Bradley Replacement - XM30 MICV

https://www.militaryaerospace.com/c...darpa-eyes-missiledefense-system-for-vehicles
OMFV needs it's own APS effective against CRAM.

In a parallel effort, Boeing experts are evaluating using SLID to protect against anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles, and unmanned air vehicles. Also under evaluation is an extended-range SLID system concept for defending a wide spectrum of military assets from farther away than 2 kilometers.

http://armor.kiev.ua/ptur/azt/slid.html
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/aerospace/unmanned-aerial-vehicles/battle-tanks-aerial-wingman/
 
Last edited:
jsport said:
https://www.defenceweb.co.za/aerospace/unmanned-aerial-vehicles/battle-tanks-aerial-wingman/
Click to expand...
tighten the integration of the Leclerc tank with Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)... Equipped with two drones that could be controlled from inside or outside the tank, it could anticipate threats with several sensors (camera, IR sensor, laser rangefinder). Tanks would therefore be less exposed and able to easily track lurking rocketeers or hidden targets.....

Russia announced that would fit its T-14 Armata tanks with the PTERODACTYL drone, a device manufactured by the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI), able to circle up to 100 metres in the air and operate almost indefinitely as it will get its power from its parent device.
Click to expand...
A drone with elevated view of the battle space really don't have good synergy with a MBT. It is a huge waste of opportunity to have spotted a fleeting target only to lack weapon to prosecute.

What is much better is to equip tethered/organic drones with a vehicle with flexible indirect fire capability. A Gun mortar would be a neat fit for such a vehicle, and with a on drone-laser range finder (or HD mapping system) combined with FCS integration, one can fire on targets viewed from the drone view with minimum lag, and adjust for fire just as quickly, with software adjusting to track the drone aim point in real time. Tethered systems means electronics warfare is no problem for the kill chain at all. Other useful systems would be automatic grenade launchers and NLOS Missile systems.

A entire formation of gun mortars can MRSI saturate any target that is spotted by the drones, making moving at within range without top cover or sufficient firepower to suppress the drone force suicidal.
 
Moose said:
isayyo2 said:
I suppose the 9-man squad requirement is just as "optional" as it is optionally-manned?
Click to expand...
The requirements will be set later this year or early next. The desire to carry a full squad is still widespread, but it means buying a very large vehicle (even by armored vehicle standards).
Click to expand...
I'm sorry if this appears to be off topic, but I find it interesting that armies (the U.S. Army apparently no exception) are come back to the realisation of the APC/IFV/ICV needing to carry a full size Squad/Section, what with the refocusing of conventional warfighting vs the past twenty arduous years of irregular warfighting. The truth is, I fully support the notion of the full size Squad/Section returning, but at what physical and economic cost is this going to be derived? Hell most modern APC/IFV/ICV's no longer fit in the likes of the C-130 Hercules, not just because of their dimensions, but their weight.
I can't but help fear that the 'be all' obsession of irregular warfighting has somewhat derailed overall APC/IFV/ICV design, with the need to counter IED's and the likes, not to mention urban warfare.
I can't help notice Western APC/IFV/ICV getting larger, heavier, more sophisticated and hence more costly. I really thought with automation that the likes of turrets would get smaller in both size and profile and yet the complete opposite appear to be happening. The cost of these ever increasing sized turrets (and their turret rings/baskets) are obviously eating into the volumed space and principle role of the APC/IFV/ICV - the troop compartment.
I also can't but wonder how this proliferation of 'sensors' on these new APC/IFV/ICV are supposed to survive the modern conventional battlefield? I mean it's one thing to fight insurgent's with their couple of 82mm mortars, 107mm rocket launchers.....,but realistically, the West hasn't been on the recieving end of artillery bombardment/air strikes on a peer level since what - 1945? I wonder how these sensor (and the reliance on them) will hold up in a peer on peer battle we seem to be heading towards
Also, finally, it appears that the U.S. is back to 1960's of somewhat being back in the wilderness when it comes to indigenous IFV/ICV development, what with it looking at and relying on foreign designs to fix it's own short coming ability to design, develope and field a workable and functional IFV/ICV....

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • unnamed (1).jpg
    unnamed (1).jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 30
Looking at this outside of political factors, the Lynx to me seems like the best option IMO. Balances a new design with proven technology, impressive modularity, and ample growth room for future upgrades; imagining a Lynx with the (I believe Raytheon-developed) in-arm suspension tested on a Bradley and Cummins opposed-piston compact engine. It would be a world-beater for sure, even better if it's adopted in Australia and the UK (if the Ajax cancellation rumors are true it would be the logical choice) to leverage a common logistical support network. I think it's also the only vehicle that transports a full 9-man squad as well.
 
Since the research now shows the the best squad size is 15 it would make sense to spread the squad amoung 3 vehicles. That being the case then, a Bradley/AMPV derivative would seem to make the most sense, economies of scale and all. There seems to be no real innovation on offer to justify a brand new vehicle. Rubber tracks and composite roller wheels are not a revolution in hypermobility foreseen by the GVSC, so why not wait. Since new electronics ,now fairly mature, and drone developments seem to be the only real innovation in the near term. Maybe better armed drones (not suicide drones) should be the emphasis.
 
