Army Wants 'Air Droppable' Light Tank & Ultra-Light Vehicles

njiiaf said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1654572183761588224
The army’s new MPF in 2023 is worse in almost every way in comparison to something GDLS hobbled together in the ‘90s. The army is regressing in many, many ways.
Click to expand...
Which was going to take a lot of development to hit the intended performance characteristics. MPF went from initial RFP to contract award in 7 years, 5 from the EMD RFP to award. With a pandemic sitting in the middle there. That's a tight timeline aimed to get "good enough" fast and affordably rather than exquisite solution on a longer timescale. GDLS, which is still around last time I checked, chose to offer the vehicle it did rather than the napkin sketch above. I can only presume they had good reason.
 
Last edited:
The thing that jumps out to me is that to get it down to 39 tons (2 per C-17) they had to make it non-functional. Basically, it seems to roll off the plane with no modular armor and no bustle/autoloader. Those have to get bolted back on in the field, after being flown in separately (along with an ARV with a crane, presumably). That's a few hours work to make it combat-ready.

At 42 tons, I think MPF comes off the plane ready to fight.
 
Last edited:
Interesting, I added up the weight reductions allowed by the shorter hull, TMEPS powertrain and hydropneumatic suspension but with steel instead of titanium. Came up at 4.27 metric tonnes, wouldn't be too bad for the full MBT variant.
 
Moose said:
Which was going to take a lot of development to hit the intended performance characteristics. MPF went from initial RFP to contract award in 7 years, 5 from the EMD RFP to award. With a pandemic sitting in the middle there. That's a tight timeline aimed to get "good enough" fast and affordably rather than exquisite solution on a longer timescale. GDLS, which is still around last time I checked, chose to offer the vehicle it did rather than the napkin sketch above. I can only presume they had good reason.
Click to expand...
Well, the point was to illustrate how unimpressive of a design the MPF is, not to say that ALVT was the best solution. 42 tons, 800hp, 4-man crew, 105mm gun for a light tank in 2023; mediocrity is the only word that I can think of. I think they could have come up with a much better design, even if it took slightly longer. Maybe they can improve it incrementally in the future but I don't really know if they will.

As it stands, the MPF looks like a waste of money, and alongside NGSW, doesn't really paint the Army in a positive light. Though at least they managed not to get the program cancelled, which is more than what we could say for the likes of Crusader, XM8, OICW, FCS, GCV, etc.
 
njiiaf said:
Moose said:
Which was going to take a lot of development to hit the intended performance characteristics. MPF went from initial RFP to contract award in 7 years, 5 from the EMD RFP to award. With a pandemic sitting in the middle there. That's a tight timeline aimed to get "good enough" fast and affordably rather than exquisite solution on a longer timescale. GDLS, which is still around last time I checked, chose to offer the vehicle it did rather than the napkin sketch above. I can only presume they had good reason.
Click to expand...
Well, the point was to illustrate how unimpressive of a design the MPF is, not to say that ALVT was the best solution. 42 tons, 800hp, 4-man crew, 105mm gun for a light tank in 2023; mediocrity is the only word that I can think of. I think they could have come up with a much better design, even if it took slightly longer. Maybe they can improve it incrementally in the future but I don't really know if they will.

As it stands, the MPF looks like a waste of money, and alongside NGSW, doesn't really paint the Army in a positive light. Though at least they managed not to get the program cancelled, which is more than what we could say for the likes of Crusader, XM8, OICW, FCS, GCV, etc.
Click to expand...

The MPF not a gods-damned light tank. It's VERY CLEARLY an assault gun. I wish people would stop calling it what THEY want it to be, and start calling it by what the ARMY wants it to be. What they're buying it for. And the army wants an assault gun.

Just because it has a turret doesn't make it a tank.

Also, the ALTV would never pass the requirements for the MPF: There's no way to get the crew out except by hauling them out through their hatches, and the Army was really big on getting alternative ways to get injured crew out.
 
MihoshiK said:

The MPF not a gods-damned light tank. It's VERY CLEARLY an assault gun. I wish people would stop calling it what THEY want it to be, and start calling it by what the ARMY wants it to be. What they're buying it for. And the army wants an assault gun.

Just because it has a turret doesn't make it a tank.

