• Save
Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels

on

  • 656 views

combatreform.org/WHEELSVSTRACKS

combatreform.org/WHEELSVSTRACKS

Statistics

Views

Total Views
656
Views on SlideShare
655
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://www.combatreform.org 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels Don Loughlin's Tracks vs Wheels Presentation Transcript

  • U.S. Army Chief of Staff,General Eric Shinseki inOctober 99 stated the Army’sURGENT, IMMEDIATE need forInterim Brigade Combat Teams(IBCTs) globally deployed byUSAF aircraft using:1. USAF C-130 transportablevehicles2. “Medium-weight” as per SSIAeromotorization report; 4-6per USAF C-173. Vehicles available NOW4. Army assumes it must buynew vehicles to meet theserequirements
  • “STRIKE 1!” No refuelling facilities here: C-130s must carry adequate fuel to return to base However, the LAV-III 8x8 wheeled armored car selected just before November Presidential election results is NOT C-130 tactically air-transportable* 32,000 pounds C-130 payload limit for forward landing strips- 37, 796 pounds combat loaded LAV-III_________________________________(+) LAV-III 5, 796 pounds too heavy for C-130s*U.S. Army/DOD LAV-III specifications: www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2000/001117-D-0000C-001.jpgU.S. Army TRANSCOM C-130 air transport specifications :www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm#C130
  • Its Still Fuzzy Math I Tell Ya!“STRIKE 2!” Even a M113-type tracked AFV with turret is a tight fit in a C-130!LAV-III’s 78.7392”+ height with 39” 105mm Low-Profile turret is 117”+ andthus too tall* to fit inside the C-130’s 102” high limit; (+) C4I, AT, FSvariant attachments heights must be added, too78.7392”+ high LAV-III chassis is larger than LAV-I39” LPT 105mm gun____________________________________ M113A4 LAV-III117.7392”+ LAV-III MGS102” C-130 roof limit LAV-III w/105mm_________________ LPT15.7392”+ too highLAV-III MGSs are too high to roll-on/off from C-130s; vehicle will need extensive and costly ($55million allocated so far) redesign to somehow fit under C-130 roofs *ASCOD w/105mm LPT: www.army-technology.com/projects/ascod/specs.html
  • “STRIKE 2” continued!LAV-III’s 78”+ height, makes it incapable of parachute airdropfrom C-130s due to tip-off curb requirements to not strike tailwhen rolling off rear ramp; more compact tracked vehiclesmeet this requirement as shown above; M551Sheridan retiredin ‘97 and not replaced as promised!- LAV-25s in Army service borrowed from USMC (1989-91)had to have all 8 tires deflated to be C-130 airdropped- 78”+ LAV-III chassis larger than LAV-I based LAV-25s________________________________LAV-IIIs are too high to parachute airdrop from C-130s in roll-off condition;vehicle type will not meet 82d Airborne Division’s requirements for a parachute-deliverable armored fighting vehicle to replace combat-proven M551 Sheridan
  • “STRIKE 2” continued!LAV-III’s combat loaded weight, 37, 796 pounds and 273 inchlength, limits only 3 being carried per C-17, not the 4-6 of a“Medium” weight vehicle3 x LAV-IIIs per C-172-3 Bradley Fighting Vehicles per C-17________________________________0 net gain in air transportabilityimprovement for U.S. Armyglobal responsibilities LAV-III is a LARGE, HEAVY vehicle requiring similar airliftdemands as existing BFVs; U.S. Army is still difficult to air-deploy!
  • “STRIKE 3!” First LAV-III not to be delivered until half-way through 2002; LAV-IIIs are NOT available NOW, “off-the- shelf”, MGS variant cannot fit under C-130 roof unless major redesign work/funds expended04/2002 First LAV-III delivered04/2003 First Brigade fully-equipped04/2004 First Brigade operationally ready_______________________________U.S. ARMY URGENT REQUIREMENTS FOR TODAY NOT MET! NO CAPABILITY FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS!Production rate just 0.85 LAV-IIIs per day www.southam.com/windsorstar/wheels/000905/722279.html DESPITE $4 BILLION DOLLAR PRICE, U.S. ARMY NOT TRANSFORMED!
  • “STRIKE 1”: LAV-IIIs are NOTUSAF C-130 transportablevehicles“STRIKE 2”: LAV-IIIs are NOT“Medium-weight” as per SSIAeromotorization report; 4-6per USAF C-17“STRIKE 3”: LAV-IIIs are NOTavailable NOW“LAV-III is OUT!”QUESTION?Must the U.S. Army spend $4BILLION FOR NEW vehicles tomeet these requirements?????
  • The 21st Century Environment• Urbanization • Increased Access to• Ethnic & Religious Technology Conflict • Increased U.S. Reliance on• Asymmetric Conflict Force Projection• Simultaneous SASO • Reduced Warning Time Operations • Joint, Combined, Multi-• Weapons Agency Operations Proliferation/WMD • Force Protection an Imperative U.S. Army Forces Must Be… U.S. Army Forces Must Be… Responsive --Deployable --Mobile --Versatile --Combat Responsive Deployable Mobile Versatile Combat Effective Effective
