suspension setups, fuel economy going down, heat signatures from power plants going up to propel the heavier vehicle etc. It seems (now) at least some of this thinking is changing and lighter materials are being brought into service that were traditionally used only in air or sea going vehicles. Also, in the last 10 years, the threat being faced by the majority of vehicles (land based at least) has changed dramatically. Gone are the days when a ballistic armour system would do the job, with the threat now being mainly detonation based. IED’s, EOD’s, RPG’s – virtually anything with 3 letters in the name is where we now need to be. And again, it’s all about compromise. To substantially increase the
protection offered by the vehicle (land, sea or air based), we need to either use better (and therefore more expensive) materials, or be considerably cleverer in the design of these vehicles. We will never stop a large device from affecting the stability of a vehicle usually to the point where the vehicle is propelled a distance from the blast and pressure waves coming from an explosive device. Fragments of the device and any rock or hard surface the device is exploded on will shower the vehicle and the surrounding areas with sharp objects and subject the vehicle hull to extreme
BvS 10 Viking MK2 at Ashchurch being prepared for deployment, notice the bar armour and protected weapon station. Photo credit BAE Systems
forces that it really wasn’t designed to withstand.
The answer isn’t simply add more armour. All this will do is decrease the survivability of the vehicle and it’s occupants by adding weight and reducing the manoeuvrability of the vehicle, requiring a power plant upgrade to handle the extra weight (increased heat signature and thus improved visibility to the enemy – not good), all of which will cost money and remove the vehicle from service for a short time while the upgrades are being carried out. New programmes have tackled to some extent some of the points raised above by incorporating permanent armoured safety cells into the vehicle which has been designed to accept further armour being fitted at some stage if required. The vehicles can be quickly and cost effectively upgraded by the use of appliqué armour systems which will be designed to work in conjunction with the existing safety cell. The vehicles are designed from the ground up to enable a full armouring package to be added with minimal weak points, and minimal risk of injury being sustained by secondary projectiles etc. In today’s theatre, we need to
provide vehicles that are both highly manoeuvrable and well protected. By using more composite materials,
we can reduce the weight of the vehicle, allowing more protection to be added without compromising the performance or increasing visibility to the enemy. Composites are also transmission transparent and substantially stronger than the majority of metallic materials, but cost substantially more to both purchase and produce. And, if we then reduce the running costs of these vehicles, the T.C.O. will be equivalent or lower than traditional metallic based vehicles and surely this is what we are really after, not just less expensive vehicles to buy? This will not significantly reduce the number of injuries sustained by high G movement in the aftermath of a detonated device exploding near the vehicle. In order to do this, we need to think in a different manner altogether. The introduction of “V shaped hulls”, sacrificial areas of the vehicle which are designed to come off during a blast, absorbing some of the energy and thus reduce transmission of damage to the safety cell has improved this but we still have some way to go.
Multi-faceted armour systems deflect some of the shock wave or channel it into areas where damage is not so critical, as well as adding ballistic protection to the vehicle. And, to top it all off, we know that whatever we face today, it will be
G3 DEFENCE
39
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64