It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What vehicle is this?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   


and could sombody please give out the specs and articles related to this vehicle. i would appreciate it. i saw it in Janes Defense Magazine and they were testing out hydraulics on the this vehicle and it was mostly about the new hydraulic system instead of about the vehicle.




posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Looks like it could be one of a number of new low profile prototypes being tested with an external cannon, which isn't fitted in your picture.
Do you know the country of origin ? for some reason I'm thinking Russian.


M6D

posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
hmm, looks like a light tank chassis, the whole way the engine block appears to come up at the back really.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 11:30 AM
link   
yup i thought it looked like just a chassis...maybe they just testing a chassis and its got multiple equipment/guns that can be added later



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   
It looks very much like an updated version of the old Soviet/Warsaw Pact MTLB, produced by BETA/JSCo.

The MTLB was primarily designed as an ammunition transporter, but the website [www.beta.bg] shows a very much updated version, capable of transporting infantry and equipment.

I hope that helps you a little.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I think this is one of the light units that will be in the FCS system, it's like a unmanded ground tank that will support troops on the ground i guess and some other stuff.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
We called it the "Batmobile". FMC was developing it here in California at Camp Roberts. That chassis is a hydraulic systems testbed. There are two other chassis' that were an engine testbed, and turret testbed.

The hull is mostly polymers and classified armors. Right behind that visible driver's hatch, you can just make out the tub for the turret. Right now it has a seperate vision block for the engineer, but a self-loading 105mm very low profile turret will slide right in.

We called it the Batmobile, for when the did road tests, there was a large roll-bar over the turret area, and it just looked funny as it tore down the tank trails. BTW, this thingy can move. We clocked it at over 60mph on the tank trail, and nearly that off road. It uses a much modified engine from a M113A3, and the suspension from the M2A2.

The program was ended in 1998, when FMC stopped all testing here.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 06:30 PM
link   
BAE Systems Land Systems Hagglunds has developed the SEP (Spitterskyddad Enhets Platform) Modular Armoured Tactical System which incorporates an electric transmission system and a family of demountable interchangeable mission modules.

The electric transmission system (the drive shafts have been replaced by cable and the power from the engines is transferred by cable) gives a number of advantages, including volume efficiency, fuel efficiency, reduced life cycle costs, reduced environmental impact and increased stealth characteristics. The engine is decoupled from the final drives allowing flexibility in the placing of systems in the vehicle and also easily allows two engines to be installed instead of one. Batteries are integrated into the electric drive system, which allow the vehicle to be driven silently for several hours with the engines shut down.

The useable internal volume of 8.7m³ is a substantial increase over a conventionally powered vehicle of a similar length. The SEP combat weight is 13.5t and the load capacity is up to 6t. The top speeds for the wheeled and tracked variants are 100km/h and 85km/h respectively.

SEP PROGRAMME
Development work on the SEP began in 1996. The first SEP-track demonstrator was delivered to the Swedish Defence Materiel administration Forsvarets Materialverk (FMV) in November 2000 for trials and evaluation and by 2003 the vehicle had covered over 2,000km in various trials. FMV placed a contract on Hagglunds for the development of the wheeled version of SEP in November 2001 and a wheeled variant prototype demonstrator, SEP-wheel, was delivered to FMV in 2003. In 2003 FMV placed a risk reduction contract on Alvis Hagglunds (now BAE Systems, Land Systems Hagglunds) involving the construction of a second tracked SEP testbed vehicle.
source

Thats the vehicle that your talking about, and yes ulshadow its also being tested for the FCS vehicles.



posted on Sep, 8 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
It is the BAE (formerly United Defence) Future Combat System-Tracked prototype hybrid vehicle.

www.uniteddefense.com...
www.globalsecurity.org...

Basic FCS info:
www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:15 AM
link   
United Defense used to be FMC. I stand by my description.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   
this is a contradiction of terms, but thats a pretty sleek tank. reminds me of some of the stuff from the game wargasm. great game.



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 03:26 AM
link   
That sure looks like a prototype... Not USA tough...



posted on Sep, 9 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   
its the fcs its the Uk part of the program as they are doing the hull iirc

its us and uk vehicle prototype



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
That sure looks like a prototype... Not USA tough...


Actually... this prototype was designed and built BEFORE FMC/United Defense was bought out by BAE. So, yeah it is a USA design. It is in contention with Boeing for the FCS competition.




In January 2003, the U.S. Army and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) selected United Defense


United Defense / BAE link

BAE may be in Euope, but the United Defense / FMC subsidiary is still in the US.

BAE Systems, Inc.
1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1400
Arlington, VA 22209

BAE Systems
Armament Systems Division
4800 East River Road
Minneapolis, MN 55421-1498

BAE Systems
Ground Systems Division
PO Box 15512
York, PA 17405-1512


M6D

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Still, looks like a light tank chassis, you dont really see that many proper light tanks around now..not as much as you used to in terms of designs anyway.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
thanks for the infor guys. so these prototypes have better armor protection than the Bradley so its like between the Bradley and the Abrams in terms of armor protection.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Clicky

I think that answers all the questions.

Out,
Russian



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Russian, as provided by SpudmanWP:

Future Combat System Prototype Vehicle






seekerof



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Russian, as provided by SpudmanWP:

Future Combat System Prototype Vehicle






seekerof


Hehe copy the Swedeish.

Out,
Russian



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Not all that impressive really.

