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

New infantry fighting vehicle

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
Good afternoon gentlemen new to this site and would like to open a discussion about the new infantry fighting vehicle that the army is about to adopt they are looking to acquire the 50 mm cannon on to their new fighting vehicle. But my question really is army needs a dedicated scout vehicle in there reconnaissance and Calvary units now what would be the best caliber to equip those vehicles if they were to acquire the same chassis with they have two separate weapon systems one for the infantry fighting vehicle and one for the scout vehicles with the scout vehicles require a lesser caliber say 30 mm or a 40 mm and have the infantry fighting vehicles stay at a 50 mm your input would be great Graciously excepted thank you
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
29
I would recommend that they adopt an MBT hulled vehicle for an AIFV. It would give sufficient armour and internal space to carry full infantry section plus their equipment. It could mount up to say a 75mm gun and ATGWs. If such a vehicle was adopted economies of scale would make it cheaper in all likelihood than adopting a different, specialised vehicle. There would be economies in spare parts, training and maintenance.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
634
Reaction score
6
Personally I hope the Lynx wins because it has the capacity to carry 8 in back versus 6 on the other contenders. Ideally the US Army would get an IFV with room for 9 dismounts. I must admit I am a bit disappointed that of the current contenders there are no new American designs. The General Dynamics entry is a relative of the ASCOD like the UK's new Ajax.

The 50mm caliber the Army currently has a preference for is actually just a "necked-out" or "straight-walled" variation of the NATO 35x228mm so the ammunition is not as large as you might think, smaller than ammunition for the 40mm Bofors for example.

I am not opposed to an IFV approximately the weight of and sharing common components with an MBT but that MBT should be something newer than the current M1 Abrams. The M1 remains a capable system thanks to upgrades but there is significant room for improvement with a major upgrade or a new MBT. However commonality would only go so far, the IFV should have the engine in front while keeping it in back is preferable for the MBT.

For weapons the current autocannons being considered (all variations of the Bushmaster series chain guns) are good designs but I think the Army should put a bit more thought into adopting a design like the 40mm CTA the UK is going with. Oddly enough that weapon owes a lot of its existence to US Army interest in the concept back in the late '80s and '90s. I think an ATGM launcher should also be a requirement. Ideally you could have a "dual-purpose" launcher capable of firing something like CKEM for anti-armor work as well as a more versatile missile like the old TOW series.

As for a scout vehicle I'm not certain something as large as the M3 Bradley is necessarily the best fit. Considering the wide range of vehicles the Army used for the role during the Cold War (Jeeps, M114, M551, M3, HMMWV) I'd be interested in learning what they are currently looking for in a scout vehicle.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,065
Reaction score
48
Capthale said:
Good afternoon gentlemen new to this site and would like to open a discussion about the new infantry fighting vehicle that the army is about to adopt they are looking to acquire the 50 mm cannon on to their new fighting vehicle. But my question really is army needs a dedicated scout vehicle in there reconnaissance and Calvary units now what would be the best caliber to equip those vehicles if they were to acquire the same chassis with they have two separate weapon systems one for the infantry fighting vehicle and one for the scout vehicles with the scout vehicles require a lesser caliber say 30 mm or a 40 mm and have the infantry fighting vehicles stay at a 50 mm your input would be great Graciously excepted thank you
We have an OMFV thread.

To your SV versus IFV question: the potential is there for a 30mm-amred Scout alongside the 50mm vehicle, particularly with OMFV (which one would assume to be the basis for a conventional armored scout vehicle) requiring as a baseline XM813 and aspiring to XM913 as an objective. However, assuming the reconnaissance vehicle comes later in the program and assuming the 50mm has been adopted by then or is ready in the same timeframe, I doubt the Army would purposefully scale back the weapon. The logistics of maintaining a common weapon and ammunition train for the scouts, the added flexibility offered by the more powerful cannon, and the relatively slight gain in space/weight reserve available with the smaller weapon makes it fairly likely the Army will seek 50mm across the board.
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
I was referring to more of the cavalry aspect not really the fighting vehicle. My question was more fitting as to what caliber should be on a scout vehicle vs a fighting vehicle. The army is leaning more on having a robust reconnaissance in force and having the cavalry units more beefed up with the added tank company so what I’m getting at is should the Cavalry vehicles be more heavily armed then the fighting vehicles or the other way around by having two separate missions and using the same weapon system it doesn’t make sense so do we arm the infantry fighting vehicles more heavily or later or do we arm the Cavalry fighting vehicles more Heavy so they can have that initial punch in contact
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
971
Reaction score
94
Perhaps the 'cavalry' vehicle has little need for mounting troops. Something like an MBT hull with a reduced turret/armament would do the job. Increased protection and mobility while saving some money, like the Russians have done.
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
634
Reaction score
6
I'm of the opinion that the M3 was a bit on the large size for the job but it seems to me that having those two scouts in back might still be useful, especially if one was a trained small UAV/UGV operator. Alternative that task could be the vehicle commander's but I wonder if he has enough to worry about already.

If you wanted such a vehicle to be capable of defeating MBTs it would probably make sense to include some ATGMs in addition to the main armament of a 30mm to 50mm caliber autocannon.

In the joint US-UK FSCS/TRACER program the UK planned to have a variant of the vehicle as a dedicated ATGM carrier armed with Hellfires or Brimstones which would support the main variant armed with a 40mm CTA autocannon. I'm not certain if the US Army had any interest in ATGM support for their FSCS vehicles.
 

Capthale

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 29, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
1
The new Cavalry troops have the 6x6
Meaning 6 Bradley and 36 scouts I each Platoon so there still going to need room
 
Top