Somewhere out in the Nevada desert a strange vehicle tears across the landscape.
It's tracked like a tank, except it sports oversized treads in comparison with its relatively
small body, which only holds two occupants.
It also moves much faster than a tank, hitting speeds of up to sixty miles an hour (97 kph),
while retaining the ability to climb grades as high as seventy degrees.
Yet what exactly is this tiny super tank good for, and why is the US Army so interested
in it?
Hello and welcome to another episode of The Infographics Show- today we're taking a look
at the Ripsaw, the possible US Army's futuristic luxury tank.
The Ripsaw has been around since at least 2002, but it started to gain fame in 2010
when the US Army began testing the vehicle for possible adaptation into its inventory.
It wasn't until Fast and Furious 8 though that the rest of the public got a very impressive
look at the capabilities of the Ripsaw, making its big screen Hollywood debut and wowing
audiences with its speed, maneuverability and versatility.
Yet as bad ass as the Ripsaw seems- and admittedly, it does look pretty bad ass in pretty much
everything it does- the US Army has after nine years of testing still not found a use
for the Ripsaw.
Original interest in the Ripsaw stemmed from President Obama's order that the US military
begin slowly shifting its focus from fighting low-intensity conflicts around the world against
insurgent or terrorist forces, back to countering the growing power of China and Russia.
Over the course of the US's Global War on Terror, the military has seen its capabilities
to fight large scale, high intensity conflicts severely atrophy, putting it at risk should
war break out between the US and China or Russia.
Whereas once the US Army was focused on countering hordes of Russian tanks across the plains
of east Europe, its focus shifted to developing a smaller, much more mobile and responsive
force that could best respond to the threats posed by insurgents and terrorists.
Investments in new weapons and technologies were prioritized for techs and gadgets that
gave soldiers an edge in the house-to-house urban fighting of America's wars against terrorists,
or in surveillance technologies and rapid response kinetic attack capabilities for quickly
eliminating high profile individuals as they appeared.
With Russia kicking off a moderately successful rearmament program in the early 2010s which
continues to this day, and China seeking to grow its naval and air force capabilities
in a bid to challenge the US for supremacy over the Pacific, President Obama started
a slow recalibration of the US military's mission from low intensity conflict back to
its roots as a force meant to fight, and defeat, two major powers simultaneously anywhere in
the world.
That meant a reinvestment in front line combat systems such as tanks, anti-tank weapons,
and new bombers.
Yet the slow expansion of Russian ground forces and their increasing adaptation of ground
combat drones sees a need for the US to supplement its infantry with a light tank, or light tank
equivalent.
Currently the US Army finds itself with a pressing need for a light anti-tank weapon
system that's fast, agile, and somewhat survivable- which is where interest in the Ripsaw kicked
off.
With a 750 horsepower diesel engine, the Ripsaw has about half the power of an Abrams, but
on a much lighter body.
This lets this two-seater speed demon reach speeds as high as 60 mph (97 kmph), while
giving it the agility and power to scale steep inclines as high as 70 degrees.
Its oversized tracks make it the perfect off-road vehicle, and in testing it has proven that
there's very little terrain that can stop the Ripsaw.
So why isn't the US Army adopting what seems like an obvious fit?
For starters the small crew capacity makes the Ripsaw a bit of an unappealing option-
yet the vehicle does come with built-in capabilities for being remote controlled.
With the heavy investments by Russia into electronic warfare, which greatly outclass
America's own efforts, a remote control functionality is not very appealing at the moment.
While a new focus in 2019 for the development of more robust electronic warfare capabilities
in order to catch up to, and exceed, Russia and China, this may make the Ripsaw more appealing
in the future, but as it stands the US military is leery of investing heavily into unmanned
ground combat vehicles exactly because of the advantage that Russia currently has in
electronic warfare technologies.
The reasoning is simple, and makes a lot of sense- losing control of a drone flying over
a battlespace means losing a set of eyes and ears, but losing a frontline combatant means
losing a significant force multiplier and putting friendly troops at great risk.
