraqis had their tracked vehicles on carriers and their troops in buses. The attack was initiated when the bridge was blown, and the convoy was further blocked front and rear by the 106mm recoilless rifle. The Israelis disengaged and withdrew concurrent with the arrival of Israeli Phantoms that chewed up the immobilized Iraqi convoy.[61]

THE BRAZILIAN ARMY: the EE-T4 Ogum

Tank designer, Mark Ash found a new Brazilian Scout Vehicle, the EE-T4 Ogum.

www.defesanet.com.br/noticia/osorioentro/osorio.htm
www.defesa.ufjf.br/fts/Ogum.pdf
http://army-guide.com/eng/product4492.html
www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery/ENGESA-EE-T4-Light-Tracked-Vehicle-Brazil.html
www.dogswar.ru/oryjeinaia-ekzotika/bronetehnika/2171-bronetransporter-ee-.html
www.ecsbdefesa.com.br/fts/Ogum.pdf

The last two are in foreign languages, but you can use Google Translate to make sense of them (unless you can read Portuguese and/or Russian --- in which case you're set!).

A Great find, Mark!

Its Deja XM800T all over again!

Do you realize the M5 Stuart light tank with 37mm gun with M8 75mm howitzers in WW2 mechanized cavalry units were very effective?

The EE-T4 Ogum looks like the Stuart and the XM800T (re: Hunnicutt's book) and the current Wiesel 2.

Amazing what you can do with scaling down a tank, huh?

We converted the EE-T4 Ogum's width from millimeters to inches:

http://convert.french-property.co.uk/index.htm

2145mm = 84.44 inches....a Humvee truck is 85 inches wide...thus, Ogum could roll on/off from inside a CH-47D/F Chinook helicopter!

U.S. Army: FCS wheels or tracks?

While the U.S. Army retired its M551 Sheridan light tanks used successfully in the world's first combat parachute forced-entry AMS operation in Panama in 1989 and has cancelled the promised M8 Buford Armored 105mm Gun System (AGS) it has at least kept a less robust Immediate Ready Company (IRC) of M1/M2 heavy tanks at Fort Benning, Georgia to airland by USAF turbofan aircraft like the C-17. In Europe, V Corps has an Immediate Ready Force-Medium (IRF-M) composed of M113A3 Gavins that can be airlanded or parachute airdropped by plentiful C-130s; but have yet to fully exploit an armored vehicle, parachute forced-entry capability to rapidly clear drop zones of enemy and obstacles and expand assault zones in concert with the 173^rd Airborne Brigade of SETAF beyond what the British 16 Air Assault Brigade has done with TALOs.

The U.S. Army in general, still has not recognized the fact that rubber-tired, wheeled armored cars are 28% less space/weight efficient than tracked vehicles and lack cross-country mobility necessary to evade modern guided weapons and sensors targeting by driving through closed terrain with cover and concealment. However, imbued with the false Tofflerian vision that mental gadgets can steer firepower bombardment and make PHYSICALLY firing and maneuvering to hold the ground un-needed capabilities, the fatally flawed lav3stryker armored car in favor by the Army's current senior leaders has pressured the Future Combat System (FCS) developers to a wheeled FCS even though it cannot be made under the 16.5 ton practical C-130 payload limit.

We can only hope real-world physical demands will prevail and the FCS will be tracked as the rest of the world's armies have figured out is needed to create a 3D maneuver force "Air-Mech-Strike Vehicle" or light tank. Even better would be to save several $BILLION dollars and cancel the lav3stryker armored cars and upgrade M113 Gavins to be the Interim or actual FCS vehicles; using our scarce funds to get NEW CAPABILITIES not spend more and get less capabilities than what we have today. Upgraded tracked M113A4 Gavin Immediate Future Combat Systems (IFCSs) would be far more capable than newly constructed wheeled FCSs. An IFCS with a 1-man shoot-on-the-move 20-40mm autocannon turret and a co-axial rail/launcher that aims along with the autocannon could fit a Starstreak Hyper Velocity Missile or 2.75" Hydra-70mm rocket pod could be Colonel Douglas MacGregor's "Light Strike Vehicle" a regular-sized M113 or a stretched-hull MTVL Gavin or an armored BV-206S "M973A2 Ridgway" with RPG-resistant applique armor, band tracks, infared camouflage and hybrid electric "stealth" drive with 600 mile range. Flex-Cell drop/run-over fuel bladders ("Camel-Baks for tanks") can increase range to another 600 miles. Inside would be space for a 9-man infantry squad with all kinds of weaponry, carts and bikes. The point is that the 1-man turret doesn't "smother" the infantry in back by 2 guys who want to be tankers as takes place on the Bradley and will soon take place on the USMC AAAV; the vehicle is commandable by the INFANTRY leader from the back top troop hatch with a decent field of view without safety fears of the turret slamming into him. A helmet-mounted sight allows the Track Commander to aim and shoot his turret's weaponry without having to duck down inside to press his eye against an optical sight which is usually the rationale for the 2 man turret's gunner. If he has to button up to evade enemy airbursts, the TC can see more from his helmet TV display than an optic, anyway.

