Tag Archives: procurement


Despite being designed in 1960, the M113 has remained popular. It’s a big, tracked aluminum box. So it’s easy to fit stuff in. And lots of things can be put in a nice aluminum box. Lots of these, like command vehicles, mortar carriers, ambulances, and the like aren’t frontline vehicles. So the M113’s increasingly marginal protection wasn’t that much of a concern. It’s adaptable and low cost. But there’s not a lot of weight capacity for more protection if the vehicle is to be used in urban operations, and the powerplant is pretty old.

Enter FFG. FFG cut their teeth upgrading old M113s, and they finally figured they might be able to offer something better. This is the PMMC G5, seen below.


The G5 is actually somewhat larger than the M113, having a payload capacity of 14.5 cubic meters, as opposed to the M113’s 8.3 cubic meters. Where the M113 can handle 2.4 tonnes of payload, the G5 can handle up to 8.5 tonnes of payload. Gross vehicle weight of the G5 is 26.5 tonnes.

The G5 also has a semimodular design. The modules have a floor and roof, plus internal stuff, and can be switched out with a crane. It’s not quite as modular as Boxer MRAV, but it’s still a solid feature.

The G5 faces stiff competition, being somewhere in between a full-featured, turretless derivative of an IFV like the CV90 Armadillo or simpler M113 refits. The PMMC G5 has only been entered into one procurement contest, in Denmark, where it lost out to the Mowag Piranha V.

As for what I think, I am a fan of the concept. Whether or not I’d go with it for Borgundy really depends on cost compared to some other options, and the sort of boring details of proposals that never gets leaked. Specifically, how the cost of a cheap additional vehicle plus spares compares to additional variants of more expensive vehicles (plus more of the spares that you’re already ordering).

Reconsidering the LCS

Editor’s note: Fishbreath and I aren’t fans of the LCS, but he asked me to defend it and I can hardly resist such a challenge…

The LCS is a curious sort of ship. There are two classes, the Freedom-class and the Independence-class, and I’m going to group them together for the purposes of this discussion. They are both very fast, lightly armed, and carry a helicopter. They have some swappable mission modules to enable them to carry things like Hellfire missiles. Their only air defense system is a launcher for the RIM-116; a close-in weapon.

One is immediately struck by what the LCS don’t have. They don’t have a fancy towed sonar array. They don’t have a fancy bow sonar array. They don’t have a bunch of lightweight torpedo tubes. They don’t have antiship missiles. They don’t have a “proper” SAM system like SM-2/3/6, Aster, or ESSM. One might think of them as stripped down Oliver Hazard Perry-class analogues, but this might be frustrating. The Perrys are the quintessential Cold-war era multirole frigate. One might also look at all of the other ships called frigates these days and despair about the LCSes. They are underarmed!

Or are they? Let us first ask what mission we might have for the LCSes. Mission ought to drive the ship design. The Perrys were designed as escorts. Second-rate escorts: intended to protect the anticipated convoys running supplies and war materiel from North America to Europe in the event of a Cold War gone hot. As such, they have an antiaircraft armament of one Mk. 13 single-arm launcher for the SM-1. They also have a towed sonar array and some lightweight torpedo launchers, plus hangar facilities for two helicopters. On paper they’re much more capable ships.

However, one of the things we note is that from 2004 to 2005, the US Navy removed the Mark 13 launchers from the Perrys that remained in service. Why? Well, clearly removing the system reduces ongoing support and maintenance costs. Plus, it’s not really all that useful. The SM-1 missile and Mark 92 fire control system is grossly inadequate against modern threats. The CIWS is going to be able to (probably) handle a single inbound antiship missile fine, and anything serious attack is going to get past SM-1 and CIWS.

The Falklands War showed all manner of problems with the Type 42 destroyers. These were built for air defense, but they suffered badly at the hands of the Argentine air force. The Argentine air force used Exocet antiship missiles and the sort of unsophisticated, low-level, unguided bombing attacks one might see in the Korean War. There were problems with target prioritization, being sure that no target was left unengaged by the multiple firing ships, and ships fouling each other’s radar fixes. The Perrys were even less optimized for anti-air warfare than the Type 42s.