Even in a manned configuration though, the Ripsaw is too lightly armored to really fill
the light tank role required by the US Army- who has fasttracked an acquistions program
meant to procure a valid vehicle for the role.
Right now the Army is being forced to rely on Bradleys and an expensive upgrade program
for some of its Stryker fleet to fill the role, and a dedicated light tank platform
is desperately needed.
The job of a light tank is to quickly move in and out of combat and outmaneuver the heavy
main battle tanks, while providing fire support in situations where big main battle tanks
aren't available or can't operate safely in.
Relying on speed and firepower, a light tank should be able to knock out a main battle
tank, while providing at least some survivability should it be struck in return.
At minimum a light tank should be resistant to .50 caliber and limited RPG fire, drawing
fire for and protecting the infantry it directly supports.
Yet the Ripsaw is completely unarmored, providing zero protection for its crew.
The vehicle is also simply too light, weighing at only 9,000 pounds while an Abrams comes
in at 70 tons.
This light weight means that the Ripsaw is not suitable for many of the heavier fire
support options that a light tank needs.
In fact the Ripsaw is only rated to house the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station,
which is capable of mounting the M2. 50 caliber machine gun, the Mk 19 (narrator note: “Mark
Nineteen”) automatic grenade machine gun, or a M240 Bravo or M249 SAW (“saw”).
While all of these weapons would make for great fire support against targets such as
terrorists and insurgents, none of them pack the punch necessary to go toe-to-toe with
a modern armored vehicle.
Russia for example fields the Sprut-SD light tank, which features a 125mm main gun with
a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.
Its main gun can also fire anti-tank guided missiles if available.
Armored with aluminum and steel, the Sprut is able to protect from 23mm cannon rounds,
small arms fire, and artillery splinters.
If the Russian Sprut were to come face to face with a Ripsaw, the Ripsaw would be a
mess of mangled metal in seconds.
Yet the US Army has been trying- very hard- to find a place for the Ripsaw, and consistently
failing.
While the Ripsaw can be armed with Javelin anti-tank missiles and could in theory make
for a good tank-killer, its complete lack of protection once more makes it an incredibly
unappealing option for the role.
Troops potentially assigned to operate the Ripsaw against a Russian tank would not be
blamed for remembering the terrible Shermans from World War II, which were notorious for
exploding after a single hit by a German Panzer.
This earned the Sherman the nickname of Ronson, after a cigarette lighter, amongst the Germans,
because just like the lighter a Sherman would always “light up the first time, every time.”
With such equally bad protection- if not worse as at least a Sherman could withstand small
arms fire- assignment to a Ripsaw against modern Russian forces would be tantamount
to suicide.
Alternatively the Ripsaw has also been reviewed for possible use as an ambulance, and indeed
here its high speed and extreme maneuverability make it a very appealing prospect.
Yet again though its limited crew capacity sinks the hopes of using a Ripsaw as a battlefield
ambulance, as the vehicle could at best fit a single casualty with no room for an attending
medic- not to mention that in a modern conflict casualties would be in the dozens, necessitating
a vehicle that can accommodate several casualties at once.
In the end the Ripsaw has yet to be formally rejected by the US military, but it has also
failed to find a place in its inventory.
We here at The Infographics Show suspect that the only reason the US Army is still testing
the Ripsaw and trying to figure out how it could fit in the current fleet is because
without a doubt, the vehicle is quite bad ass.
It's fast, agile, and can take you literally anywhere- but with absolutely zero battlefield
capabilities we think its time that the army grow up and put its toys away, because the
time to focus on serious weapon systems for future conflicts is definitely now.
What do you think the Ripsaw could be used for in combat?
Let us know in the comments!
Also, make sure you check our other video, The US Secret Underwater Spy Technology – The
US Navy's SOSUS.
And as always if you enjoyed this video don't forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe.
See you next time!