I mean, the physical performance is easy when you consider the power:weight of a the M113A4 engine and NO TURRET. Slap on something that makes it a weapon rather than a concept car and it's nothing more or less than the Stingray or CCVL, with the weight of the LI battery back taking back much of what you gain in terms of an autoloader.

I also don't like the wording inherent to 'C-130 Capable' and 'When Added To Other Advanced Armors'. Typically, this means under 20 tons ramp weight and add on ballistic protection packages added /after/ insert to the combat area.

The XM8 Buford was basically a 7.62 rated vehicle with 12.7mm frontals, just like an M113. You could add upgrade 'composite' packages which brought that up into the 14.5/30mm class and then slap reactives atop that which -supposedly- gave you 'full spectrum' defense against shaped weapons.

But nobody ever once pretended that even the most primitive (T-55/62) round was going to be much less than a through and through kill.

Yet BAe talks about 'winning the close fight' as if the vehicle is specifically designed to be an all-round armor protected envelope. And a few sentences on, admits sotto voce, that the design is inherently biased towards the NLOS-C and M _over horizon_ gun platforms.

Something smells funny.

Even as an 'ammo carrier' I have my doubts because AC works best as an automated SLIDE of prepalletized rounds off of one bed and into the back of the fires vehicle (think MLRS). And I just don't see an M548 here either.

Reality Check People:

If it's unmanned, you can pop the 'cockpit section' right out of the volumetric requirements of the _entire_ design. This effects everything from trackwidth ('side by side' on the wheeled at least is a pure waste of enclosed protection as well as an increase to frontal area vulnerabilities) to number of roadwheels to distribute system weight and running loads and depth/slope of frontal armor. Even the location of the powerpack.

All as a function of overall weight.

If this FCS-T _is_ manned then most of your ability to design a multimission platform goes right the hell out the window because you MUST design (powertrain, chassis, suspension) for the most weight intensive mission platform in your family of vehicles and typically that's going to be your pseudo-MBT-as-AGS.

There is not a 'polymer' on the planet that will stop a mile per second worth of 50MJ penetrator. Yet I would suspect that the armor displacement loads for a frontal slope four times the thickness of other vehicles would greatly alter the suspension design requirements.

And while there is something to be said for an AMX-13 type turret block as a function of /allowing/ more weight of armor directly in front of the blood bags, you must still ask and answer the question of how many kills you expect to get with a light tank /before/ it is hit 'the first and only time' required to kill it by a medium/heavy 'legacy vehicle' (we're talking a 105 upgun M48 as a threshold lethal threat here people).

At which point, it makes no sense to integrate a heavy cannon (big ring, big hydraulic stabilizer, massive autoloader) when you can get the same effect with a missile (LOSAT or CKEM) and indeed engage more /immediate/ targets (4-6), simultanerously, across a wider arc off the bow of the tank. And indeed, going with the LAM/PAM or SPIKE-ER (OTH) missiles makes even more sense.

At which point the question becomes, 'what class of secondary target needs more than the 35-45mm round of an improved Bushmaster? i.e. a really big machine gun. And the answer is damn few.

Even so, to keep the crew remotely survivable in a 'close' fight where even the /possibility/ of a shared-LOS encounter with a Tyrannosaur equivalent MBT must be acknowledged, IMO, requires putting them at the MID REAR of the tank with as many cross-frame (which should also help stiffen the chassis) baffles worth of gas and engine and battery pack spaces ahead of them as possible. At least the driver hatch/direct vision block breach in the frontal slope must GO. And be replaced by multiple synthetic equivalents.

All so that, while the first round will likely kill the tank. The hairless apes /may/ be able to dismount and run away.

Looking at the Stryker as a key casepoint example, careful volumetric design consideration is also a requirement for lowering the total crew count in that you _cannot_ jam the remaining commander-gunner and driver-loader roles into a (forward) crew area like sardines and expect them to make decent use of even more 'digital battlefield' technology with several masted/datalinked aperture suites providing 360` awareness and control over multiple remote firing post weapons with ranges of up to 5-6km to also look after while maintaining overall own-vehicle SA via the large AMLCD all around them.

This even before you consider things like gun boresight and automotives 'housekeeping' when the platoon or troop halts for the night.

Now throw in the need for a sufficiently relaxed posture as to reasonably endure a long operational maneuver period -while doing all these combined jobs-.

And It just _ain't gonna happen_ in a 20 ton class vehicle. Not crew-forward anyway.

2 man crew in cadillac style aft. BANG. Goes your ammo carrier, missile/UAV popup launcher or IFV/APC troop compartment space. Also (presumably) whatever compatibility you have with crew station technology and DVO/hatchery with these vehicles.

CONCLUSION:
BAe and Co. make it seem too simple. And it's not. Because the question of wheeled vs. tracked. Manned vs. 'later robotic' and plug'n'play addon systems basically can only be defined by the methods of employment you intend the whole system of systems to be used in. Something to find the enemy. Something to attrite/slow him early as a speedbump while you get your primary shooters up and online. And something to smack him hard before or after horizon-cross in a way that _minimizes the total number of exchanges_ of fire. Before a decisive engagement or withdrawal phase.

Fail to answer how you are going to use your 'Objective Force' and all the testbeds in the world aren't going to mean diddly for the way you integrate individual components onto a vehicle class whose design has _nothing to do_ with the prototypes. And for whose individual power, fuel, weapons, protection, crew integration must be done all over again with just as much chance of failure as if you had had no prototype to begin with.


KPl.




top topics



 
0

log in

join