• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

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

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
jsport said:
Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.
Wrong. ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
TomS said:
jsport said:
Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.
Wrong. ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
Ok read somewhere differently, regardless bring back the EFV w/ speed to the beach and it's larger troop carry or watch support for a Marine disappear. Single squad vehicle reduces the USMC down to Royal Marine status and difficulty explaining the need for expensive vehicles as the capability will not be there to support the cost..
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
jsport said:
TomS said:
jsport said:
Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.
Wrong. ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
Ok read somewhere differently, regardless bring back the EFV w/ speed to the beach and it's larger troop carry or watch support for a Marine disappear. Single squad vehicle reduces the USMC down to Royal Marine status and difficulty explaining the need for expensive vehicles as the capability will not be there to support the cost..
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The Royal Marines have no vehicles that can swim ashore at all -- Bv10S is amphibious only to the extend to wading ashore form landing craft or crossing rivers inland, and its protection is grossly inferior to ACV.

I wouldn't say that ACV is optimal, but AAAV was simply a bad solution to a questionable need. Way too expensive for the capacity it offered, and the speed/range just didn't make sense. A more logical approach would have been a more lineal LVTP-7 successor with incremental improvements in protection and seakeeping, plus a significant firepower upgrade.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
TomS said:
jsport said:
TomS said:
jsport said:
Likewise, the AAV upgrade at least gave an ability to get 25 Marines on shore under armor the ACV carries a whooping three person crew.
Wrong. ACV carries three man crew plus 13 embarked troops.
Ok read somewhere differently, regardless bring back the EFV w/ speed to the beach and it's larger troop carry or watch support for a Marine disappear. Single squad vehicle reduces the USMC down to Royal Marine status and difficulty explaining the need for expensive vehicles as the capability will not be there to support the cost..
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say. The Royal Marines have no vehicles that can swim ashore at all -- Bv10S is amphibious only to the extend to wading ashore form landing craft or crossing rivers inland, and its protection is grossly inferior to ACV.

I wouldn't say that ACV is optimal, but AAAV was simply a bad solution to a questionable need. Way too expensive for the capacity it offered, and the speed/range just didn't make sense. A more logical approach would have been a more lineal LVTP-7 successor with incremental improvements in protection and seakeeping, plus a significant firepower upgrade.
It silly simple and been covered before.
If a national amphibious force has only limited amphibious capable forces then the justification for a large force is simply gone (no justification for expensive aircraft helicopters or any large infrastructure). A few ACVs which carry only 13 is a joke in genuine Anti-access amphibious op which needs to be of size. Essentially a Recon force, like a Recon Bn in current USMC is all a ACV can offer. The Royal Marines are essentially a very limited amphibious Specops. The ACV would render the USMC w/o the LVTP-7 upgrades a Specops/Recon unit only .

The USMC has many detractors already and they would argue for the downsizing of the Marines to the size of Royal Marines w/ no large supporting infrastructure organic much of anything. .

Detractors w/ some justification claim the USMC is redundant and expensive. Most importantly if it can't mount a large amphibous operation. ie provide any real amphibious option for Anti-Access ...then why a USMC??

A vehicle carrying a decent number of Gyrenes and fast in the water is the only long term means of arguing there is amphibious option in Anti-Acess to present against those detractors. .
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://defensemaven.io/warriormaven/land/army-to-buy-500-new-light-tank-mobile-protected-firepower-vehicles-ODSHVvMF3ECzxU0sWOAZ1w/

The service plans to pick two vendors in the next few months to build prototype vehicles as an initial step toward having one vendor start full-rate production in 2025.

“Our plan is to award up to two contracts. Each vendor will build 12 vehicles and the we will down select from two to one. When we go into production, we will build 504 vehicles,” David Dopp, Army Program Manager, Mobile Protected Firepower, told reporters at the Association of the United States Army Annual Symposium.