Another vital aspect is that this idea that a specialized AT or ADA vehicle will be there when needed to shoot down aircraft or kill tanks is a bunch of bunk; if you look like a tank and act like a tank you are likely run into a tank and you better darn well be able to kill a tank; "LOSAT Junior" in this case the "Starstreak" HVM would give us nearly point/shoot and blast capability against both aircraft and enemy tanks as a self-defensive capability far better than relying on a few "tank destroyers" or ADA vehicles. Starstreak can penetrate through over 3 feet of RHA armor, and the ability to laze could be tweaked to not just beam ride for it, but also laser guided Hydra-70mm rockets, rangefind in general and target designate for bombs dropped from and guns fired from aircraft (CAS fix). We can do this all in a compact package that will not smother the infantry in the back nor heavy up the IFCS so its no longer fixed and rotary-wing air-transportable for 3D maneuver.

However, we must remember that a 3D Cavalry Force is a complimenting force that can fly and fight/maneuver through closed terrain to a 2D optimized force that has overmatch in open and urbanized terrains for breakthrough battles. One size-fits-all in a "Medium" force is sub-optimized in both 3D and 2D battlespaces; too heavy for air transport and too light for fighting in the open or when the enemy knows you are coming. We need both 2D and 3D optimization for successful land combat.

The Fisher Report: Beware of Red Chinese Air-Mech

CHICOM Air-Mech 3:00, BATTLEBOXes 5:00

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IafBYvu5UBo

Here a CHICOM ZLC-2000 light tracked AFV has just been de-rigged after parachute insertion...its autocannon could dominate the battlefield sweeping our narcissistic foot infantry in flimsy trucks from the battlefield...

Note the CHICOMs have a 75-round DRUM for their 5.8mm x 42mm Type 95 bullpup weapon...all from an ingenious 8x8 SUPACAT clone (but improved) from a Mi-17 Hip helicopter rear ramp...

Add this to what we know they are doing with air-transportable LIGHT TANKS:

www.geocities.com/armorhistory

Obviously they are getting ready to 2D and 3D maneuver into Taiwan while we sit on our asses and play with bloated, can't-fly-by-helicopters or C-130 immobile Stryker/Humvee trucks...

www.uscc.gov/researchreports/2004/04fisher_report/04_01_01fisherreport.htm

THE IMPACT OF FOREIGN WEAPONS AND TECHNOLOGY ON THE MODERNIZATION OF CHINA'S PEOPLE'S LIBERATION ARMY

A Report for the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

January 2004

by Richard D. Fisher, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

While we are fumbling instead of adapting and getting stronger from Iraq, Red China is putting together a dangerous Surveillance Strike Maneuver Capability to do nation-state warfare with a sophistication of fire, maneuver and deception we are not even close to matching.

We better get our heads out of our asses and stop our RMA Jesus computer crap and start building for decisive 2D/3D air/ground maneuver using our existing M113 Gavin light tracks.

