New armoured vehicle concept: lessons from Ukraine

[hcrof]

Following the long discussions on tanks and modern warfare in the Ukraine thread, I have proposed a new vehicle concept as per these images. The idea borrows a lot from @The_Capt and others on that thread so thanks for the discussion. 

All of this can be done with todays technology. Some development would be required for some of the "harder" aspects such as shooting down ATGMs with a chain gun (it is similar to CWIS), but that is not central to the concept. 

The really radical part is the Hunter concept, but it is actually quite simple. Reduce the size/signature/expense of a vehicle by putting most of the crew in another vehicle, while optionally having one crew to pull it out of the mud/take over during heavy EW etc. This means the Hunter can be pushed aggressively towards the enemy to push back their ISR bubble and screen your own force. If you lose a few Hunters it is not a big deal since they are relatively cheap and you can use them uncrewed in more dangerous situations. 

The other emphasis is lots of drones (like 4 in the air per platoon, plus replacements) with operators in vehicles using big screens and reliable comms rather than squinting at a phone in a field. These drone operators can have a birds-eye view on one screen while commanding the Hunter on another for maximum situational awareness. I anticipate a lot of help from AI visual recognition to spot enemy signatures too. 

Given you now have borg-spotting and your enemy doesn't, the lack of heavy armour doesn't matter so much. I still see a use for modern MBTs as hyper-specialised breakthrough vehicles, but the Killer fills all the other roles of the tank on a much lower logistical/visual footprint. 

Let me know what you think!

[Der Zeitgeist]

Interesting concept. I would argue though that the "Hunter" vehicle seems overengineered and you'd get more bang for the buck by mostly substituting it with  lots and lots of Toyotas and quad bikes carrying portable missiles, small loitering munitions and micro UAVs.

[hcrof]

22 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Interesting concept. I would argue though that the "Hunter" vehicle seems overengineered and you'd get more bang for the buck by mostly substituting it with  lots and lots of Toyotas and quad bikes carrying portable missiles, small loitering munitions and micro UAVs.

You could do both as a high/low mix? Your suggestion helps with screening but I would anticipate a peer enemy would bring a LOT of drones to the fight and a technical is not great at keeping them away from you. A truck is an unstable firing platform for AA guns and firing even cheap missiles at quadcopters not an economic first choice to defeat them. 

I actually expect you would need some sort of truck with a MANPADS on it to support the system above because more advanced drones can stay out of range of the 20mm cannon but layered air defence starts to move into another topic!

[Bulletpoint]

Interesting concept, but some questions:

Is it technically feasible to make a vehicle proof against 30mm cannon and have it run on battery power? I'm in general a big fan of electric vehicles, but I'm not sure battery power is enough here.

Why can each support vehicle only support two hunter vehicles? Does this assume that each hunter has to be manually controlled by a human operator? Or could they mostly run on AI?

45 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Given you now have borg-spotting and your enemy doesn't, the lack of heavy armour doesn't matter so much.

What do you do when the enemy also employs this kind of system? It seems to be designed to fight armies that are one or two steps down on the tech ladder, and that's probably not an assumption that's safe to make...

 

And an idea to maybe add to your concept:

How about killer drones? I've always thought it would be more effective that instead of having duct-taped drones drop a couple of imprecise hand grenades, a military grade "assassin drone" could be equipped with a lightweight rifle controlled by a computer.

The drone could then pick off enemy troops from above. If you hit someone accurately from relatively short distance, you wouldn't need a big heavy rifle barrel. And the drone and the rifle might be sound dampened in a way that current drones are not, allowing them to get closer to the enemies. It's a very disgusting concept, I think, but it might be very effective.

(I realise that in your concept, the hunter vehicles would be there to screen against such drones too)

[hcrof]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is it technically feasible to make a vehicle proof against 30mm cannon and have it run on battery power? I'm in general a big fan of electric vehicles, but I'm not sure battery power is enough here.

Honestly I don't know. In the art I left room for a lot of batteries (1/3 of the total volume!) but maybe a hybrid system would be better. I see this being quite heavy for its size due to the batteries (a Tesla semi truck uses 5000kg of batteries apparently) 

Quote

Why can each support vehicle only support two hunter vehicles? Does this assume that each hunter has to be manually controlled by a human operator? Or could they mostly run on AI?

I am trying to keep the sci-fi aspect to a minimum so I see it 95% controlled by humans at first, although obviously that can change in the future. The support vehicle can tow and carry supplies for 2 Hunters so I thought it was a decent number. If you increased the numbers of Hunters per support vehicle I guess that burden would fall somewhere else on the logistics system, but of course you have fewer vehicles in the combat zone. I guess someone would have to test out what the perfect ratio is!