Also, the ALTV would never pass the requirements for the MPF: There's no way to get the crew out except by hauling them out through their hatches, and the Army was really big on getting alternative ways to get injured crew out.
Click to expand...
Calm down there partner. Whether its a Light tank or assault gun doesn't really make a difference to me.
For the record, I don't recall the army ever specifying that it is in fact an assault gun.
 
njiiaf said:
MihoshiK said:
The MPF not a gods-damned light tank. It's VERY CLEARLY an assault gun. I wish people would stop calling it what THEY want it to be, and start calling it by what the ARMY wants it to be. What they're buying it for. And the army wants an assault gun.

Just because it has a turret doesn't make it a tank.

Also, the ALTV would never pass the requirements for the MPF: There's no way to get the crew out except by hauling them out through their hatches, and the Army was really big on getting alternative ways to get injured crew out.
Click to expand...
Calm down there partner. Whether its a Light tank or assault gun doesn't really make a difference to me.
For the record, I don't recall the army ever specifying that it is in fact an assault gun.
Click to expand...
...You're kidding, right? Did you read even part of the brief? Or just a summary? It is extremely clear what the army wants out of MPF. It's intended role is crystal clear.
GTX said:
Neither the (closest thing to an) official website or GDLS's webpage refer to it as a tank:

PEO GCS Live Wire

www.peogcs.army.mil www.peogcs.army.mil


That said, it is quite understandable that people will refer to it as a light tank given it has all the characteristics.
Click to expand...
The problem is really that people see "light tank", start referring it as such, and then start making arguments why it's a bad light tank.
 
MihoshiK said:
...You're kidding, right? Did you read even part of the brief? Or just a summary? It is extremely clear what the army wants out of MPF. It's intended role is crystal clear.
Click to expand...
Did you?
  • The Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) lack a mobile protected firepower capability necessary to defeat enemy prepared positions, destroy enemy armored vehicles, close with the enemy through fire and maneuver, and ensure freedom of maneuver and action in close contact with the enemy.
Click to expand...
An assault gun is a mobile artillery piece meant for direct fire. They fell out of favor post-WWII. MPF is a 21st century tracked AFV with armor, a high-velocity tank gun mounted to a turret, tank FCS, and maneuver capability. It also weighs 40-tons in base form. That is pretty much the definition of a tank, regardless of whatever buzzword the army wishes to call it.
 
njiiaf said:
An assault gun is a mobile artillery piece meant for direct fire. They fell out of favor post-WWII. MPF is a 21st century tracked AFV with armor, a high-velocity tank gun mounted to a turret, tank FCS, and maneuver capability. It also weighs 40-tons in base form. That is pretty much the definition of a tank, regardless of whatever buzzword the army wishes to call it.
Click to expand...
Actually the Assualt Gun did not fall out of favor post WW2.

It evolved into the multiple types and styles of Armored SPGs like the, Ontos, M109 and the Stryker MGS for example.

Which were design for, especially the MGS, being able to get up and blast the issue away and have been used as such repeatedly. Which is the primary job of an assualt gun.

Especially the likes of the Recoilless armed scout cars and the like immediately post war. Then later the TOW Hummvees. Their main use by amount was deleting bunkers and similar, not killing tanks.

They just had the issue of having fuck all for Armor and getting shredded by Rifle fire.

Which the MPF doesn't have.
 
What I find curious with the ALVT is the presence of a commander's cupola and the fact all the sights stay at the same place on the turret even though the crew is below the turret ring. Could it possibly be an optionally manned turret? Dunno what the co-driver in the hull is doing too, except for driving and helping with maintenance.
 
Firefinder said:
njiiaf said:
An assault gun is a mobile artillery piece meant for direct fire. They fell out of favor post-WWII. MPF is a 21st century tracked AFV with armor, a high-velocity tank gun mounted to a turret, tank FCS, and maneuver capability. It also weighs 40-tons in base form. That is pretty much the definition of a tank, regardless of whatever buzzword the army wishes to call it.
Click to expand...
Actually the Assualt Gun did not fall out of favor post WW2.

It evolved into the multiple types and styles of Armored SPGs like the, Ontos, M109 and the Stryker MGS for example.

Which were design for, especially the MGS, being able to get up and blast the issue away and have been used as such repeatedly. Which is the primary job of an assualt gun.

Especially the likes of the Recoilless armed scout cars and the like immediately post war. Then later the TOW Hummvees. Their main use by amount was deleting bunkers and similar, not killing tanks.

They just had the issue of having fuck all for Armor and getting shredded by Rifle fire.