Details: www.geocities.com/strategicmaneuver

DISTURBING EXCERPTS FROM THE FISHER REPORT

www.uscc.gov/researchreports/2004/04fisher_report/9armysystems.htm

Russian BMD-3 or BMD-1P Airborne Combat Vehicle

Status: reported sale to Chinas airborne forces around 1995

Weight: BMD-3, 13.2 tons; BMD-1P, 8 tons

Performance: BMD-3, speed, 71 km/h, range, 500 km, can carry up to 5 extra soldiers; BMD-1P, speed, 61 km/h, range 500 km, can carry up to 6 soldiers

Armament: BMD-3: 4x AT-4/AT-5 anti-tank missile, 1x 30 mm gun with up to 500 rounds, 1x 7.62 mm machine gun, 1x 5.45 mm machine gun; BMD-1P, AT-3/ AT-4 anti-tank missile, 1x 73 mm gun with 50 rounds, machine guns; BMD-3M: 1x 100mm gun, w/ 18x unguided and 4x ARKAN missiles w/ 5.5km range; 1x 30mm gun w/ 350 rounds

A 1997 report out of Hong Kong noted that since 1995 the PLA Airborne forces had been equipped with a paratroop combat vehicle...light tank...12 metric tons...uses anti-tank bombs...large-caliber artillery...used to be exclusively owned by Russias paratroops.... [20] While the combat weight mentioned in this article is less than but closer to the BMD-3, the mention of the large-caliber gun also raises the possibility the PLA purchased the older BMD-1P. Both BMD models are amphibious and three can be airdropped from an Il-76 heavy transport. Russians did not like the BMD-1 inasmuch as it tended to break down in rough terrain.[21] The latest version offered by Russia is the BMD-3M, which incorporates a smaller and lighter version of the 100mm gun and missile launcher used on the BMP-3.

While it is not possible from available information to confirm the exact type of BMD employed by the PLA Airborne forces, it logical to speculate that the PLA will be buying more of the most recent BMD-3M version if, as recent reports indicate, the PLA is in the process of forming another Airborne army to build up for possible conflict over Taiwan.[22] In the BMD the PLA Airborne forces received a significant increase in combat capability by providing them with a respectable light-weight infantry fighting vehicle. But even more than that, should the BMD-3M version be acquired then PLA Airborne forces will immediately have a tank gun that can out-range Taiwans tanks and handily penetrate their armor. The ability of the ARKAN missile to shoot down helicopters only further complicates Taiwans defensive response.

No money for FTRs? or V-22s that can't be made to fly right?

NEW! Upgrade your existing helicopters instead to compound configuration to attain 200+ mph speeds and 2,000 miles ranges with proven and safe technology:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu2CwHwxJYA

Piasecki VTDP "Ring-Tail"

Piasecki "Ring-Tails" and wings can be added to Army UH-60s; making them "SpeedHawks", AH-64 "SpeedApaches" and CH-47G "SpeedChinooks" capable of diving attacks on enemy positions. Special pods can even make SpeedApaches into SF team insertion/extraction platforms...

NEW! AvPro's X-Wing

eXtreme STOL aircraft: time for the Burnelli

1. Airfoil-shaped Burnelli fuselage eliminates parasite drag of tubular conventional designs while providing more lift. It permits slower take-offs, landing speeds and surrounds passengers with 60% of aircraft structure offering unparalleled crashworthiness.

2. Baggage holds easily accessible for speedy laoding/unloading.

3. Large storage racks for carry on luggage.

4. Central galley facilitates ease of service and secure equipment storage.

5. Greater floor area and cubic volume permit wider, more comfortable seats and wider aisles.

6. Rear facing seats attached to main structure offer best crash protection.

7. Twin doors, both sides, permit fast embarkation/debarkation and emergency evacuation. Close proximity to ground eliminates need for expensive hi-loading, maintenance equipment and emergency slides, etc.

8. Wide screen for films and in-flight video of in-flight scenery.

9. Quadricycle landing gear provides Rolls-Royce like ground handling.

10. Fuel tanks in wings are isolated from engines and landing gear virtually eliminating crash fire hazzards inherent in conventional airlines.

11. In emergency water landing, wings could be jettisoned, the fuselage becomes a boat.

12. Quick detachable engine nacelle. The GB-178 dorsal mounted engines cause jet noise to be deflected skyward, improving environmental operating conditions.

However, right now AirBUS with their 600-passenger deathtrap A380 is killing the American commercial airline industry (re: Boeing). Boeing led by wimps have given up on faster airliners like the Sonic Cruiser in favor of yet another "fuel miserly" and unsafe tube and wing airliner. We are going to lose our shirt to AirBUS who at least have a VISION of passenger comfort (until they crash & burn). Boeing isn't offering a vision. Let us offer one then. ITS AIRLINE SAFETY, STUPID.

After the 9/11 terror attacks that used airliners as suicide planes, Americans today have an all-time low trust in air travel---and rightly so---its not just terrorist acts, either---its the needless and insufferable aircraft crashes, caused by unimaginative aircraft designs best depicted in the film, "Fearless" and smug, cavalier attitudes by the air travel and aircraft manufacturer industry. Why doesn't America transfer unsafe, unused jet airliners to DoD to solve U.S. military airlift and strategic mobility problems???

...and fly her citizens in crash-worthy, extremely Short Take-Off and Landing (ESTOL) Burnelli jet airliners with tracked landing gear? Legendary X-1 pilot and Burnelli design advocate Chalmers Goodlin was recently on CNN's Lou Dobb's Moneyline TV program detailing the need for crash-worthy aircraft.

The U.S. Congress should take action just like when railroads refused to put air brakes on trains and fund a crash-worthy Burnelli ESTOL airliner as the solution to America's air travel problems, and mandate airline companies fly them. If America wants to have an aircraft industry it needs to step up to the plate and face aviation's basic safety problems and overcome them not live in Egypt (De-Nial). Burnelli is the answer.

Imagine if a Burnelli-type Extremely Short take-Off and Landing aircraft had air cushion landing gear?

Bell perfected Air Cushion Landing Systems (ACLSs) with a DCH-8 Buffalo STOL aircraft in the 1960s...

The aircraft/hovercraft Burnelli concept is courtesy of Mr. Ernest Zavala who is writing a book on the history of Burnelli aircraft.

Burnelli air cushion landing gear ESTOL aircraft would become a defacto seaplane, able to land in oceans, rivers and lakes...and would be able to land almost anywhere on land without actually needing hard surfaces for wheels to roll on....the Russians have already put into production such a combination airplane/hovercraft even though it was Bell Aircraft in the 1960s/70s that first conceived of flying prototyle aircraft with this revolutionary landing/take-off system.....who needs costly, unsafe V/STOL hybrids if you can land almost anywhere in an extremely short distance irrespective of the terrain type?

Imagine setting up our troops anywhere around the world in less than 12 hours after leaving their U.S. home base and deploying them to surround the enemy in all terrain? Ride on a cushion of air and set them down without having to "daisy" bomb an area for landing an aircraft. Talk about them not knowing where we will strike!

NEW!

Boeing Phantom works adopts our Wing-In-Ground (WIG) effect concept with its new "Pelican" ultra heavy airlifter!

WIG: beating the tyranny of time and distance

Can Carter Copter save the doomed V-22 program?

Carter Copter CC-22

Putting the "Strike" back in U.S. Army/AF Air-Mech-Strike Forces:

Charles Myers' Vintage Maneuver Air Support Concept

CLOSE air support to enable decisive ground maneuver.....

EXCLUSIVE SIGHTINGS!!! Photos of Santa Clause Air-Meching from C-130 via parachute to prepare for upcoming "Christmas Storm" operation!

Who is this Paratrooper in a baggy suit?

Does his sleigh really have 4 turboprop engines?

Instead of a red nose is "Rudolph" a black-nosed MC-130 Combat Talon II with terrain-following radar?

????????????

FEEDBACK?

E-MAIL US! : itsg@hotmail.com

An Army officer writes about how a band-tracked M113 Mini-Gavin with autocannon would do organic to light infantry units...it'd be an American version of the Wiesel...

"At the JRTC, I distinctly remember the Wiesels killing everything in their path. It went nearly everywhere the dismounts did. They were shuttled all around the battlefield in CH-47s. When one broke down, it was hauled off in a HEMTT wrecker. Easy to transport, easy to maintain, killed everything with its 20mm cannon.

Interesting though, the Bundeswehr special operations forces uses the Wiesel 2 as a networked, decentralized, command and control platform. It is even equipped with a hybrid-electric drive. Looks like they already have proven technologies that Stryker is still trying to prove."

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107 Prev | Next

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.