Anyway, the LCS-as-frigate comparison seems to be assuming implicitly that we have to have nice, simple ship types: cruisers, destroyers, and frigates, and proper navies have all three. We have Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which are built on Spruance-class destroyer hulls and are smaller than Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. Let’s unpack those a little more. There are currently 22 active Ticos, each with the Aegis combat system and 122 VLS tubes. There are 65 active Burkes with three under repair, four under construction, and five more on order. Each Burke has an Aegis combat system and 90 or 96 VLS missile tubes. Taking active hulls only, that’s a total of 87 Burkes and Ticos, which I’ll collectively (and imprecisely) refer to as “Aegis ships” for simplicity.

The Aegis ships are fantastic escorts, since they all have powerful radars, computer coordinating systems, communication networks to chat amongst themselves, and lots of missiles. Each VLS tube can hold one of the Standard family of SAMs or four ESSM SAMs. In terms of dealing with air or missile attack, they are the best ships available. They can protect themselves and something nearby. Like a carrier. We have 11 supercarriers, plus nine more straight-deck “Baby Carriers” of the USMC. So if they all were at sea at once, and all operating separately we’d have about four Aegis ships per flattop. That’s pretty good. The Royal Navy would like to be able to do that, and we’d have way more missile tubes per flattop than they would, even if they could manage four escorts per flattop.

Of course, the Mk. 41 VLS tubes on the Aegis ships can carry other missiles as well, including Tomahawk Cruise missiles and LRASMs, giving the ships a potent land attack or surface strike capability. It’s pretty easy for a task force commander to lob an awe-inspiring number of cruise missiles at some tin-plate dictator we hate while having enough SAMs to protect the fleet. For comparison, look at the positively lame ground attacks from the Russian navy deployed to Syria. They wish they had “Aegisski” ships with tons of VLS tubes to lob cruise missiles at their enemies.

In the Aegis ships, the USN has a large number of highly capable surface ships that are truly “Do-everything” ships. They can do any mission you please, and can be configured to do all of them reasonably well at once. No 4-5,000 ton frigate can do likewise. They tend to have 16-32 VLS tubes and a much less powerful radar. These ships tend to carry a mix of quadpacked ESSMs and standard missiles, or foreign equivalent systems. They can do some amount of air defense, but mostly just of themselves. It’s not clear what adding a bunch of ESSMs is going to do to the already formidable air defense umbrella in a US Navy carrier battle group.

Lets also stress that, while we could argue about the most cost-effective mix of ships, the 87 Aegis ships mentioned earlier are already purchased. We have them. They’re ours. Spending a bunch of money on redundant capabilities is silly, and that seems to be what most want to advocate for.

What the Aegis ships aren’t is cheap. They have high operating costs, and there’s plenty of flagwaving missions or antipiracy operations that could be done by a ship without all the fancy, expensive bells and whistles. Playing “Plane guard” and fishing pilots who had to eject from a botched carrier landing doesn’t require a fancy radar or lots of missiles. Hunting pirates off the horn of Africa doesn’t require any fancy systems either, just seakeeping. So the best compliment for a big fleet of highly-capable Aegis ships is a bunch of austere, cheap-to-operate corvettes with good seakeeping.

Good seakeeping is important, and is the major cost driver. Seakeeping is a function of structure, and I’m being imprecise and lumping in range as well. America, as you probably know, is separated from regions of trouble by large oceans, and anything sent to those troublesome regions has to first cross those pesky oceans. And yes, seakeeping eats up space that could be otherwise filled with weapons. If our ships could sail ten miles from our coast and find trouble, we could pack them to the gills with weapons and not care how stable they are. But that’s not the situation we find ourselves in. So no, we can’t just build a few Pegasus-class fast attack craft and call it a day.

So that is how we get to the LCS, more or less. It has a deck gun, a SeaRAM installation, and a helicopter hangar. It can accept a few other mission modules. It can handle a number of basic tasks, including to sail to not-so-hot regions flying an American flag. The one thing I don’t get is the overly high top speed of the ships. I wouldn’t have designed that in, since it drives costs up. Even so, they’re good ships for what they’re designed for: complimenting the rest of our highly-capable surface fleet.

