Air-Mechanized Fighting Vehicle

[gardnerdesign]

My design is for an airborne expeditionary vehicle that will initially be capable of precision airdrop, with the future capability of being integrated with a variety of lift surfaces and airborne propulsion systems. This vehicle will integrate aerodynamic properties into its design, while still retaining the ability to be resistant to small arms fire and artillery fragmentation. The vehicle will be produced in a 4X4, 6X6, and 8X8 variant that will be equipped with a modular payload section to perform a variety of battlefield functions.The target weights for all variants of the vehicle will be between 8-12 tons. The vehicle will be capable of operating autonomously as an unmanned ground vehicle, this feature will allow for vehicles to be sent in to areas were there is low situational awareness and a high risk of enemy engagement. The ability to act as a UGV means that if carrying troops ounce dismounted the vehicle can support the dismounted troops without risking the life of a driver or a weapons operator. When equipped with a manned payload section the vehicle will be capable of control via an onboard or dismounted soldier (if desired) as well as retaining its autonomous operational capability.

An example of how the vehicle will be most commonly be utilized is as follows: one to four vehicles (depending on variant and transport size) will be loaded onto a transport with 0-8 men in each vehicle (depending on variant) and flown into a potential war zone. Once over the battlefield, the vehicles will be ejected from the rear of the transport and will utilize their aerodynamic bodies and a deployable Para foil to precisely land at predetermined landing zones. Or in the case of standoff variants, it will utilize its control surfaces ounce released to silently glide into the war zone and will land softly utilizing retro rockets. If carrying troops, they will then immediately dismount and operate on foot while the vehicle becomes an unmanned ground vehicle and provides supporting fire and long range ground mobility when needed. As the design progresses and lifting and propulsion systems are integrated, the vehicle will fly itself into a war zone. Upon landing wings or rotors would fold towards the body so that they will not be damaged or hinder the movement of the vehicle on the ground. If carrying troops, the troops would dismount and be supported by the vehicle. When redeployment becomes necessary they will board the vehicle and fly to the next landing zone.

Key features of the vehicle will include: An aerodynamic body to increase speed range and accuracy during airdrop as well as being a key component in the integration of flight capabilities. In-rim electric engines to save space onboard the vehicles body, as well as improving survivability. Pneumatic shock absorbers that allow for increased ground mobility, and also allow the vehicle to improve its aerodynamics by folding in its wheels and stowing them. A hybrid propulsion system to provide fuel-efficient ground mobility. A modular payload section that allows the vehicle to operate as an IFV, APC, mobile command center, ambulance, logistics vehicle or any other necessitated function. The vehicle will also include a powerful central computer that can perform the necessary computations for autonomous ground and flight operation as well as all necessitated combat computations, such as, target acquisition, firing solutions, command and communication functions etc.

The bottom half of the vehicle will be the base unit comprising of the vehicles ground mobility systems and computer core. The computer core will be contained in an extremely well armored housing, able to withstand even the heaviest IED as well as being resistant to the temperatures encountered in a vehicle that is on fire. The ground mobility system will include fuel tanks and batteries for storing energy as well as a generator for converting chemical energy into electric energy to be stored by the batteries. A pneumatic shock system will allow the vehicle to traverse very rough terrain and insure that the best traction possible is achieved by keeping as many wheels on the ground as possible. In-rim electric engines in all wheels will provide the ground mobility and range necessary to make the vehicle successful. In addition electric motors provide higher torque necessary for navigating rough and mountainous terrain. By incorporating the electric engines in the rim of all wheels on the vehicle you not only save space and weight but u drastically improve the survivability of a vehicle, in the event of one or more engines or wheels being disabled the vehicle will still retain enough mobility to retreat or fight on. This section will also include space within the body to allow for the wheels to be folded in and stowed to reduce drag and increase aerodynamic efficiency.

The top half of the vehicle is the modular payload section and will come in many different variants allowing the vehicle to fill various battlefield functions. This section will contain all primary sensors and airborne capabilities, such as lifting surfaces, control surfaces, Para foil, or propulsion systems. The payload section can be fitted with various weapons or equipment to allow the vehicle to fulfill combat support roles. The payload section can be designed to allow for troop accommodations in the infantry-fighting vehicle or armored troop carrying variants. The emphases on modular design reduces development cost while vastly improving operational capability. It allows a vehicle to be easily retrofitted with new equipment, as well as giving it the novel capability of being able to quickly adapt to changing battlefield needs.

The vehicles aerodynamic design allows for future integration of airmobile propulsion systems such as, counter-rotating helicopter blades, folding wings with tilt rotors, folding wings with jet engines and folding wings with air-augmented rockets. This will provide the capability to not only deploy support vehicles and troops by air but also quickly redeploy them by air. The vehicle can also be equipped with just lifting surfaces and can act as a glider to give the vehicle a standoff precision airdrop capability. The integration of these features will allow for the first time in military history an air transportation system to be integrated with the vehicle it is intended to transport. This capability allows for future air-mechanization tactics and strategy to be utilized to their full potential.