Current Abrams tanks, while armed with 120mm cannons and fortified by heavy armor, are challenged to support infantry in some scenarios due to weight and mobility constraints - such as deploying rapidly by air or crossing bridges in a heavy firefight.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
Should really be BAE versus GDLS, but we'll see I guess.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
BAE and GDLS selected for MPF prototype phase.
Both Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems will have the next 14 months to build and begin delivering 12 prototypes of the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle.

BAE Systems will build an M8 Buford Armored Gun System with new capabilities and components.

GD submitted an offering that puts a version of its latest Abrams turret together with a chassis that uses past work on the United Kingdom’s AJAX program.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Moose said:
BAE and GDLS selected for MPF prototype phase.
Both Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems will have the next 14 months to build and begin delivering 12 prototypes of the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle.

BAE Systems will build an M8 Buford Armored Gun System with new capabilities and components.

GD submitted an offering that puts a version of its latest Abrams turret together with a chassis that uses past work on the United Kingdom’s AJAX program.
A source claimed Griffin III is based on AJAX. So MPF and OMFV would potentially be the same vehicle?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
jsport said:
Moose said:
BAE and GDLS selected for MPF prototype phase.
Both Michigan-based General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems will have the next 14 months to build and begin delivering 12 prototypes of the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle.

BAE Systems will build an M8 Buford Armored Gun System with new capabilities and components.

GD submitted an offering that puts a version of its latest Abrams turret together with a chassis that uses past work on the United Kingdom’s AJAX program.
A source claimed Griffin III is based on AJAX. So MPF and OMFV would potentially be the same vehicle?
They would be related, but not the same. When GDLS discussed Griffin I, they talked about changes such as shortening and lightening the chassis compared to Ajax. They haven't gone into much detail on Griffin II's changes compared to I, so it could be more common to the Ajax or their OMFV bid than version 1. But it would still be configured without the crew compartment and with the turret ring pushed back further to the rear of the hull than either Ajax or Griffin III. Not to mention, all 3 use different it turrets with different guns. It does seem likely that they're pursuing as much commonality as they can, but it wouldn't be accurate to call them "the same vehicle" based on the information we have now.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
At one time the Buford had space for troops in the vehicle albeit with less storable ammo. It would seems even if only two troops that would be option to keep in mind for both MPF competitors.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
Army is issuing contracts for a Ground Mobility Vehicle follow-on called the Infantry Squad Vehicle.


Seems odd to revert back to an unarmored squad carrier, even just for light forces. As though our next adversaries are going to forget how to use IEDs.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
858
Reaction score
42
Road bombs need to be planted in advance. Adopting an offset transportation strategy around off-road light dispersed vehicles to balance the risk makes perfect sense.

Untill some contractors use them to balance their budget on forward based operation.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
Road bombs need to be planted in advance. Adopting an offset transportation strategy around off-road light dispersed vehicles to balance the risk makes perfect sense.

Untill some contractors use them to balance their budget on forward based operation.
Or until troops fall into routine routes. Or we run into someone close to a near peer who understands artillery-delivered mines.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
845
Reaction score
61
It seems that our lords and masters conveniently forget past lessons very quickly when convenient. Perhaps recruits should consider this when signing up.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66
This is a tactical air transportable ground transport vehicle that fits inside an CH-47. I think the current alternatives are either your feet or a militarized ATV. You would need a quad tilt rotor to land JLTVs or Strykers over long ranges onto rough terrain.

Oshkosh Flyer.jpg
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
They could always get a Landrover instead...
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
This is a tactical air transportable ground transport vehicle that fits inside an CH-47. I think the current alternatives are either your feet or a militarized ATV. You would need a quad tilt rotor to land JLTVs or Strykers over long ranges onto rough terrain.

View attachment 618376
I'd lost track of the fact that the modern Infantry Brigade Combat Team organization is specifically for light, airborne, and airmobile units. This vehicle makes a bit more sense in that context.
 
Top