Sweden Chooses an MBT: Looking back at the ’94 contest

Yes, it’s been about 24 years since Sweden made its choice. And it’s no secret that they ended up going with a variant of the Leopard 2A5 with improved armor (or, more technically, an armor package that was proposed but the Germans didn’t opt for because of budget cuts). But I found a presentation on the trials, complete with previously-classified armor comparisons. The comparisons are twenty four years old, but they’re actual hard data, and I love data. No guesstimates here.

Continue reading

MBT Roundup 2018

A few years ago, I wrote an MBT comparison for our procurement games. Since then, I’ve learned a lot more about the Leopard 2 and the M1 Abrams, we’ve seen some upgrade programs for both tanks, I’ve gotten enough data on the South Korean K2 to write on it, and Russia has introduced the T-14. Also, I love tanks. So let’s do another roundup. As always, I’m limited to open source guesstimates only.

The T-14 has a brand new 125mm gun, which can handle higher pressure rounds. So it’s almost certainly better than previous Russian guns. Whether it’s better than the latest Western stuff depends on whose propaganda you’re reading. I’m inclined to guess it’s going to be similar to the latest Rheinmetall options. Possibly a bit better because it’s newer.

Both the K2 and the newest Leopard 2 variants use the longer L55 version of Rheinmetall’s 120mm smoothbore, which gives more velocity than the Abrams’ M256 (a derivative of the Rheinmetall L44). Which would be better if all other things were equal, but they aren’t. The Americans use depleted uranium APFSDS rounds, which work better than tungsten (which Germany and South Korea use), all other things being equal (they still aren’t). Overall, tungsten sabot rounds from the L55 and depleted uranium sabot rounds from the L44 are about equal as far as armor penetration estimates are concerned. New rounds continue to come from the Americans, and there’s a plan to upgrade the L55 to the L55A1 which can take higher chamber pressures. Also, the Americans have finally added the capability to interface with datalinks on gun rounds in the SEPv3 Abrams, and this is present on the guns for Leopard 2 and K2. So this is very roughly a wash. Some magical person might be able to point to specific advantages of one option or another against specific targets, but this is all I’ve got with unclassifed, dodgy sources.

Damn it, this is classified too! UGH. In all seriousness, this too will be a wash in the main, because everyone’s got about the same technological problems, even if they come at it a little differently. Abrams and Leopard 2 have been receiving consistent upgrades, so their frontal armor should be just as good as the newer K2. T-14 has unclear amounts of protection on the turret, but only the gun is mounted there. Hull frontal protection should be good across the board too, given upgrades. Note that the Leopard 2 and Abrams have excellent side protection kits, should you wish to use them in cities full of scumbag insurgents. T-14 seems to have some quality skirt options as well, but K2 lacks similar levels of optional side protection. In terms of active protection, T-14 comes fitted with hard-kill APS systems from the factory, Abrams is getting Trophy kits installed (they’ve passed trials and money is allocated), K2 is fitted for but not with hard kill kits and the Germans are still trialing their hard kill setup. I should also point out that in the past the Americans have been reluctant to offer up their best armor technology in export models. The Abrams with export-level armor would be expected to be less good than the latest Leopard 2 variant or K2.

So you’ve been hit, and your armor is penetrated! That really sucks. Now what?
T-14 isolates the crew completely from the ammo. There are also blow-out panels on the bottom. Not sure about the turret, it might get wrecked, or there might be venting measures there. So those are all good things. On the other hand, the T-14 has the smallest crew compartment, so that means any penetration there is going to cause more problems. There’s always a bigger IED.

Abrams has the vast majority of it’s ammo in the turret bustle, again with blow-out panels. There’s also hull stowage for six more 120mm rounds, also with blow-out panels. Alternatively, if lots of hull hits from RPGs are expected, this can be emptied of ammo without too much difficulty. It’s only six rounds. Abrams has the biggest protected volume, which is why it uses fancy exotic materials for protection, but it also makes it very difficult to wound everybody.