[Feanor]

You mean like wheeled BMD?

[gardnerdesign]

yes, but more aerodynamic and with the eventual goal of creating a sorta BMD MI-24 Hind hybrid or a BMD Harrier hybrid. The Marine corps has exspressed the desire to be able to respond with in 2 hours. This might be a more practical and tacticly smart way of achieving that goal . Really taking the idea of a flying infantry vehicle to another level, making it ground mobile gives it the ability to support its infantry for the entire duration of the battle.

[Feanor]

You want an air-land hybrid? What roles would it full-fill?

[Abraham Gubler]

The integration of these features will allow for the first time in military history an air transportation system to be integrated with the vehicle it is intended to transport. This capability allows for future air-mechanization tactics and strategy to be utilized to their full potential.

Wrong!

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/12/flying_tank.jpg

To support 12 tonnes of deadweight in the air by glider flying (no engine) you generally need a wing with an area of 363 square metres. So if your aerodynamically shaped flying tank was 6.5m long (like an M2 IFV) it would need to be 56m wide (that's a wing very similar to a Boeing 777). That is with an extremely low drag body, which is highly unlikely for a land combat vehicle.

To support 12 tonnes of deadweight in the air by a powered helicopter you tend to need a Chinook. For a powered aircraft a C-27J would be good.

So in short you haven't designed anything. You've just come up with an idea that isn't feasible with Earth's atmosphere and gravity and humanity's current understanding of the physical universe.

[Falstaff]

Wrong!

http://cache.jalopnik.com/assets/resources/2006/12/flying_tank.jpg

To support 12 tonnes of deadweight in the air by glider flying (no engine) you generally need a wing with an area of 363 square metres. So if your aerodynamically shaped flying tank was 6.5m long (like an M2 IFV) it would need to be 56m wide (that's a wing very similar to a Boeing 777). That is with an extremely low drag body, which is highly unlikely for a land combat vehicle.

To support 12 tonnes of deadweight in the air by a powered helicopter you tend to need a Chinook. For a powered aircraft a C-27J would be good.

So in short you haven't designed anything. You've just come up with an idea that isn't feasible with Earth's atmosphere and gravity and humanity's current understanding of the physical universe.

Absolutely correct. You "designed" nothing but a wishlist (a very long one). And apart from the fact that's it isn't feasible, your very last sentence sounds good, but you don't explain what this vehicle would actually be good for.
And a 8-12 ton vehicle with a aerodynamically shaped body would glide like a, well, like a 8-12 ton vehicle.

You were playing "Mass Effect" too long... That's what instantly came to my mind. Aerodynamically shaped body, landing using rockets... Sounds like the Mako (http://www.xboxgazette.com/i/pic_masseffect_art_04.jpg) to me ;).

[Feanor]

Well, what he is asking for isn't completely out of bounds. At least similar concepts are embodied in the BMD-4M which combines a Bakhcha-U firing module, with an armored, airdroppable IFV body that iirc drops with the crew inside. The vehicle isn't completely modular, but other vehicles can be built on the chassis of the BMD series.

He is definelty reaching into Sci-Fi, but the overall idea of air-droppable light-armor is real.

[Falstaff]

Yes, air-droppable light armor is real, no doubt, but IIRC this has more to do with a controlled (chute-stabilized) fall from low altitude than with this:

Or in the case of standoff variants, it will utilize its control surfaces ounce released to silently glide into the war zone and will land softly utilizing retro rockets.

... or incorporating flight equipment. Let's imagine for a second we would have a vehicle that's shaped aerodynamically and let's assume you could pack all the stuff he mentions in a 8-12 ton vehicle and attach reasonably sized foldable wings to it... What would the glide ratio be? That of a medium sized family home I guess. In any case nowhere near a rate that could be survived by human beings.

[Abraham Gubler]

Well, what he is asking for isn't completely out of bounds. At least similar concepts are embodied in the BMD-4M which combines a Bakhcha-U firing module, with an armored, airdroppable IFV body that iirc drops with the crew inside. The vehicle isn't completely modular, but other vehicles can be built on the chassis of the BMD series.

Ahh the BMD does not fly, it falls. There is a big difference. Like comparing a swimming tank with one designed to drive on the river bed with a snorkel.

As to the flying tank... you don't think its out of bounds? The most practical method would be a paraglider. But to support a 12 tonne AFV the canopy would need to be over 2,000 square meters or 50m by 50m. Try opening that safely when you drop out of the back of an airlifter...

[kato]

EADS ParaLander allows gliding a 6-ton load up to 55 km range (well, if dropped from 10 km...), and is being procured by Germany - for general loads, although the system is specifically marketed for vehicle drops as well. That's enough for a vehicle such as a light armoured weapons carrier (Wiesel 1/2), an armoured infantry transport vehicle (Mungo), or similar loads.
Although they'd probably crash another six Wiesels trying it this time around...