Quote

What do you do when the enemy also employs this kind of system? It seems to be designed to fight armies that are one or two steps down on the tech ladder, and that's probably not an assumption that's safe to make...

Its a fair point - I actually posted it here for people to find the counter to this so I can improve it!

Quote

How about killer drones? I've always thought it would be more effective that instead of having duct-taped drones drop a couple of imprecise hand grenades, a military grade "assassin drone" could be equipped with a lightweight rifle controlled by a computer.

Agreed; I think these could be nastily effective if they can defeat those anti-drone rifles reliably (and my guess is yes they can). You could supplement them with tiny drones the size of your hand that fire a single bullet at very close range (say 10m). Deploy them like cluster munitions and clear trenches/woodlines in seconds. 

[chrisl]

6 hours ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Interesting concept. I would argue though that the "Hunter" vehicle seems overengineered and you'd get more bang for the buck by mostly substituting it with  lots and lots of Toyotas and quad bikes carrying portable missiles, small loitering munitions and micro UAVs.

I was going to say the HSV should support more than one Hunter, but I like this.  And I'd expand it to having HSV-H, HSV-T, HSV-Q to have a bunch of slightly different configurations of HSVs that would be mostly identical but have different kit for the mechanical/fuel/repair support of the different categories of hunter-type vehicle (Hunter, Technica, Quad).

And there should be a swarm of tiny drones that take out enemy drones by crashing into them with a small explosive charge, and maybe have long strings dangling to foul propellers.

[chrisl]

5 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

How about killer drones? I've always thought it would be more effective that instead of having duct-taped drones drop a couple of imprecise hand grenades, a military grade "assassin drone" could be equipped with a lightweight rifle controlled by a computer.

The drone could then pick off enemy troops from above. If you hit someone accurately from relatively short distance, you wouldn't need a big heavy rifle barrel. And the drone and the rifle might be sound dampened in a way that current drones are not, allowing them to get closer to the enemies. It's a very disgusting concept, I think, but it might be very effective.

Anything fired from a lightweight drone (and probably even fairly heavy drones) is going to need to be recoilless unless you want the drone spinning around like a cartoon creature.

[Battlefront.com]

I put this in the "How Hot" thread, but it seems appropriate for this one as well.

Great video from Ukraine's Border Guards showing coordination between a UAV team, command center, and artillery unit. You can see the guys in the command center are able to take the time to strategize what to do and how to do it.  This is much harder to do with a single junior officer or NCO peering over the shoulder of a drone operator and making calls that way.  Mind you, there is a lot of need for that sort of thing, but there are benefits to having a more comprehensive view of the battlefield being used to direct fire.

 

[hcrof]

Very slick, almost like a training exercise. 

I think having people together to discuss is useful if you have time. You could also speed up decision making by including bluforce tracking and/or some other battlefield management system to display additional context. Not just positions of units but maybe also artillery vectors and CEP with various types of ammunition 

I know that the US is working on image recognition for this kind of thing too - the outline of a vehicle, fresh vehicle tracks, smoke etc. That would speed up identification a lot and allow one operator to control multiple drones. 

[hcrof]

Continuing my thoughts on armoured vehicles, based on lessons from Ukraine, I give you the modern M113!

The core aims with this vehicle is to have a relatively cheap vehicle with maximum flexibility and minimum maintenance. Commercial car manufacturers can manufacture the base at very low cost, and many different manufacturers can create mission modules, which can be adapted quickly to actual battlefield needs. 

They are small and tracked to give great mobility similar to the very successful CVR(T) series. This also makes them easy to conceal in urban and forested terrain, especially since they have electric drive which is quiet and doesn't give off large amounts of heat. 

Finally, they aim to minimise the number of crew members so that anyone in harms way is more likely to be a trigger puller as opposed to a driver. no doubt they will require maintainers (despite being electric and very simple) but the maintainers can be safely away from the front lines. 

I see them being everything from a cargo train hauling artillery ammo to filling every role in the "Hunter/Observer/Killer" concept above. Basically everything short of heavy engineering and self-propelled guns. 

Constructive criticism welcome! 

[hcrof]

30 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Continuing my thoughts on armoured vehicles, based on lessons from Ukraine, I give you the modern M113!

The core aims with this vehicle is to have a relatively cheap vehicle with maximum flexibility and minimum maintenance. Commercial car manufacturers can manufacture the base at very low cost, and many different manufacturers can create mission modules, which can be adapted quickly to actual battlefield needs. 

They are small and tracked to give great mobility similar to the very successful CVR(T) series. This also makes them easy to conceal in urban and forested terrain, especially since they have electric drive which is quiet and doesn't give off large amounts of heat. 