Leopard 2 and K2 both have blow-out panels for their ammo stowage in the bustle. However, both have a large hull ammo rack (about 20 rounds or so) next to the driver up front. Neither has much in the way of bulkheads isolating this ammo and neither has blow-out panels for this stowage. Protect that hull, guys. Crew compartments are moderately sized, and should provide reasonable levels of safety due to dispersion. Leopard 2 is bigger internally than K2, and gets a bit of a nod here.

Also, while not strictly a survivability thing, more room means easier to jam upgrades in. So in order of most upgradeable to least: Abrams, Leopard 2, K2, T-14.

Tactical Mobility
Also known in some cultures as “driving around the battlefield.” Everybody’s got a 1,500 hp engine. K2 and T-14 should have a significant advantage from being 10ish tons lighter than the latest Leopard 2 and Abrams variants. Both K2 and T-14 have had transmission problems recently, however. Abrams has the gas turbine engine, which comes with some maintenance advantages because of the fewer small parts, but it is a very thirsty beast. The latest Abrams tanks have protected auxiliary power units, but I don’t have much data on how much this improves fuel economy. The Leopard 2 has a pretty boring twin-turbo diesel powerplant that seems to work well.

Strategic Mobility
Once again, the lighter tanks get the points here. I would be inclined to argue that the difference doesn’t matter for the purposes of ship-based transport, but a win is a a win.

The bureaucrats always get to put in their two bits. NATO-related stuff is going to torpedo the notion of a T-14 buy. Also, it hasn’t even passed Russian trials yet, and we don’t like being early adopters of anything. Otherwise, it comes down to who your friends are. America may not sell you the best and latest depleted uranium stuff if they don’t like you enough. The Germans may not support you with spare parts if you go off to war with the stuff. South Korea is new on the market and doesn’t have the same ability to bundle deals like the others.

I did find the approximate unit cost of a K2 on the internet. Unfortunately, costs of the others are going to be determined by upgrade package, which is kind of a bummer. Also, for all tanks, a lot depends on the terms of the purchase and what other equipment is included (spares, weapons, training tanks, etc.). So I’ll go out on a limb and say that a similar level of outfitting is going to cost about the same for new builds, and I think that’s pretty reasonable. I can’t adequately work out who might offer the best package deal. However, unlike the other two western competitors, there are a ton of old Abrams tanks sitting in the American desert. So the Americans ought to be able to give you a better deal on overhauled and upgraded tanks, and they probably will be available faster. Also, given relative labor costs, there might be advantages to the K2 or the T-14.

So which do we go with? Whichever one can get us the best pricing deal and meets the political obligations. I don’t see much difference overall with any of the options, at least not in any way that matters. MBTs don’t really have different schools of thought like IFVs do, so which one is not a big deal. They all provide reasonable quality; it remains to get them in reasonable quantity. One might argue that the large stock of old Abramses gives that an advantage, if modifying is cheaper than buying new. Or one might argue for the extensive, already-trialled options list available for the Leopard 2, or the newer K2 with more standard features and lower lifecycle costs from having a smaller crew.

Resurrected Weapons: XM806 Heavy Machine Gun

The Browning M2 is nearly 100 years old, and it is still a very effective weapon. It is heavy and made with decidedly old-school manufacturing techniques. The XM806 was an effort to replace it with a newer, lighter machine gun, still chambered for the classic 12.7×99 mm BMG round. The XM806 was a development of the cancelled XM312, which was a prospective heavy machine gun that could be easily converted to fire 25×59 mm airburst grenades.

The XM806 preserved the recoil system of the XM312 (and its grenade launching sibling, the XM307). This system had the barrel and bolt move forward when the trigger is depressed, forcing recoil forces to overcome the forward momentum of both the bolt and barrel.

The XM806 weighs only 40 lbs (18 kg), less than half the weight of the M2. It has less recoil than the M2, and it’s also easier to disassemble. On the other side, it has about half the rate of fire of the M2. For present uses, a reduced rate of fire probably isn’t a huge deal. We’re long past the days of expecting a heavy machine gun to be an effective antiaircraft gun.