[gardnerdesign]

Yes an air-land hybrid would not only give u the operational mobility that u see air mobile troops(helicopter or fixed wing deployed light infantry with some countries expirementing with mechanization of those light infantry forces)utilizing today but it would also allow those same troops to utilize the abilighy to fly in a tactical manner(out flanking, ambush, retreats, dipersal). so the role these vehicles would be somthing like air-cavalry.

im not even gonna respond to that flying tank if u think thats similar to what im talking about i got a bi plane that can shoot down jets i want to sel u

Most of that air-drop and glide bs i put in there was just for skeptics who wouldnt beable to rap there mind around a flying armored vehicle. The current trend in the military is rapid reaction forces, hence all the FCS vehicles being able to fit into planes, the russians to obviously, but my logic is armored vehicles can easly be made aerodynamic, than why put them in an aircraft when they can become one. You save weight by eliminating most of the transport aircraft and then fully integrating the air mobile capability with the vehicles. Realisticly the whole harrier/fighting vehicle hybrid might be a little exspensive but helicopter/fighting vehicle is completley possible.

yes im sorry for using the word design, its no were near a design, i think a more appropriate term would be conceptualization. I tend to prefer disscusing technology and tactics that are possible but don't currently exist or are in development. I do tend to cram concepts full of systems but only because there just concepts and and with out proper R&D one never knows what systems will be reqired.

I never played mass effect but that Mako does look similar to what i draw when i try to visiualize such a vehicle.

[Falstaff]

...but my logic is armored vehicles can easly be made aerodynamic, than why put them in an aircraft when they can become one. You save weight by eliminating most of the transport aircraft and then fully integrating the air mobile capability with the vehicles. Realisticly the whole harrier/fighting vehicle hybrid might be a little exspensive but helicopter/fighting vehicle is completley possible.

How come you think you can save weight? You want to add flying gear to an armored vehicle, any idea how much that weighs? If you want to make an 8-12 ton vehicle fly, you need a lot of propulsion power with the according drive train, you need huge wings or a huge rotor. Where will the power come from?
Esp. if you want to make it a hybrid with in-rim electric engines, which are heavy and only make sense if you make the power generating engine smaller accordingly. But in your concept you can't as you need lots of power to fly. And there goes your fuel efficiency and space saving.
The problem with your concept is, you want to integrate to functions that are conflictive. Just imagine a helicopter like the NH90 and then add armor and tracks and a turret. Would that work or be anywhere near useful? No.



I never played mass effect but that Mako does look similar to what i draw when i try to visiualize such a vehicle.

Perhaps you'd like to share some of your drawings with us.

[Abraham Gubler]

but my logic is armored vehicles can easly be made aerodynamic, than why put them in an aircraft when they can become one. You save weight by eliminating most of the transport aircraft and then fully integrating the air mobile capability with the vehicles. Realisticly the whole harrier/fighting vehicle hybrid might be a little exspensive but helicopter/fighting vehicle is completley possible.

Do you understand the basic principles of flight? What causes lift? Wings? Wing loading? How rotors work? You can't make things fly without them. Making a tank 'aerodynamic' just isn't enough. You need to add big wings, big sources of thrust or big rotors with even bigger engines and transmissions.

Now take the ten tonne benchmark. A ten tonne helicopter using the latest technology (NH 90) and loaded with enough fuel to fly for 2 3/4 hours has only 2 tonnes left for the power transmission to wheels, off road suspension, armour, weapons, troops, etc. needed to make it a tank like vehicle. 2 tonnes is not enough weight to fit even a part of these systems. If your weight goes over 10 tonnes then it won't fly.

Now you are welcome to your ideas but you must recognize that what you are talking about is engineering fantasy. If tanks could fly then everyone would be building them. I linked to that picture before to show that the idea of a flying tank wasn't waiting around 90 years until you came along... It was conceived more than 80 years ago and extensively tested. Since then as technology has advanced it has been revisited and yet still nothing has taken to the air. Perhaps if tip rotor powered helicopters were revisited and developed that would provide the deadweight margins needed to realise this dream but don't hold your breath.

[Firn]

Abraham and Falstaff summed it up pretty well.

Interesting info on the freight Paraglider, kato.

[kato]

ParaLander is in service with the German ISAF contingent btw. 5 units procured as "immediate need" in late 2007; i think they're buying about 20 additional with the current counter-depression package. The special thing about the system is of course not the glider itself, but the fact that it automatically steers itself to a preprogrammed drop zone.

[Feanor]

Ahh the BMD does not fly, it falls. There is a big difference. Like comparing a swimming tank with one designed to drive on the river bed with a snorkel.

It parachutes. The main idea is to be able to deploy armored units directly unto the battelfield from the air. Or more precisely, to be able to deploy light AFVs from the air. It would make it possible for large-scale purely airborne assaults. It would provide airborne assaults with artillery, mobility, and armor, however flimsy (and in the fire-support department the BMD-4M is not flimsy at all).

The main reason, in my opinion, why other countries are not developing equivalents is because they don't employ air-assault units in the same manner that the VDV does.