Which the MPF doesn't have.
Click to expand...
Same thing, we are just arguing semantics here. No one is building straight-up assault guns anymore. The role has been taken up by other AFVs. Anyway, the point is that MPF is way too heavy at 40 tons with only 800hp, when similar designs are lighter with better power/weight ratios. And as much as the army likes to believe that this thing will never-ever face an MBT on its own, the possibility is still there given how unpredictable armed conflicts can be. Which is why the 120 would be better.
 
It does seem weird that the US Army would not standardize on 120mm; soft recoil versions have been available for over a decade and weight addition would probably be minimal. The new induction time fused round seems built for the direct fire support role (delayed impact fuse or air burst options).
 
Josh_TN said:
It does seem weird that the US Army would not standardize on 120mm; soft recoil versions have been available for over a decade and weight addition would probably be minimal. The new induction time fused round seems built for the direct fire support role (delayed impact fuse or air burst options).
Click to expand...

105mm means significantly more stowed rounds compared to 120mm. Either one will adequately kill a bunker or breach a wall. If you're not treating MPF as primarily a tank killer, more rounds is better.
 
Josh_TN said:
It does seem weird that the US Army would not standardize on 120mm; soft recoil versions have been available for over a decade and weight addition would probably be minimal. The new induction time fused round seems built for the direct fire support role (delayed impact fuse or air burst options).
Click to expand...
Lots more stowed kills, and quite frankly the 105mm HEP/HESH is a much better round than 120mm MPAT for the purpose of blasting bunkers.

Nowhere in the MPF design brief did it specify gun caliber. Both GDLS and BAE independently decided that a 105mm was the better option for the job.
 
njiiaf said:
Did you?

An assault gun is a mobile artillery piece meant for direct fire. They fell out of favor post-WWII. MPF is a 21st century tracked AFV with armor, a high-velocity tank gun mounted to a turret, tank FCS, and maneuver capability. It also weighs 40-tons in base form. That is pretty much the definition of a tank, regardless of whatever buzzword the army wishes to call it.
Click to expand...

The requirement reads almost the exact same as the original role of the M3 Stuart in FM 17-30 lol.

MihoshiK said:
The MPF not a gods-damned light tank.
Click to expand...

It generates shock action and it weighs less than the M1.

By this simple, universal definition, that is a light tank.

One thing we do know is it's certainly not an "assault gun" though, whatever that is. The US Army has Armored Gun Systems, Mobile Gun Systems, and Mobile Protected Firepowers, but not "assault guns". Because assault guns were historically howitzers and field guns from the artillery branches. They definitely aren't tanks. Just like combat cars, which are also not tanks.
 
I think debating what the word "tank" means is a little pointless. Its definition has changed over time, much like the term "frigate". Tanks certainly used to be anti-infantry oriented in WWII, with TDs being the anti tank element. Let us perhaps instead agree the M10 is not an MBT.
 
Honestly there are two historical types the M10 is the closest to.

The Assualt gun. Which is basically what the Army expects it to do. Basically a reasonably armor vehicle that bigs a decent size gun to where its needed.

And the Infantry Tank. A track vehicle that has a large gun and good armor that is to support the infantry on the attack. And provides fire support against enemy strong points and vehicles.

Both which is by large what the M10 role is expected to be. Doesn't match up exactly but it is closer then a MBT.

Through since like the 1950s tge Armor Vehicle Role Vern Diagram is a bloody circle. Meaning that tge M10 falls into like 8 other categories....
 
Firefinder said:
Honestly there are two historical types the M10 is the closest to.

The Assualt gun. Which is basically what the Army expects it to do. Basically a reasonably armor vehicle that bigs a decent size gun to where its needed.

And the Infantry Tank. A track vehicle that has a large gun and good armor that is to support the infantry on the attack. And provides fire support against enemy strong points and vehicles.

Both which is by large what the M10 role is expected to be. Doesn't match up exactly but it is closer then a MBT.

Through since like the 1950s tge Armor Vehicle Role Vern Diagram is a bloody circle. Meaning that tge M10 falls into like 8 other categories....
Click to expand...
Exactly.

The mission of the M10 is to support leg infantry with a big gun. Leg infantry have NO PROBLEM killing tanks, not with a Javelin CLU in every squad. But you don't want to expend your ATGMs against bunkers, just in case the enemy does manage to organize a Thunder Run of armor against you. So the M10 has a 105mm, which has better HE and HEAT than the 120mm, and even has HESH to really screw up a bunker. And as a general thing the M10 has a few sabot rounds in the ready rack, but the primary mission is launching HE at bunkers.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom