I agree with you that the systems are ancient.
Gen. Shinseki had a vision, some call it a nightmare, of wheeled vehicles all on a common platform, fulfilling multiple roles. The Strikers were an interim capability. Afghanistan showed us wheeled vehicles, the Stryker, was not up to snuff. FCS then went to tracks. You have to ask yourself if a chassis for an IFV or SPG should be common to a command post or ambulance.
FCS had a lot of other problems. Everything under the sun was thrown in. A UAV (flying trash can), smart mines, other sensors. Billions of lines of code to make it all work together. It needed a network, which the PEO did not control, and did not exist. For the most part, it still does not exist.
Sen. McCain meddled too. He hated the Other Transactional Authority contracting model and forced to the conventional, “DFARS,” type.
Programs that spun out of FCS, like the GCV, died. We got the M10 Booker, but that traces its roots to the XM8 AGS in the 90’s — killed for the peace dividend. The AMPV and MICV (formerly OMFV) in the works. The Army has killed lots of armor programs since Reagan was president (like ASM), we’ll see what happens.
Oh, the last thing from Gen. Shinseki’s vision, the BCTs, are going back into divisions!
The Stryker wasn’t that bad, and in fact it’ll hold up better (IED/Mines) than your 17.5 inch ground clearance, flat bottom, M1 will with a whopping 1 inch of steel under belly and with no shock absorbing seating.
Again, vehicles like the M1 and M2 came into service when we were in the defense, on friendly terrain (Cold War Europe was there design). Big IEDs and heavy mines were a lesser concern since all you’re really looking at are light scaterable artillery mines which the enemy could have employed.
***We are using ground systems that are (((far))) beyond their designed practical life span.***
***To truly take advantage of new concepts and technologies (Active defense, digital tech, stealth), to be designed around a different threat (roof and belly are vulnerable on older designs) operating environment (terrain, temperatures), these ground systems need to have these ideas incorporated into their design from the ground up.***
Realize, vehicles like the M1 and M2 didn’t even have AC (the M1 had it’s marginal cool air system off the turbine). They didn’t have the power supply and cabling to support much of the newer active defensive and digital technology. Their physical layout didn’t include the space for these new technologies to be incorporated. The armor itself was put in those places where the threat was, and the top and bottom were not a big concern. Concepts like stealth didn’t even exist, and how do you incorporate that with a turbine blasting out so much hot air it’ll peel the paint off a car following it to closely?
But it gets worse! These vehicles have their origin as far back as when Eisenhower was President, M113. In some cases the companies that made these vehicles don’t even exist anymore and the major components haven’t been built in over 2 decades! You are left re-manufacturing and in most cases refurbishing parts often at extremely high cost and with so-so reliability. You have the M113, M88, M109, M1, and M2, all using their own unique power-packs, tracks, and sprockets. That is a maintenance and logistical nightmare. Each vehicle has different capabilities in navigating terrain and sometimes certain vehicles can’t keep up with others in maneuver warfare. Operators are faced with vehicles that all have different operating procedures and controls.
What we have today is a mess. It sort of works because we keep bolting applique systems to these platforms to keep them somewhat viable. But none of it works 100% because these platforms were never designed for these technologies we’re trying to incorporate on them, the threats these vehicles face, or operating environment we find ourselves in today.
For example, you can add some armor and rearrange some of the internals on a M2 Bradley to make it more survival against mines and IED’s, but it’s basic design was to deal with a small mine since that threat was near nonexistent in Central Europe in the Cold War. It’s a thin, flat, underbelly that is 18 inches from the ground, like the M1. The seating was never conceived to absorb the energy of a bigger blast and trying to add such a feature to this vehicle now would reduce the occupancy (which is already insufficient) significantly.
How I would solve this:
There is no such thing as a jack of all trades and trying to make a single universal platform will not work because of the mutually exclusive design requirements.
That said, a light and heavy concept is feasible, IMHO:
Common between both is that I would use 7068T6 for inner hull, frame structures, etc. Vehicle height / ground clearance would be adjustable. At maximum height you can also attach additional V-shape underbelly armor. Vehicles share all peripheral systems, i.e. external, internal lighting, fire suppression, NBC system, remote weapons station, smoke, seating, driver controls, communications, etc. Scalable diesel hybrid electric power-packs (Opposed H4/H8) that share most parts, including a modular scalable battery. This reduces thermal and acoustic signature but also allows for greater ability to absorb damage (albeit it degraded) and still maintain mobility (i.e. sovereign electric and diesel drive). Ensure the power-pack is a self adjusting diesel multi-fuel (automotive diesel, JP4, JP8, Jet A, Jet A-1). Incorporate a sacrificial armor design, i.e. batteries, fuel cells, engine, AC etc are are positioned to provide additional armor. Vehicles are welded and riveted.
7068-T6: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7068_aluminium_alloy https://cdn11.bigcommerce.com/s-iac7bmebd7/product_images/uploaded_images/tennalum-7068-high-strength-aluminum-alloy-700x434.jpg (7075 is what was used in the past)
What I would not do: employ composites and plastics as well as adhesives in the base vehicle design and armor. That would include some of the newer materials for armor (only add on, but not in the base design). These vehicles have an extremely long service life and these materials degrade with time, UV, moisture. Under lab conditions they do well, 10 years later in the field they don’t perform to those standards.
(Airborne, Air Assault, Light, Mountain, Arctic)
The light platform would be built around the idea of maximum mobility and serve airborne and air assault forces: CH-47 sling (CH47 has a 16,000 pound sling capacity). It has C-130 roll-on and roll off, parachute drop, as well as palatalized airdrop capability. The light platform could also be used in arctic and mountainous terrain, example BV206. This platform is amphibious, without modifications (river crossings). Narrow (6 ft on ground 6.5 ft above), this vehicle is more capable in an urban setting or where it is densely vegetated. This vehicle is also fast on the road (~55 MPH practical / sustained speed). Obviously, the price you pay is in armor.
Rubber track.
Modular add on armor options.
Basically a square box because you need space for crew / passengers / equipment / weapons but have very little to work with. You can’t practically slope things.
I would go with a two part design like this: https://www.hagglund-hire-scotland.co.uk/spec.php (Front pulls, rear pushes, articulating shaft provides power to rear) This allows the vehicle to be separated and a front part (stand alone weapons platform) weighing in at ~13,500 pounds can be carried by a CH47 and a rear part at ~ 8,500 pounds can be carried separately. Inner theater, a C130J can carry 2 complete 2 part vehicles (34 men ~ 1 infantry platoon).
(Mechanized infantry and Armor)
The heavy platform would be built around a maximum feasible width (~144 inches on ground), height (~132 inches), length (~315 inches) and weight (~153,000 pounds combat load). This vehicle is simply built to give you the maximum protection possible which still can be rail loaded, carried by strategic lift (C5 / 17), a ship, LCAC, navigate many big bridges in western nations, fit through a tunnel or road underpass. Going bigger and heavier than that, and you have a worthless vehicle because of environmental mobility constraints.
Metal track.