  • “THIRD BASE”! M113A3/4s are available NOW forunits to be made combat-ready as U.S. ArmyEuropean Command has done with its ImmediateReady Force (IRF); BILLIONS SAVED can be used toupgrade M113A3/4-M8 AGS type vehicles to exceedIBCT requirements Remote weapon station and Rubber, single-piece “Band- squad Tracks” for low-vibration, leader low-noise, no maintenance, displays no HETs, light-on-third- world-roads, high road speeds Applique armors to defeat Rocket Propelled Grenades (RPGs), autocannon fire without cross-country mobility loss, gunshields
  • “BASES LOADED”! M113A3/4s can be heli- transported by CH-47Ds101st Airborne (Air Assault) Division Maximizing tracked vehicle weight/volume efficiency, Army CH-47D/F Chinook helicopters can air-transport M113A3/4s over mines, obstacles, avoiding road ambushes as the British Army did with its Scimitar light tanks to be the first NATO force into Kosovo in 1999. British Army Air-Mech into Kosovo FACILITATES 3D TACTICAL BATTLE MANEUVERS!
  • “SLUGGER AT BAT”: M113A3 /4 Infantry situational awareness, security and firepower by ability to fight mounted or dismounted if the situation dictates...M8 AGS can shoot-on-the-move (LAV-III MGSmust stop to fire) to kill enemy tanks as well as blast buildings, bunkers, dug-in positions
  • “HE IS A CLUTCH HITTER”: M113A3/4 M8 AGS Tracked Mobility to advance in the face of enemy fire Tracks overcome fire and obstacles... LAV-III’s Rubber-tired Wheels vulnerable!“Run-flats” at 5mph for 5miles no life insurance incombat
  • “HE HAS BEAT THE ODDS”: TRACKED VEHICLES ARE FARTracks pull MORE 2D CROSS-COUNTRYwheels out MOBILE THAN WHEELEDfrom the ARMORED CARS TO AVOIDmud…save ROAD-SIDE AMBUSHES, MINES,them from roadambush... OBSTACLES! Tracks swim, fight, move by land, sea or air!
  • “WHEN THE GAME IS ON THE LINE”: TRACKED VEHICLES ARE ACTUALLYLIGHTER AND 28% MORE WEIGHT/VOLUME EFFICIENT FOR AIR-TRANSPORT THAN WHEELED ARMORED CARS! (Official U.S. Army Fort Knox power point slide)
  • Conclusions• An Initial tracked Air-Mech-Strike IBCT composed of M113A3/4s, M8 AGSs and Wiesels have superior air-deployability characteristics to an all-LAV-III armored car IBCT. AMS IBCTs are significantly more deployable than AOE or Force XXI Divisional Brigades using all-heavy, 33- 70-ton M1/M2s.• The Tracked BCT provides more combat power per aircraft sortie due to greater vehicle cube efficiency than LAV-IIIs• Tracked Vehicles Have Greater Tactical Mobility and Agility; Wheeled LAV-IIIs have slightly higher range and highway speed if metal/rubber tracks governed, not if band-tracked• M113A3/4 Infantry dismount capability exceeds wheeled LAV-III armored cars• The M8 AGS is “Own the Night”, shoot-on-the-move, capable light tank with a significant advantage in ready rack ammunition over wheeled LAV-III MGS with LPTs• The M113A3/4, M8 AGS Modular Armor System provides greater crew protection than wheeled LAV-III bolt on armor w/o mobility loss• Production Costs of the M113A3/4, M8 AGS, Wiesel are less than wheeled LAV-IIIs...• O&S Cost comparisons between M113A3/4s M8 AGSs, Wiesels and wheeled LAV-IIIs show band-tracked vehicles are cheaper to operate
  • “THE TYING AND WINNING RUNS ARE ON BASE”: Tactics, Techniques and Procedures already in place to support M113A3/4 and M8 Armored Gun System (AGS) operations FM 17-18 8 March 1994 FM 7-7 March 1985www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi- www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/7-bin/atdl.dll/fm/17-18/f1718.htm 7/toc.htmRead them online at the U.S. Army Library web site!
  • Conclusions• An Initial tracked Air-Mech-Strike IBCT composed of M113A3/4s, M8 AGSs and Wiesels have superior air-deployability characteristics to an all-LAV-III armored car IBCT. AMS IBCTs are significantly more deployable than AOE or Force XXI Divisional Brigades using all-heavy, 33- 70-ton M1/M2s.• The Tracked BCT provides more combat power per aircraft sortie due to greater vehicle cube efficiency than LAV-IIIs• Tracked Vehicles Have Greater Tactical Mobility and Agility; Wheeled LAV-IIIs have slightly higher range and highway speed if metal/rubber tracks governed, not if band-tracked• M113A3/4 Infantry dismount capability exceeds wheeled LAV-III armored cars• The M8 AGS is “Own the Night”, shoot-on-the-move, capable light tank with a significant advantage in ready rack ammunition over wheeled LAV-III MGS with LPTs• The M113A3/4, M8 AGS Modular Armor System provides greater crew protection than wheeled LAV-III bolt on armor w/o mobility loss• Production Costs of the M113A3/4, M8 AGS, Wiesel are less than wheeled LAV-IIIs...• O&S Cost comparisons between M113A3/4s M8 AGSs, Wiesels and wheeled LAV-IIIs show band-tracked vehicles are cheaper to operate