As to the flying tank... you don't think its out of bounds? The most practical method would be a paraglider. But to support a 12 tonne AFV the canopy would need to be over 2,000 square meters or 50m by 50m. Try opening that safely when you drop out of the back of an airlifter...

Right. Hence why I completely ignored his attempts at sci-fi discussion, and instead attempted to redirect this thread onto something real and practical. :)

[gardnerdesign]

i am really trying not to sound disrespectful, but do any of you have an imagination..... i mean really how do u come up with innovative tech? You think outside the box. I wonder how many people told the wright bros they couldn't fly ? I guess i should of added dont respond unless you want to make a critique and help with the problem you point out..... im sure almost all of you are capable thinkers (one exception though.... does it really sound like i haven't read thurally about the state of deffence tech and especially how flight works .....really? I'm not a very good writer but if you read there are several sentences as well as paragraphs in their that show that i have at least read somthing about flight. Im doing this to develop my ideas and skills as a writer. What i write and what im imagining are usually not the same and i would like to change that), so use your brains, i didnt hear any body suggest dropping my very arrbitrary weight, im sorry(i should stop doing this) but that was thrown in for skeptics the weight is the only limiting factor. With that being true there have been and are about to be several breakthroughs in armor that would reduce weight. Its just a little surprising that not one of you noticed that it really dosnt have to be that heavy at all, for example the vehicle primarely acts as a UGV wile on the ground..... so it just needs comparable armor to an attack helicopter when you take into account that as soon as a hostile situation presents its self the crew dismounts. Furthermore i said the flight system is modularly attached and there are a number of systems that could be used. I know that the concept is not well explained and i havn't done much to defend it.... i should probubly try harder but its hard to get excited about somthing when your just talking to people trapped in a box.... like the average everyday person.... thats why i joined a defence forum.... defence tech has always set th standerd for innovation and in that the defence industry has over come harder problems than a Air/Land vehicle....so if i havn't hurt anybodies feelings does any body have any ideas how this could possibly work or am i the only one.(really would have most of you convinced if this was a verbal discussion on the subject... i know i dont have to but i do apolligize for not yet beaing able to articulate my self better through writing..... im thinking about taking falstaff's advice and putting up some rough (paint generated lol)pics)

o and how many people here understand that weapons you would say are "sci-fi" exist? As well as many weapons u take for granted were wounce "sci-fi".

[eckherl]

@gardnerdesign,

Do not pay any attention to them, though this is something that may not be possible at todays technology you never know what the future holds, most weapons designs and technology are put together by folks that do in fact like to think outside the box. So continue with your research and have a good time at it.

Welcome to Defence talk.

[Gremlin29]

@gardnerdesign,

Do not pay any attention to them, though this is something that may not be possible at todays technology you never know what the future holds, most weapons designs and technology are put together by folks that do in fact like to think outside the box. So continue with your research and have a good time at it.

Welcome to Defence talk.

Agreed.

Your ideas are good, the problem folks are having is that the technology for these concepts largely does not exist and wont exist for many many years. Now, maybe science will crack nano technology to live up to it's potential next year at which stage we will see an incredible industrial revolution. If that happens, ideas like yours will not only be feasible, they may well be practical.

[Will]

Reality check. The FCS vehicles just drove over a cliff because of development costs. And the technologies that were supposed to go into them are much more mature than the ones this air-mechanized idea will need to, literally, fly. Come back in 25 years & their might - and that's a big maybe - be an audience for this idea.

[Abraham Gubler]

i am really trying not to sound disrespectful, but do any of you have an imagination..... i mean really how do u come up with innovative tech? You think outside the box.

Firstly this is not a science fiction forum. And even so you have in no way presented your so-called design as something relying on technology development generally associated with science fiction. You are also not the first person to conceive of a flying tank.

Further what you are trying to seriously propose does not rely on a reasonable assumption of technology development like lighter materials, more efficient engines, faster computers or even a strong breakthrough like a far more compact power source. It relies on a fundamental breaking of the laws of physics! This is science fiction.

You mentioned the Wright Brothers as if they just went into their backyard and made an aircraft fly. The physical principals of flight were well understood when they were working on their Flyer. They did not invent the wing or lift. They were just the first people to build something light enough, with enough lift and thrust to actually fly.

Now others who are nicer to strangers and their crackpot ideas and more polite than I have offered words of encouragement. Let me echo them with some qualification. You deserve credit for thinking about these things and having the guts to offer your ideas publicly. But if you actually want to learn something from this process I suggest you actually study a little bit about flight. Don't just assume your thing can fly.

Now this is your choice. You can continue your current path and draw pictures of stuff that is just a product of your imagination. The pictures might even look nice, but that's all they will be. Or you can take that imagination and apply it to the world we live in. Learn a little about flight and about engineering. And maybe after a bit more of this learning you can apply your imagination to actually building something real. Your choice.

[gardnerdesign]

First id like to address the people who despite suggesting that I read, apperntly cannot read themselves..... please quote me were i said flying tank.

