Remote Weapon Systems are all fun and games, until you have to reload or correct a malfunction while you're under fire --- the weapons are mounted entirely external to the vehicle, and the commander or gunner has to be as well to access them. They still end up consuming nearly as much space and payload as a turret as well, because the armored shell that's deleted weighs only a pittance compared to everything else combined, and the basket and motor still end up consuming a lot of the vehicle's interior.

 

If we're lucky, the West will get over this fad long before China does.

It's all fun & games Until someone is shooting at you, & then an RWS is a God-Send...the loaders -240 or the M-2hB on the M-1 are also EXTERNAL & will need the operator to expose themselves to reload or fix a malfunction, too!

 

At least during the shooting the gunner is not exposed...

 

YOUR solution leaves them exposed all the time, not just some of the time...IIRC the M-1 TC's weapon is NOT in a cupola...so welcome to being exposed all the time...the rest of RWS mounts are on MRAP's, HMMWV's & APC's & the like, where the gunner was always open to enemy fire...the HMMWV, nor the MRAP, nor the Stryker, nor the M-113 came with an enclosed cupola for the TC's weapon...

 

I don't see your "complaint" is valid at all.

"YOUR solution leaves them exposed all the time, not just some of the time...  I don't see your "complaint" is valid at all."

In a *turret* --- as opposed to an external, exposed, remote-controlled machine gun --- the weapons are behind armor, and the reloading is also done behind armor, all without ever opening a hatch (let alone climbing up on the roof to reload or clear a stoppage, only to be sawn in half by enemy machine gun fire the instant they see an easy mark);

For a system with a weapon weighing 100kg or less the armored shell outweighs the rest of the system (gun, ammunition, servos, sensors, etc.) combined, typically several times over, unless you are counting the weight of the entire vehicle.

 

Remote weapon systems do not extend into vehicle interior except for the power converters and displays, there is no basket and the motors are all outside the hull in current designs. It makes the systems ‘plug-and-play’, easily switched out, because being unarmored means they are more vulnerable to battle damage.

 

Reloading, yes there is a problem with needing to expose yourself, and there are designs coming out that address it, but i remains to be seen if the buyers see it as a needed feature.

 

Lastly, the gun being replaced is the one at the commanders hatch on top of the turret, not the coax to the main gun. So the commander only has to show himself briefly to reload, instead of continuously to fire it.

THANK YOU...I don't think Blackmail was getting my explanation.... the M-1 is NOT the M-60, the 12.7mm HMG is NOT in a turret....& the loader is CONSTANTLY exposed on his weapon, now... on both the M-1, the M-60 & the M-48, unless his vehicle has a gun shield Until RWS the TC was exposed on the Stryker Carrier Vehicle & the gunner on the HMMWV.

Actually, the M60 has a mini-turret for the commanders .50 cal.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/m60/images/m60_tank1.jpg

"For a system with a weapon weighing 100kg or less the armored shell outweighs the rest of the system (gun, ammunition, servos, sensors, etc.) combined, typically several times over, unless you are counting the weight of the entire vehicle."
Indeed, but the whole point of an armored fighting vehicle is to protect it's crew and vital components with armor in a firefight. Remote weapon systems don't do this at all, making them a complete farce. It's too light to fight.

You can move the goalpost all you want by claiming that you can simply armor an RWS, add automated loading systems, and so on, but then all the weight-savings disappear.

"Remote weapon systems do not extend into vehicle interior except for the power converters and displays, there is no basket and the motors are all outside the hull in current designs."
All that stuff has to go somewhere, and it's either behind the protection of the armor, or it isn't --- with an RWS, it's the latter.

"Reloading, yes there is a problem with needing to expose yourself, and there are designs coming out that address it, but i remains to be seen if the buyers see it as a needed feature."
If it happens, the automated loading system will be so complex that it will be just as vulnerable as an exposed crewman; if it doesn't break-down all by itself first, that is. Moreover, being yet another moving part, it's another system that will increase the cost, difficulty, and workload of the vehicle's maintenance. When it is broken --- which will be the norm, not the exception --- the vehicle will be NMC (Non-Mission-Capable).

And how will that affect those mythical weight-savings?

Or, you could just mount a turret on the vehicle instead, with less things to break, simpler components that will break less, with everything and everyone behind armor at all times.

"Lastly, the gun being replaced is the one at the commanders hatch on top of the turret, not the coax to the main gun. So the commander only has to show himself briefly to reload, instead of continuously to fire it."
This is only true of the turrets mounted atop MBTs and IFVs, and they're not the only show in town. Yet for those vehicles, machine guns with 360-degree gunshields offer superior accuracy and handling, and reloading behind armor --- and they weigh less.

For the sake of discussion lets use the RWS system presented here http://www.eos-aus.com/img/pdfs/DS-EOS-R-400.pdf

How much would that theoretical turret of yours weigh?  Let’s assume STANAG level II to make it comparable to the RWS, but large enough to hold the operator, i.e. a 1 man turret.  Say 500kg of armor.  Add the larger servos to move it plus 90kg for a .50cal + ammunition, 100kg for the operator, and another 30kg for sensors and fire control to make it comparable, say an additional 100kg for the servos and a total of 750kg, versus 300kg for the RWS.  This weight penalty has to be paid for, usually at the cost vehicle protection and maneuverability.  If an APC/IFV the internal basket will also displace 2 infantry passengers.  That is the price you pay for a manned turret.

 

Armoring a RWS costs less in weight and other considerations than armoring a manned turret because the envelope is much smaller, only about 20% as large in the example above.

An RWS is armored, whether that is more, as much as, or less than the vehicle is a design choice.

Then why did they abandon the commanders cupola on the M-60 for a RWS on the Abrams?  In fact the original design was a weapon without any gunshield at all.  The principle reasons were that the weight of the gunshield made the system so unresponsive as to be irrelevant for many of it’s functions.  Israeli experience was that the cupola actually increased the likelihood of the commander being injured and had them removed and the gun placed on a ring mount, without a gunshield.

 

A 360 gunshield weights more than a RWS with equal protection, it is simple math, and offers advantages in neither accuracy nor handling.  Any advantage in awareness is cancelled out, if not made worse, by the gunshield unless it lacks overhead protection, which would negate any argument for better protection.

"The next CROWS addresses this NON-issue."

 

On the contrary, this patent proves the point that I made earlier.

 

In order to adequately protect both the weapons and the crew while they reload them (or correct malfunctions in them, such as stoppages), you have to wrap so much armor around an RWS that the space and weight savings cease to exist --- and those are the raison d'etre of the RWS to begin with. If all of that automation are already enveloped a 360-degree armored shell, it's only adding more dead to the vehicle, which would have been saved by simply placing the gunner inside the turret instead. The gunner will be in the vehicle no matter what, so weight is added by an adequately-protected RWS --- not saved.

 

How many "pounds of cure" (versus ounces of prevention --- i.e., a turret) do all the armor added to this kluge weigh? How much extra weight has to be added to the vehicle and the RWS' automation to cope with it? How does that end up comparing to, for example, the 2350lb Cadillac Gage 40/50 turret that's been in use with dozens of nations for over 50 years?

 

A turret also allows the gunner to reload the weapon or correct malfunctions on the spot, without having to clamber out of the vehicle, and up into a labyrinth of potentially finger-severing moving parts, just to reload the weapon.

 

All the RWS does (to use a figure of speech) is reinvent the wheel by making it square. The only end-result is needlessly makes everything more difficult and dangerous for troops on the pointy end of the spear;