autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons, particularly in larger calibres (12.7+mm).

  • 3176
    MEMBERS
  • 180445
    MESSAGES
  • 9
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

minimum vehicle size por Russian AU-220M   General Military Discussion

Started 14-Jun by poliorcetes; 2564 views.
poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

20-Jun

Indeed mobile tripod, or just immobile but servo-assisted tripod, both are totally undervaluated concept. A simple and cheap implement, guided by a basic FCS. Built by the thousands, it could change too many things

Red7272

From: Red7272

21-Jun

poliorcetes said...

Actually I'm more and more interested on a optionally manned BMD-sized vehicle or even smaller. Recently MILREM presented a render of a big UGV, and I wondered if such concept could be ported to a revamped, optionally piloted BMD-1 armed with the new unmanned turret. If it would the case, it would be a nice addition to an airborne force for the first days of a quick reaction operation

BMD 4 would be the smallest i suspect. It already has the 100/30 mm turret so the 57 mm would not be an issue, it was designed for that role specifically and was successful ion Georgia in 2008. Uran 9 is smaller again and mounts the 30 mm and clusters of PGM. There are also versions of the BMP 3 chassis mounting a single 30 mm cannon that have are designed for human and remote operation. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgfGrn50NiM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNYmzT22524

 

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

23-Jun

Do you find BMD suitable for any unmanned role?

Red7272

From: Red7272

23-Jun

poliorcetes said...

Do you find BMD suitable for any unmanned role?

I think currently the BMD-4 is still in production and BMDs are still in demand while there are a bunch of surplus to requirements BMP-3s about. It's a great chassis which no one pretends is any use as a troop transport any more so using them for all these roles is pretty much a given. 

A dedicated air droppable un-manned BMD will be a thing at some point. The BMD-4 should be big enough for the 57 mm, and where were some big boxy BMD-4s chassis - which might be an actual APC version of it - a couple May Day parades ago.

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

24-Jun

But why not an upgraded BMD-1? Have all of them been destroyed?

 

I find the BMD-1, at least potentially, a sound concept in terms of volume. Bigger than a weasel-II, smaller than any other APC, maybe improving the ballistic protection on the critical places for an unmanned vehicle would be a nice support vehicle for airborne troops or even for peace missions

Red7272

From: Red7272

24-Jun

As I said, they are all in active service. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

4-Jul

There are number of 57mm turrets the lightest one is suposedly 2.5tons and suitable from BMD1

In reply toRe: msg 12
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

4-Jul

BMD1 &2 are tiny ,even lower profile than Wiesel , should great platforms for unmaned vehicle . 

BMD generations

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

5-Jul

I've been mulling the whole optionally manned "turret/gun carriage" thing over and talking about it here for years.

Given the right enablers like some of the new very high power density small engine concepts gaining traction it definitely gets more doable every year.

As far as the question about whether they'd actually work out well or not though, I still very much question that.

I genuinely question the West's ability to make them cheap enough and not so overbuilt that they're unaffordable. And being able/willing to make and deploy pretty significantly large numbers of them would be the key to making them viable, so this will be a major issue.

I personally think that the concept is worth exploring in a number of different sizes as well as configurations at least experimentally though since being able to essentially have your heavy weapons teams mostly augmented with them would help reduce unit individual soldier encumbrance if you did it right.

The obvious problem there is that they need to be durable enough to actually be sustainable in the field while still cheap enough to be looked at as consumables so that loss aversion doesn't make them a hindrance rather than a help.

It's a delicate balance

Red7272

From: Red7272

5-Jul

I think the basics are there but the power sources are currently immature. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3RIHnK0_NE

Once this beastie has a silent fuel based engine that will survive this treatment then things will be serious. 

To me though this endless harping on about the unsupported patrol in the middle of nowhere is just insane. That very specific problem that governments are too cheap to support their Afghan garrison with sufficient real time fire support should not be driving infantry weapon development.  Iraq, Syria and Libya are primarily infantry/mechanised fighting with copious amounts of HE and therombaric fire support. Some stupid 800 metre rifle that can penetrate current body armour is going to be irrelevant if the enemy combatant is a 300 kg humanoid robot with 4 times that armour firing thermobaric grenades that ignore class IV plates.

TOP