Second take these vehicles all of wich are under 7 tons:
The Ukrainian DOZOR-B APC(6.3 ton combat weight)
The Komatsu LAV(4.5 ton+ combat weight)
The South african RG32 scout(4.45 ton+ combat weight)
The Turkish Oktokar Cobra (6.2 ton combat weight)
and any of a large pool of low weight armour vehicles

Take one of the vehicles and replace there armor with E-Glass armor, which only reduces their weights by 20% but every little bit helps. Add carbon-fiber peices to the outside to increase aerodynamics and two folding small wings(like the ones on helicopters) with weapons mounts. Get rid of the driving controls and add a computer and the necessary electronics for unmanned flight and unmanned ground navigation and you basicly have what i'm talking about, or at least the first half of what it.

Now to keep it simple for you skeptics i,m going to talk about helicopters all though there are more flight systems than just heli-borne that would work.

since i know all of you consider things scifi if it dosn't exist ( i personally think scifi is something i wont see or couldnt have existed in my life time) ill start with the Kamov KH-27 (because Kamov has the most experience with coaxial rotor technology as well as actually having produced several production vehicles with this technology):
* Crew: 1-3, plus 2-3 specialists
* Length: 11.30 m (37 ft 1 in)
* Rotor diameter: 15.80 m (51 ft 10 in)
* Height: 5.50 m (18 ft 1 in)
* Empty weight: 6,500 kg (14,300 lb)
* Loaded weight: 11,000 kg (24,200 lb)
* Useful load: 4,000 kg (8,800 lb)
* Max takeoff weight: 12,000 kg (26,400 lb)
* Powerplant: 2× Isotov turboshaft engines, 1,660 kW (2,225 shp) each

Now delete everything but the fuel tanks and the engine and attach it to the roof of one of our modified LAV's and you have an extremely rough vary possible vehicle. see deleting the weight of all the cabin, landing gear and supporting mechanics of the helicopter you save more weight you than have an air/vehicle that fall inside the maximum take off weight of the KH-27.

the speed and range on the ground will be reduced do to the added weight of the flight systems and extra fuel but besides that it is a workable idea please keep in mind that such an adhoc vehicle would be difficult to actually make work, but on paper the numbers look promising. personally i would use the Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane If it could be converted to a coaxial helicopter( its blades are too long and coming up with a tail mechanism would be inneficiant).

S-64:
* Crew: 2 (pilot, co-pilot), plus room for one rear-facing observer
* Capacity: up to 5 total persons
* Payload: 20,000 lb (9,072 kg)
* Length: 70 ft 3 in (21.41 m (fuselage))
* Rotor diameter: 72 ft 0 in (21.95 m)
* Height: 18 ft 7 in (5.67 m)
* Disc area: 4070 ft² (378.1 m²)
* Empty weight: 19,234 lb (8,724 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 42,000 lb (19,050 kg)
* Powerplant: 2× Pratt & Whitney JFTD12-4A (T73-P-1) turboshaft engines, 4,500 shp (3,555 kW) each

and i would pare it with a PUMA LAV (8.2 tons combat weight), and replace the armor with E-Glass armor..... If you can integrate a helicopters flight systems( engines, rotors and fuel)onto a LAV and stay within the Maximum take off weight of the origonal helicopter than you have a land/air vehicle. please tell me yet another reason why you think this wouldn't work?

[Abraham Gubler]

and i would pare it with a PUMA LAV (8.2 tons combat weight), and replace the armor with E-Glass armor..... If you can integrate a helicopters flight systems( engines, rotors and fuel)onto a LAV and stay within the Maximum take off weight of the origonal helicopter than you have a land/air vehicle. please tell me yet another reason why you think this wouldn't work?

Ok I withdraw everything I said about encouraging you to a path towards reality. Clearly you are a first class fool. You'll find good company in these forums... But I won't waste my time with you...

[Feanor]

Abraham since you clearly understand engineering please disprove him instead of just making fun of him. I know his idea is unrealistic, but don't have the knowledge to explain it. You seem to. So please do me (and everyone else) the favor.

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham since you clearly understand engineering please disprove him instead of just making fun of him. I know his idea is unrealistic, but don't have the knowledge to explain it. You seem to. So please do me (and everyone else) the favor.

I've done it in this thread three times already. Why bother with a forth?

[gardnerdesign]

Actualy Abe.... you started with a well put together coherent argument about why this wouldnt work and after being informed that you were critiqueing an idea that i never wrote about (still waiting for you to quote me on a flying tank btw), your post slowly devolved into a critique of me, who you no nothing about ..... it almost seems like everytime i made it clearer what i was talking about you had to make it less clear why it wouldnt work (wich law of physics prohibits an air/land vehicle?)..... as to calling me a fool.. well im not going to get my self kicked of this forum over a hater like you but buddy im prolly more than half your age and from half your socio- economical background (most people try to encourage people like me and help us get on course not put us down) , could run circles around u in a verbal debate.... and if the word fool was ever said to my face ...well.....old man you wouldnt say it again (sorry everyone else for the hostility if you read this thread I'm perfectly civil and actually attemping to make an argument .... i was even enjoying the critiques until they stopped being about the idea and were focused on me)

[Feanor]

I've done it in this thread three times already. Why bother with a forth?