While the weight savings are eye-popping, one might question the point. 40 lbs is still too heavy to easily manpack, and the weapon is still very bulky. And 12.7mm BMG ammo is big and heavy. It’s going to be a bother for a team of light infantry to deploy, and they’re probably going to be better off with GPMGs supplemented by antitank weapons, not least because of the weight of the ammo. As for vehicles, the difference between 40 and 84 lbs is basically immaterial. We can mount M2s on dune buggies. We can mount M2s on aircraft and helicopters. The weight savings really don’t get us much in terms of more usability in the roles that we normally find ourselves using a heavy machine gun. And (again) we still have the weight and bulk of ammo to deal with either way, which is a much more significant issue for small vehicles.

Probably a depressing way to look at it. But the biggest thing here would be cost, and it’s really hard to compete with an established system. When the US Army cancelled the project, they diverted funds into improving the venerable M2, and I can’t fault them for it. At least the XM312 added a new capability.

Verdict: Funding Denied by the Borgundy Army Ordnance Development Board.

SOCOM, the USMC, and the Glock 19

The Glock 19 is Glock’s “Compact” pistol. It’s got a barrel length of just over four inches, has a height of about five inches, depending on sights, and holds 15 rounds in a magazine. It’s a great compromise between concealability and fightability, since it’s about as small as a pistol can be and still allow the vast majority of adults to get a full grip on the gun. The Glock 19 is a strong seller in the US civilian market, but it is also popular in SOCOM. They’ve even type-classed the Glock 19 Gen4 MOS. And the USMC has just ordered a large number of Glock 19Ms. And all this despite SIG winning the US Army’s Modular Handgun contract.

SOCOM has been the big user of Glock 19s for years in the DoD, so let’s look at them first. They’ve type-classed the Glock 19 Gen4 MOS with threaded barrel as the Mark 27. Type classing assigns a national stock number and makes it easy to order more in the future. SOCOM is a big user of the Glock 19, and this shows an eye towards the future of pistol sights: micro red dot optics. SOCOM’s current pistol red dot of choice is the Leupold Deltapoint Pro. While they could have selected a custom-milled solution, choosing the MOS model gives them something that can be ordered direct from the factory, and it allows them to easily switch optics in the future if desired.

The choice of Deltapoint Pro may be noteworthy, if only because it’s not the RMR that’s so commonly seen for duty-type applications. The RMR has significantly better battery life, and may be a bit tougher than the Deltapoint Pro. The Deltapoint Pro’s larger window makes it a bit easier for shooters to get used to, since there’s a larger area where they can see the dot. The biggest advantage of the Deltapoint Pro is that one can replace the battery without having to remove (and rezero) the optic. This more than makes up for the less than ideal battery life. Batteries can be easily swapped before missions or training sessions, without having to then verify the zero of the optic.

The Marines have opted for the same Glock 19M that the FBI adopted. Of course, the FBI also adopted the Glock 17M, and the reader may be wondering why not that pistol? Let’s consider the intended users. The Marines may espouse the concept of ‘Every Man a Rifleman’ but there are some jobs where this just doesn’t work. Pilots for example. A pistol also gives the option of carrying concealed, which is great for criminal investigators, and those conducting interviews. Or those that need to be around questionable allies. It allows the soldier to be armed without appearing to be armed. So the Marines are coming at it from the same way so many concealed carriers are: the Glock 19 is just about the perfect size. Smallness helps concealment, especially with respect to the “height” or “length” of the grip. And the Glock 19’s grip is about as small as it can be and still allow the user to get a full grip on it (i.e. no fingers are hanging off to be curled below it). The Glock 19 doesn’t give up much to the Glock 17 as far as shootability goes, but it’s quite a bit more concealable. For those who aren’t needing concealment, the pistol is still a secondary weapon system. A smaller, lighter pistol is easier to fit on their gear in a cockpit with all the other stuff they have to carry. Or on their belt for SOCOM.