Finally, they aim to minimise the number of crew members so that anyone in harms way is more likely to be a trigger puller as opposed to a driver. no doubt they will require maintainers (despite being electric and very simple) but the maintainers can be safely away from the front lines. 

I see them being everything from a cargo train hauling artillery ammo to filling every role in the "Hunter/Observer/Killer" concept above. Basically everything short of heavy engineering and self-propelled guns. 

Constructive criticism welcome! 

Having a split vehicle also allows for interesting possibilities such as the command section support the dismounted infantry while the APC section prepares for casualty evacuation. Or the command section being separated from the mortar/AA section so counter battery fire is less of a risk to the crew.

At the same time, not having to drive the whole vehicle everywhere also reduces fuel consumption beyond the advantages of the hybrid electric drive. 

[dan/california]

I really think a cheaper version of the Stryker is superior to a new tracked system. Just the reduced maintenance, and increased operational mobility are worth any possible minuses that come with wheels. The fundamental theory of this vehicle is that it should never be exposed to direct fire. It should be protected against 7.62mm rifle rounds, and weaker shell splinters. Everything else is the job ob of point defense/APS or prayer. Everything needs to be optimized for maximum cargo capacity, and maximum available electric power.

I really think a true hybrid drive train is the way to go. So a diesel generator that charges the batteries that power the electric motors that turn the wheels. This gives the maximum possible availabe electric power to charge batteries for everything else the squad is carrying, and the power to run radars, jammers, lasers, and who knows what else.

Now, and let me give a nod to your two vehicle concept. at least half of the job of the affordable Stryker concept is to carry, deliver, support, charge and so on something like the UGV above, or maybe ~3 smaller versions. I think these are a little to big and expensive for the amount of attrition they will experience. And since the larger manned vehicle has been optimized for battery charging the smaller units are pure electric, with all the low signature benefits that come from running on battery only.

 

[kimbosbread]

I too am on team wank. Wheels all the way.

I agree with everything above. Protect against 7.62x54R and 7.62x51, mines and fragments. Everything else it’s between you and god. Electric or hybrid-electric drivetrain, fantastic. Using the larger manned vehicle as the charging station, superb.

In terms of the unmanned vehicles, I think a Tesla-style skateboard chassis that can mount a variety of bolt on platforms, from an AGL to a 25mm cannon to a 120mm mortar w/ some stabilizing legs that pop out. I would favor lighter weight and wheels over more armor and tracks. In the near-future with aritifical muscles legs will become an option, but are obviously less efficient than wheels over all but the nastiest terrain.

So here’s the question: How does all this deal with the apex predator of the near future, the autonomous drone swarm? Even the ****ty version of that is 10+ FPV drones being flown at you, followed soon after by artillery. I don’t have a good answer for this beyond being as stealthy as possible.

Another thing to consider in terms of weapons is the NLOS nature of drone warfare. Are you better off having your platform be focused on being a mobile UAV carrier, and then the drones function as your sensor net and drone defense, all autonomous or only sending signals from 5-10km away so the “carrier” isn’t located, and then use smaller UGVs as pickets?

[dan/california]

27 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

I too am on team wank. Wheels all the way.

I agree with everything above. Protect against 7.62x54R and 7.62x51, mines and fragments. Everything else it’s between you and god. Electric or hybrid-electric drivetrain, fantastic. Using the larger manned vehicle as the charging station, superb.

In terms of the unmanned vehicles, I think a Tesla-style skateboard chassis that can mount a variety of bolt on platforms, from an AGL to a 25mm cannon to a 120mm mortar w/ some stabilizing legs that pop out. I would favor lighter weight and wheels over more armor and tracks. In the near-future with aritifical muscles legs will become an option, but are obviously less efficient than wheels over all but the nastiest terrain.

So here’s the question: How does all this deal with the apex predator of the near future, the autonomous drone swarm? Even the ****ty version of that is 10+ FPV drones being flown at you, followed soon after by artillery. I don’t have a good answer for this beyond being as stealthy as possible.

Another thing to consider in terms of weapons is the NLOS nature of drone warfare. Are you better off having your platform be focused on being a mobile UAV carrier, and then the drones function as your sensor net and drone defense, all autonomous or only sending signals from 5-10km away so the “carrier” isn’t located, and then use smaller UGVs as pickets?

All good comments, all good questions, we just don't know what the future looks like until Lockheed says they have a real anti drone solution. Then everybody goes out to the desert for a SERIOUS test. If they have something that really can stop a drone swarm, a hundred drone, autonomous, murder bot SWARM, then the future of virtually the entirety of ground warfare goes one way. If they fail the test miserably there just isn't going to be anything but drones dueling it out with drones for ten kilometers back from the notional front line. And at the moment flying drones are not very good at finding each other, so that is just going to be a little nuts.

From where I sit, every single piece of the autonomous murder bot swarm is just sitting there waiting to be integrated. The Israelis probably have something ready to show off at any time. Indeed we might see it deployed by at least one side in Ukraine next year. Stopping it is a whole different story

[hcrof]

I also used to be team wheels, but Composite Rubber Tracks, combined with electric drive has shifted my thinking somewhat:

https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/__crt

Low maintenance, weight savings, fuel savings, less bulky than wheels, with not much mechanical complexity. No you cant do a 1000km road march, but the vehicle above can be loaded onto a commercial truck for that. By comparison, something like a Patria AMV is already a low-cost Stryker but the concept does not seem to have caught on (maybe due to decades of low-intensity wars). 

Agreed that these vehicles need to stay away from the shooting, so could potentially save some weight with armour. The problem is that if you go back to small wars then you need to option to load it up with huge quantities of add-on armour to prevent casualties in ambushes. 

How to deal with the drone swarm? I think it is your own drone swarm. Layers of UAVs, then UGVs mixed with light infantry, then larger vehicles like the Hunter concept. Humans in bigger vehicles act as communication nodes, control stations and electric generators further back. They will still be vulnerable but if they are 5-10km behind your drone pickets and heavily dispersed then the murderbot SWARM will spend a lot of time flying around and not a lot of time killing. They can then be identified and attrited hopefully before they hit the support layer. 

I actually see the murderbot swarm as the new tank. They are fast, resilient and have good "firepower" and can be sent on a mission to clean out an area before you push up the heavier assets such as support elements (the utility vehicle above) and artillery.

Edit: oh and I think that armour against 14.5mm at 500m is needed (frontal protection). I cant remember how many times I have used BTRs in ambushes against BMPs in CMSF and a 20mm cannon can also really ruin your day at quite long range if you don't have the protection against it. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by hcrof
14.5mm protection

[dan/california]

7 hours ago, hcrof said:

I also used to be team wheels, but Composite Rubber Tracks, combined with electric drive has shifted my thinking somewhat:

https://www.tanknology.co.uk/post/__crt

Low maintenance, weight savings, fuel savings, less bulky than wheels, with not much mechanical complexity. No you cant do a 1000km road march, but the vehicle above can be loaded onto a commercial truck for that. By comparison, something like a Patria AMV is already a low-cost Stryker but the concept does not seem to have caught on (maybe due to decades of low-intensity wars). 

Agreed that these vehicles need to stay away from the shooting, so could potentially save some weight with armour. The problem is that if you go back to small wars then you need to option to load it up with huge quantities of add-on armour to prevent casualties in ambushes. 

How to deal with the drone swarm? I think it is your own drone swarm. Layers of UAVs, then UGVs mixed with light infantry, then larger vehicles like the Hunter concept. Humans in bigger vehicles act as communication nodes, control stations and electric generators further back. They will still be vulnerable but if they are 5-10km behind your drone pickets and heavily dispersed then the murderbot SWARM will spend a lot of time flying around and not a lot of time killing. They can then be identified and attrited hopefully before they hit the support layer. 

I actually see the murderbot swarm as the new tank. They are fast, resilient and have good "firepower" and can be sent on a mission to clean out an area before you push up the heavier assets such as support elements (the utility vehicle above) and artillery.

Edit: oh and I think that armour against 14.5mm at 500m is needed (frontal protection). I cant remember how many times I have used BTRs in ambushes against BMPs in CMSF and a 20mm cannon can also really ruin your day at quite long range if you don't have the protection against it. 

I think both the counter insurgency issue and the tracks vs wheels debate depends quite a lot on the specific needs of the country in question. Ukraine and Poland are rather big places that might really want to move a whole division or more several hundred miles and put them straight into the fight. I think wheels win for that hands down. Steve eloquently detailed many years ago how Israel is the exact opposite. Pretty much the largest possible operational move is less than a hundred miles, and everything in the force might as well have tracks and the ability to withstand heavy ATGMs. Finland might be a different special case simply because of how much of the place is a boggy forest. Taiwan is different yet again because they probably have to PLAN on losing control of the air, at least for significant stretches of time. They probably need virtually everything to be so ultralight as to be disposable.

Armoring the front against 14.5mm probably makes sense, but still think you need to be ruthless in keeping the armor weight down. Anything lighter that a Leopard 2 or a CV90 is vulnerable to most of the weapons on a high intensity battlefield, everything else needs to focus on hiding. The concept I am pushing, and I think you are sort of agreeing with, is a vehicle that can move drones and infantry to the edge of the fight and hide, while providing enough support to keep those drones and infantry in the fight.

Counter insurgency where the local population is truly unfriendly probably just takes a whole different vehicle. How to counter drones in a counterinsurgency situation is its own special nightmare. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by dan/california