I.e. no powerful enough helicopter engine exists to lift the Puma into the air?

[OPSSG]

I.e. no powerful enough helicopter engine exists to lift the Puma into the air?

Why bother making 'it' a road bound armoured personnel carrier? Armed and armoured helicopters exist too in the real world, unless you are thinking of Gundams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam) or 501st Legion (see photos of the guys suiting up in their armour) (http://www.501st.com.sg/gallery/chingay2008.htm) type of technology. :D

Sorry, couldn't resist the attempt at the joke... Hehe.

[kato]

Let's try it with constructive criticism instead?

Now, the proposal seems to be to pretty much take a light armoured vehicle hull, and modify it to be able to hook a helicopter drivetrain through the roof, with a coaxial rotor above.

Criticisms for "helicopter mode":
Any AFV hull would make a horrible airframe, aerodynamics-wise. Yes, even if we give it a lightweight "front cap".
Hooking up the helicopter drivetrain and engines on the vehicle would essentially take up the entire cargo compartment, leaving no room for any infantry to carry.
The high weight of the vehicle system, and their weight distribution would likely make the helicopter extremely sluggish in flight. As in every single movement of the helo would need to be closely watched, similar to a heavyweight cargo helo.
The crew of the cargo vehicle would have next to zero situational awareness from within the vehicle; a very bad thing for flying, especially with a sluggish thing like that - to the point of this being a terminally critical point for such a design.
The vastly different shape of the vehicle - compared to an aerodynamic cabin - would have to be closely evaluated with regard to rotor downwash and lift. The positioning of the drivetrain - above the center of gravity! - would likely interfere with other systems mounted in this position, such as - often - the only weapon systems such a vehicle would carry.

Criticisms for "ground mode":
Where would you put the rotors when on the ground? Even folded up, the rotors would present a huge hindrance (note that we're talking rotors of 5-6 m length minimum protruding from the center of the vehicle).
The helo drivetrain - on the roof - would present a huge signature problem for the vehicles silhouette. Apart from likely making the vehicle too high to fit standard street dimensions, the exposed drivetrain makes an easy to spot and destroy target.
The weight of the drivetrain, rotos, engines, fuel would likely be well beyond payload limit of such a light vehicle; the carriage - wheels, running gear, whatever - would need to be redesigned, increasing weight.


I would also add one point: You mention S-64 flight systems with a Puma LAV hull beneath. Both helo and vehicle crew would be far safer if you just take the S-64, and sling the same 8.4 ton LAV beneath. Apart from the fact that once the LAV is on the ground in an operation, the same S-64 can be used to sling another LAV somewhere else.

[Falstaff]

Why bother making 'it' a road bound armoured personnel carrier? Armed and armoured helicopters exist too in the real world, unless you are thinking of Gundams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam) or 501st Legion (see photos of the guys suiting up in their armour) (http://www.501st.com.sg/gallery/chingay2008.htm) type of technology. :D

Sorry, couldn't resist the attempt at the joke... Hehe.

You're far ahead of our time :D

Apart from that part I think that's a valid question you posed.

[Falstaff]

Take one of the vehicles and replace there armor with E-Glass armor, which only reduces their weights by 20% but every little bit helps. Add carbon-fiber peices to the outside to increase aerodynamics and two folding small wings(like the ones on helicopters) with weapons mounts. Get rid of the driving controls and add a computer and the necessary electronics for unmanned flight and unmanned ground navigation and you basicly have what i'm talking about, or at least the first half of what it.

Well then. The point I was trying to make before was that small wings won't do. If you're planning 8-12 tons, you'll need wings that create enough lift to actually make the thing fly or glide with a reasonable glide ratio. These will be rather large, esp. since (as I understand it) the vehicle will need extreme STOL capabilities in order to be useful. Where will these wings go when in "ground vehicle mode"? That has nothing to do with lack of imagination, that's just physics. Small folding wings just won't make the thing fly or glide.

I'd like to know what kind of propulsion you were thinking about?

Physics again: Any flying object that big and heavy needs propulsion power, a lot of it, even more if it is supposed to have V/STOL capabilities. The most weight/space efficient powerplant is and will be a turbine engine. Even with projected progress in terms of efficiency and power you'll need some space for it and lots of fuel in your vehicle to fly from one point to another (I understand that this capability is part of your concept), far more than a driving vhicle does.

I would also add one point: You mention S-64 flight systems with a Puma LAV hull beneath. Both helo and vehicle crew would be far safer if you just take the S-64, and sling the same 8.4 ton LAV beneath. Apart from the fact that once the LAV is on the ground in an operation, the same S-64 can be used to sling another LAV somewhere else.

Another valid question IMO that needs to be anwered before bothering to design a hybrid air/land vehicle.

Regarding the coaxial rotor principle you seem to prefer I'll have to add that these rotors are very complicated and have a bulky and heavy gearbox.

[Marc 1]

Actualy Abe.... you started with a well put together coherent argument about why this wouldnt work and after being informed that you were critiqueing an idea that i never wrote about (still waiting for you to quote me on a flying tank btw), your post slowly devolved into a critique of me, who you no nothing about ..... it almost seems like everytime i made it clearer what i was talking about you had to make it less clear why it wouldnt work (wich law of physics prohibits an air/land vehicle?)..... as to calling me a fool.. well im not going to get my self kicked of this forum over a hater like you but buddy im prolly more than half your age and from half your socio- economical background (most people try to encourage people like me and help us get on course not put us down) , could run circles around u in a verbal debate.... and if the word fool was ever said to my face ...well.....old man you wouldnt say it again (sorry everyone else for the hostility if you read this thread I'm perfectly civil and actually attemping to make an argument .... i was even enjoying the critiques until they stopped being about the idea and were focused on me)

OK, I'm no where near as tech savvy as Abraham Gubler but I'll add my 5 cents. The weight class rotors/transmission you'd need would be CH-47 Chinook sized. Take your 8 tonne vehicle, add at least 7 tonnes of engines and transmissions to raise its empty weight to around 15 tonnes. The CH-4D has a MTOW of 22 tonnes, but because you are going co-axial that may reduce to say 20 tonnes. That gives you a possible 5 tonnes to allow for the fitment of fairings etc, and fuel. The Chook has a fuel load of 3,600 ish litres (3.3 tonnes?) which doesn't leave much for anything else, and a fairly small range - that would be no doubt further reduced due to the aircraft having the aerodynamics of a brick. And we haven't yet begun to address the issues of integrating the engines and transmissions.

Problems as I see them:

1. It would make a very poor helicopter (bulky/unwieldy) with bugger all situational awareness as Kato has pointed out.

2. The co-axial rotor system needs plenty of clearance between the 2 sets of rotors. If you take a geezer at the Kamov designs the top rotor would be a good 1.5 to 2 meters above the vehicle. Even with folded and telescoped rotor blades that will preclude the vehicle being able to use the traditional hull down/turret down cover positions. Unless you can engineer some method of retracting a transmission/rotor shaft that transmits 7,500hp. That will be complex and extremely heavy.

3. The cost of one of these devices would be horrendous, and the timeframe it will take to develop you would expect to be protracted. All for a requirement that has yet to be written and for a need that is yet to be established.

Kato has by far the smartest idea, sling load these vehicles (or design them for internal carriage in a CH-47) deliver them to the battlefield and let them do their own autonomous thing.

The technologies that would require a quantam leap in development for this to work: far more lightweight armour, or some form of a system that intercepts threats, so no armour would be needed. Advances in powerplants and transmissions to make them smaller and more efficient. Darpa continue to conduct challenges that have the best minds in robotics and programming navigate a vehicle autonomously from point A to Point B. I believe the vehicles can do it now, but its still a slow and clunky drive compared to a human. And that's without integrating anything to do with tactics/engaging the enemy/IFF etc. This technology is far to immature.

There are very few truly successful hybrid vehicles - the Osprey is one, the EFV might be another and they have taken tens of years/billions of dollars (and many deaths in the case of the V-22) before they were sorted, and they are nowhere near as ambitious a project as what you are proposing. Since the 1930's inventors have been trying to invent a car that can fly. The few that have made it from the drawing board have been so heavily compromised in the air, on the road or both that the idea hasn't caught on. I'm not saying it cannot be done, but even if it can be done I suspect the vehicle would suffer because of the compromises inherent in its design. The complexity and therefore the reliability would suffer too.

At the moment, possibly dreamland, even if it can be done a horribly compromised expensive answer to a question no one asked. Abe is right.

[gardnerdesign]

No abes still wrong but your right .... the puma wouldnt fly ... but what abouth the other vehicles i mentioned...? Surely you must realize i know that know adhoc frankinstien vehicle wouldnt fly ... my point was simply that if you could get the numbers close enough than with some R&D, a purpose built vehicle could be built ... You're also right that a helicopter based hybrid would not have much utility and would be a waste of money .... i was just trying to think of the simplest most down to earth way i could explain the idea working....people seem to dislike when i talk about more futuristic concepts.

[Feanor]

The problem with more futuristic concepts is that they're too speculative. I.e. there is no criteria for a critical evaluation of futuristic concepts that are too far into the future. Just out of curiosity, what advantage would your vehicle have over say a Mi-35M?

[Marc 1]

No abes still wrong but your right

Not sure how that can be given we've both been arguing the same points. Remain objective, don't make it personal.


... the puma wouldnt fly ... but what abouth the other vehicles i mentioned...?

The OCV? Again a concept without a purpose. You state that it's an offensive/defensive station. Which is it? What warheads are the missiles armed with? What are the anticipated targets - is it an anti ICBM system a-la-star wars? Or is this more a station to provide precision strike? Is it in a geosynchronous orbit or will you need a fleet of then orbiting to provide coverage (fleet = huge cost)?

This station has 2 x 40mm canon for point defence - against what? What are the targeting systems used? Is this to be like a CIWS - if so why 40mm? Despite stating that the 3D thrusters will provide a force to counterbalance the recoil - that's going to need masses of rocket fuel, and due to the way the forces are developed (40mm instantaneous, massive force over a very short time period, rocket, lesser continuous thrust over a much longer period) I don't believe it to be viable. Have you considered recoiless weapons or lasers? The list of questions I might ask (and I don't work in defence or any technical capacity) is as long as my arm. [/quote]


Surely you must realize i know that know adhoc frankinstien vehicle wouldnt fly ...

Then please don't get so defensive when someone points out that it cannot fly. It also begs the question why put it up as a viable concept in the first place.

people seem to dislike when i talk about more futuristic concepts.

There are other sites that specialise in conceptual weapons - this and other concepts may have been better suited to those.

Gardnerdesign, I applaud your spunk and your imagination, but I don't think you have a handle on what this forum is about. Suggestion stick around a while - read and learn, don't stick your head above the metaphorical parapet for a bit (or as you realise you may get it shot off).

[OPSSG]

@gardnerdesign, I believe enough forum members have gently put forth that your ideas lie in the realm of imagination, unrestrained by laws of physics (as most of your fellow forum participants currently understand) and other technical or tactical considerations. Please try to support your imagination with some 'facts' and some reputable 'links', if any.

Surely you must realize i know that know adhoc frankinstien vehicle wouldnt fly ...
Then please don't get so defensive when someone points out that it cannot fly. It also begs the question why put it up as a viable concept in the first place.

Various 'imaginative' people have brought forth their ideas in a number of online military forums over the years. One of the most famous is 'Mr Mike Sparks' (aka Sparky, aka Carol Murphy, aka Sam Damon Jr. and aka Sealight007) and his 'so-called' petition to rename the M113 as the 'M113 Gavin'. He has inspired some unique Gavin concepts and even a web page that mocks his ideas (link provided (http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html)).

As you can see from the link provided - to be called a Sparky or to have a person's 'imaginative' ideas mocked as 'Gavin inspired concepts' is not a good persona to have in online forums.

people seem to dislike when i talk about more futuristic concepts.
There are other sites that specialise in conceptual weapons - this and other concepts may have been better suited to those.

Gardnerdesign, I applaud your spunk and your imagination, but I don't think you have a handle on what this forum is about. Suggestion stick around a while - read and learn, don't stick your head above the metaphorical parapet for a bit (or as you realise you may get it shot off).

Forgive your fellow forum participant (i.e me) for not automatically assuming that your ideas will work. If you insist on pushing your ideas, I believe the onus is on you to present your rebuttal argument with 'facts' and reputable 'links' to support your ideas.

While most of us want to encourage a diverse range of view points, there is a difference between an informed discussion and an uninformed one. I believe we will no longer be in the informed discussion zone, if we continue down the current path of this thread.

[imscary2]

I was all excited. I thought you were talking about parachuting tanks. What the light tank the 82nd used to use the M35?

But you don't have a design at all you have an idea, followed as previous poster mentioned a wishlist

it just got silly

[the road runner]

Various 'imaginative' people have brought forth their ideas in a number of online military forums over the years. One of the most famous is 'Mr Mike Sparks' (aka Sparky, aka Carol Murphy, aka Sam Damon Jr. and aka Sealight007) and his 'so-called' petition to rename the M113 as the 'M113 Gavin'. He has inspired some unique Gavin concepts and even a web page that mocks his ideas (link provided (http://home.comcast.net/~genericdad/m113gavin.html)).

OPSSG.....i wasted a whole afternoon reading about the Gavin...........:(
I do try to be polite on this forum......but, this Guy is an idiot/oxygen thief.

If you would like to read about my wasted time on the Gavin article........and replies by Defence Analysts,then check out the link on M113

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/army-security-forces/australian-m113s-5188-17/

Why would you not use a Blackhawk or NH-90 spectra with a 120 mm smothebore gun with a force shield?

or even better you could put a Abrams MBT with a few rotors attached to make the flying tank.......wonder what Bae or lockheed martin would charge for a force Shield......????

Sory could not resist:p:

[OPSSG]

Sorry could not resist:p:

No problem, perfectly understand your feelings about wasting your time reading Sparky's ideas.

BTW, as I see it, there are two main types of idiots:
(1) those that know they are behaving like idiots (by virtue of their idiotic statements on the forum); and
(2) those that don't know they are behaving like idiots.
It's those people in category (2), who don't know that they are idiots that are the hardest to deal with. Trying to correct a category (2) person (or interact with them) is like arguing with a baboon -- a totally counter productive exercise.:D

[Feanor]

The first aren't idiots. They're trolls. The second are genuine idiots.