The reader may also be wondering “Why not the P320 Compact?” Well, the Marines do have a history of working a lot with both SOCOM and the FBI, and they both like Glocks. Also, the MHS program was not as thorough as the FBI’s tests were as far as high round count reliability tests are concerned. The full-size MHS entrants (P320) went through 12,500 rounds to check reliability and establish an MRBS of 2,000 rounds with a 90% confidence level. The compact entrants (P320C) only had to go through 1,500 rounds of evaluation. The FBI tests included 20,000 rounds for each of the full size and compact entrants. So the Glock 19M has verified reliability in a way that the P320C doesn’t.

US Army Next Generation IFV Prototype Solicitation

The US Army has started looking for a new IFV to replace the Bradley. Again. They’ve requested a couple demonstrator prototypes to play with. Right now, this is a very early assessment, but the US Army has a few requests.

Things that the Army is looking for in the design include a crew of two, capacity for six dismounts, and a 50mm gun. It will be interesting to see what the design team comes up with.

We’ve been here before. Twice. And we failed both times. The Future Combat System and the Ground Combat Vehicle were both failures. Both programs were hugely ambitious. Future Combat System was supposed to be a massive family of vehicles with lots of commonality and lots of advanced fire control and propulsion systems. Ground Combat Vehicle was supposed to be a big IFV with a number of significant improvements, including a variety of high-end electronics, an advanced propulsion system, and a full squad’s worth of dismounts, i.e. 9 men. Both had huge, unsurprising cost overruns, and both times Congress scored dreaded budget kills on the projects.

Six dismounts keeps the size down, which will keep the weight down, which should help keep the cost down. The GCV had an increasing weight spiral as protection requirements and systems kept changing. A crew of two probably indicates an interest in a remote turret system. Unfortunately, this might also indicate some advanced fire control system needs, which would drive cost up. I’m still impressed that Big Army compromised on something like dismount numbers out of the gate.

Overall, we have something that looks very similar to the German Puma. While it’s an expensive IFV, it has excellent protection. And, the General Accountability Office rated it as cheaper for the Army than either the notional GCV or a Namer APC with appropriate US Army electronics. And that didn’t have the desired firepower.1

Speaking of firepower, that might also strike you as something that stands out. A 50mm autocannon would pack some serious punch, both as far as HE Capacity and armor piercing capability. I would expect something like a modernized 50mm Supershot to be the gun of choice, and the US Army is testing something similar.

Going back to the Puma connection for a moment, SAIC is the prime contractor for the prototypes, and they were also the prime contractor in the GCV evaluation with a design that was a substantially reworked Puma. Perhaps the US Army is also a fan of the Puma.

What do I think, keeping in mind that this is a rough sketch? I really like the sketch. Something like the Puma as far as protection and capacity but with a proper gun would be awesome. I’d prefer it with nine dismounts. But I’d prefer a lot of things. I like that they’re starting with something which seems semi-reasonable on the face of it. I want a high standard of protection and survivability, and if I have to accept six dismounts to keep cost reasonable and avoid the total budget kill, so be it.

  1. I can’t really verify GAO’s work on cost estimates, because the GCV and alternatives comparison report doesn’t go through their methodology. However, their Puma cost estimates match up pretty well with the Puma’s price in the Czech IFV competition, once we account for inflation and currency conversions. In light of anything better2, I’ll stick with GAO’s estimates. 
  2. Primary sources or documented estimates, please. Ideally I’d have budget statements, but I haven’t been able to find those for the IDF or the Bundeswehr. As a side note, I have been able to find them for the US Armed Forces as well as the French Armed Forces. Thanks, Lafayette. 

Resurrected Weapons: LOSAT/KEM/CKEM

I’m lumping these together because they all operate on the same basic principle, and are really just different sized versions of the same concept. This idea keeps coming up in a bunch of different sizes and a bunch of different guises.

Antitank missiles today use shaped charge(s) to penetrate armor. We might call this a “chemical energy” method of penetrating armor. More technically, we might call it the Munroe Effect. This is really effective, and doesn’t depend on missile speed. However, there are lots of technologies today to counter this method of armor penetration, including reactive armor (both explosive and non-explosive types), spaced armor, various forms of composite armor, and cage armor. And we can mix and match the above to get some really hard to kill vehicles.

That said, the clever observer will note that most tank guns today use some kind of APFSDS round, a kinetic energy penetrator. Heavy alloy dart moving very fast. Present armor technology makes this a lot harder to defeat than a shaped charge. LOSAT (later renamed KEM) and CKEM would try to apply this same warhead type to an antitank missile. Start with a heavy metal warhead, add a big honking solid fuel rocket motor and fulfill your need for speed.

The missiles were a little different. MGM-166 LOSAT/KEM was 2.85 m long, 16.2 cm wide, and weighed 80 kg. It had a top speed of about 1,500 m/s or 5,000 fps. At this speed, it reached its maximum range in under 5 seconds.

CKEM is the newer, Compact version of the concept. It’s also faster because of rocket motor improvements. It was build in the late 90s/early 2000s to fit a roughly TOW-sized footprint. CKEM was a little longer than TOW at 1.5 m, but matched it’s 15.2 cm diameter. Maximum speed was Mach 6 (about 6,700 fps or 2,047 m/s).

This ends up being a great idea for a number of reasons. We’ve already mentioned that it’s a lot harder to protect a vehicle against APFSDS type rounds. In this case, there is no replacement for velocity. You’ll need heavy armor to stop what’s incoming. Further, a lot of the complicated guidance systems can be done away with. Both missiles had minimal guidance, and relied on lead computations in the launcher to account for any target movement. Given the speeds involved, this is more than sufficient. Finally, being a very fast moving, relatively unfragile thing, it’s a lot harder for modern active protection systems to defeat. All big wins.

Downsides? Well, most of the development and system cost is the motor. We need a relatively small engine that can deliver a lot of thrust very quickly and will also remain stable in storage. That’s not really insurmountable, or a terrible cost driver. Especially when compared to the high-end thermal-imaging based fire and forget systems around these days. The other obvious problem, which doesn’t come up in documentation I’ve seen, is minimum ranges. Even a really high impulse motor will take some time to accelerate that missile up to speed, so there’s going to be a dead zone where the missile will not work as advertised. I’d also expect the motor to be bulky.

Bulk, even for the smaller CKEM, is still an issue. It’s certainly not man-portable. But it would make an excellent antitank missile for vehicles. A JLTV, or a Bradley would make a great carrier vehicle for these. We love tanks, and thus we love antitank missiles. Just like the Russians, who have new tanks. As do the Chinese.

Also, I’d love to see these trialed from helicopters and aircraft. The size isn’t terrible, and the speed should help with the fire control problem.

Verdict: Funding approved by the Borgundy War Department Army Ordnance Board

Project LSAT Weight Comparisons

As a follow-on to my earlier post analyzing the LSAT project, I provided this table with the best comparative data that I can find. Note of course that LSAT systems are prototypes, and weights might change should these come into production. All LSAT data is for the more successful polymer-cased, telescoped (PCT) rounds.

First, the machine gun table:

Unloaded Weight17 lbs10.5 lbs9.4 lbs27.6 lbs14.7 lbs
Caliber5.56 NATO5.56 NATO5.56 PCT7.62 NATO7.62 PCT
Ammo weight (200 rd belt)6.92 lbs6.92 lbs3.8 lbs13.4 lbs7.5 lbs
Loaded Weight23.92 lbs17.42 lbs13.2 lbs41 lbs22.2 lbs

The 6.5 mm PCT round is very nearly the same size and weight as the 7.62 mm PCT round, so the 6.5 is omitted for simplicity. This also provides a better comparison with the existing M240B. A 200 round belt was used for ease of comparison, though 100 round belts are also commonly used.

Now, the carbine table:

WeaponM4 CarbineLSAT Carbine
Unloaded Weight6.5 lbs6.5 lbs
Caliber5.56 NATO5.56 PCT
Ammo weight (30 round magazine)1.05 lbs0.69 lbs
Loaded Weight7.55 lbs7.19 lbs

The carbine designs are less well developed. I don’t have enough data on the prospective 7.62 mm/6.5 mm PCT ‘battle rifle’ to include it in the table (specifically, I lack the weight of a loaded magazine). We can see that the weight savings are much less significant here, amounting to 2.5 lbs for a standard combat load of 210 rounds. Which is nice, but not quite as massive as the savings for machine gunners.