Things were easy in the 70s when Bradley was developed. The W German Marder and the Soviet BMP had made the case for a vehicle able to protect an infantry squad and provide light fire support.
The US added a TOW missile launcher like the BMP's Dagger.
The UK opted for a design which was closer to the traditional battle taxi, with no firing points and no anti tank missiles. Warrior used a 30mm gun also used on the Scimitar scout vehicle.
During the development of these vehicles heavier armoured versions were looked at but found to be too costly and not air portable.
After the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq the threat from IEDs and sporadic infantry led to a completely different family of vehicles.
It is far from clear where the US Army will fight it's next battles but some possibles are:
Eastern Europe: open terrain with well developed roads and opponents with full range of combined arms weaponry.
Middle East: open terrain with less developed roads in some cases..Risk of IEDs and insurgents. Some opponents have full range of weaponry.
Asia: By far the hardest call with terrain ranging from dense jungle, island chains to crowded urban areas. Roads not always available. Most likely opponent has full range of combined arms weaponry.
 
Keyboard Commando said:
even better if it's adopted in Australia and the UK (if the Ajax cancellation rumors are true it would be the logical choice) to leverage a common logistical support network.
Click to expand...
Which ever company (RDA or HDA) wins the Land400Ph3 competition in Australia (due to be announced about mid next year) will be in a good position for the OMFV requirement. I would love to see the US, UK and Australia all settle on a common platform (another AUKUS deal?) with production/sustainment lines in all 3 countries. This would result in a combined need for something in the vicinity of 5000 - 10000 vehicles potentially.
 
MDO provides commanders numerous options for executing simultaneous and sequential operations using surprise and the rapid and continuous integration of capabilities across all domains to present multiple dilemmas to an adversary in order to gain physical and psychological advantages and influence and control over the operational environment.

Penetrate enemy anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) systems (layered and integrated long-range precision-strike Defense Primer: Army Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) systems, littoral anti-ship capabilities, air defenses, and long-range artillery and rocket systems) to enable strategic and operational maneuver of U.S. forces.

Dis-integrate—disrupt, degrade, or destroy A2/AD systems to enable operational and tactical maneuver of U.S. forces. Exploit the resulting freedom of maneuver to achieve operational and strategic objectives by defeating enemy forces in all domains.

If there aren't Hypermobilty vehicles enabling flanking and deep maneuver from traditionally no-go areas, then how would MDO be accomplished? Persistent surveillance and precision geospatial knowledge render Hypermobilty vehicles much more usable but the DoD will have again, assume the risk. The OMFV program appears to be only marginally advancing and likely too expensive for that.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3e7QPcrFBcw

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXQZMmCvTEg
 
Last edited:
Why use land based "hypermobile" vehicles when flying is so much faster and ignores terrain?

Traditional land vehicles on roads have 5x cost advantage for unit of payload. If one go into truly harsh terrain, the advantage can shrink to nothing.

Deep penetration attempts by land vehicle in the post 2010s will just stumble onto omnipresent aerial observation and pounded by long range weapons before surprising anyone. After all, defenses are dealing with mach .8+ attacks, with even low end threats at 150+knots and some buggy crawling rocks at 15 knots is nothing for ooda disruption.

Long range precision fires enables rear lines to be attacked at record time as well, with hundred(s) of kilometers crossed in minutes as opposed to spending days to reach the enemy to shoot at them. The land vehicle is also limited by fuel logistics and can not penetrate all that much deeper than plain fires without a entire logistics system built up.

To have an land based thrust, you need not a vehicle with a gun, but entire family of supply, air defense, engineering, counter battery and so on. If the system has to be build on slow vehicles without payload cost advantage over aircraft, it is just asking to get destroyed by equal cost air due to that having initiative.
 
Last edited:
shin_getter said:
Why use land based "hypermobile" vehicles when flying is so much faster and ignores terrain?
Click to expand...
Flying doesn't get you under trees, is noisey and low endurance.
shin_getter said:
Traditional land vehicles on roads have 5x cost advantage for unit of payload. If one go into truly harsh terrain, the advantage can shrink to nothing.
Click to expand...
Roads are death traps especially when you are outnumbered in indirect fire and maneuver units.
shin_getter said:
Deep penetration attempts by land vehicle in the post 2010s will just stumble onto omnipresent aerial observation and pounded by long range weapons before surprising anyone. After all, defenses are dealing with mach .8+ attacks, with even low end threats at 150+knots and some buggy crawling rocks at 15 knots is nothing for ooda disruption.
Click to expand...
Ones offroad vehicles are ones indirect fire and airsuperiority platforms if they are discovered only.

Anything mach 8 is a lrg veh and counter-fire bait, not to mention a one shot wonder.
shin_getter said:
Long range precision fires enables rear lines to be attacked at record time as well, with hundred(s) of kilometers crossed in minutes as opposed to spending days to reach the enemy to shoot at them. The land vehicle is also limited by fuel logistics and can not penetrate all that much deeper than plain fires without a entire logistics system built up.
Click to expand...
LRPF is not the discussion and is assumed.
A future mechanized LRS capability would rely on minimum logistics like footmobile LRS avoided direct engagement . All types of infantry are becoming tgt desinators anyway.

One better have a capability behind adversary lines prior to conflict and one can assume an adversary has a capability behind your lines prior to conflict.
shin_getter said:
To have an land based thrust, you need not a vehicle with a gun, but entire family of supply, air defense, engineering, counter battery and so on. If the system has to be build on slow vehicles without payload cost advantage over aircraft, it is just asking to get destroyed by equal cost air due to that having initiative.
Click to expand...
Powerful autocannon rds and even autocannon/missile combinations can afford a compact cost effective solution.
 
jsport said:
Flying doesn't get you under trees, is noisey and low endurance.

Roads are death traps especially when you are outnumbered in indirect fire and maneuver units.

Ones offroad vehicles are ones indirect fire and airsuperiority platforms if they are discovered only.

LRPF is not the discussion and is assumed.
A future mechanized LRS capability would rely on minimum logistics like footmobile LRS avoided direct engagement . All types of infantry are becoming tgt desinators anyway.

One better have a capability behind adversary lines prior to conflict and one can assume an adversary has a capability behind your lines prior to conflict.

Powerful autocannon rds and even autocannon/missile combinations can afford a compact cost effective solution.
Click to expand...

If one is to conduct offensive maneuver into enemy territory, the enemy will have sensors in complex terrain. There is infantry, unattended ground sensors, micro air vehicles and land robotics and so on. There is no avoiding detection when you are trying to penetrate enemy defenses. Modern fires is also that some gaps in cover enable decisive lethal engagements. Now historically, detection wasn't a problem for maneuver warfare as the defender may not have the agility to respond. Battle of Sedan took two three days, the French just didn't have mobile formations in reserve to plug the gap. With modern forces where just about everything is mobile and artillery can get shifted hundred of kilometers in minutes, land maneuver is just not going to find flanks without artillery cover. Maneuver through rough terrain have the problem of WWI, where the defender (on a road network) can reinforce far faster.

That said hypermobile vehicles can be useful for things like mountain divisions..... and I'm just reminded of this:

View: https://youtu.be/0pzkOpN0ftk?t=502


The Chinese is running all terrain UGV competitions every two years, and can probably pull the trigger to mass produce a design when they are happy with one. Now if only someone could find results for the 2021 competition (2020 was canceled due to covid)

If you are talking about the US army though, they'd rather spend it on helicopters.
 
shin_getter said:
jsport said:
Flying doesn't get you under trees, is noisey and low endurance.

Roads are death traps especially when you are outnumbered in indirect fire and maneuver units.

Ones offroad vehicles are ones indirect fire and airsuperiority platforms if they are discovered only.

LRPF is not the discussion and is assumed.
A future mechanized LRS capability would rely on minimum logistics like footmobile LRS avoided direct engagement . All types of infantry are becoming tgt desinators anyway.

One better have a capability behind adversary lines prior to conflict and one can assume an adversary has a capability behind your lines prior to conflict.

Powerful autocannon rds and even autocannon/missile combinations can afford a compact cost effective solution.
Click to expand...

If one is to conduct offensive maneuver into enemy territory, the enemy will have sensors in complex terrain.
Click to expand...
Noone can afford to monitor unlikely avenues of approach...basic stuff.
shin_getter said:
Modern fires is also that some gaps in cover enable decisive lethal engagements.
Click to expand...
If you dont know it is there then...again basic stufff
shin_getter said:
With modern forces where just about everything is mobile and artillery can get shifted hundred of kilometers in minutes, land maneuver is just not going to find flanks without artillery cover.
Click to expand...
Artillery is always limited and can not move 100s of kilometers..again basic stuff
shin_getter said:
Maneuver through rough terrain have the problem of WWI, where the defender (on a road network) can reinforce far faster.
Click to expand...
Dispersed highly mobile in No-go terrian has no defensive if you cant detect, are too spread and have no vehicles to pursue anyway...again basic stuff
shin_getter said:
That said hypermobile vehicles can be useful for things like mountain divisions..... and I'm just reminded of this:

View: https://youtu.be/0pzkOpN0ftk?t=502


The Chinese is running all terrain UGV competitions every two years, and can probably pull the trigger to mass produce a design when they are happy with one. Now if only someone could find results for the 2021 competition (2020 was canceled due to covid)
Click to expand...
Yes, the PLA knows the deal, these pics have appeared on a thread here.
shin_getter said:
If you are talking about the US army though, they'd rather spend it on helicopters.
Click to expand...
As pointed out before, current helios are ill suited mostly for Indo-Pac and will be highly depenadant on extremely effective JSEAD for any maneuver whatsoever.
 
I'd suspect that rampant corner-cutting had at least something to do with it, not to mention the never sufficiently to be damned Cult of Transformation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom