Light Tanks... de toekomst ?

[Harald]

Italian army to buy 50 new Centauro II 8×8 wheeled antitank vehicles



The Italian army has decided to buy 50 new Centauro II 8×8 wheeled antitank vehicles, that was reported by www.liberopensiero.eu.

Italy still plans to buy more than Centauro II wheeled antitank vehicle, the latest evolution of the Centauro Family.

The Centauro II represents the logical evolution, being armed with a third generation 120/45 mm gun, with integrated muzzle brake and semi-automatic loading system.

The weapon system provides a fire power equivalent to that of most modern main battle tanks, and is capable of firing all latest generation 120 mm, NATO APFSDS and multi-role MP munitions.

On Oct. 11 the defense commission of the lower house of the Italian parliament began debating plans by the Italian military to buy the Centauro II tank and an updated version of its A-129 Mangusta helicopter.

http://defence-blog.com/army/italian-army-to-buy-50-new-centauro-ii-8x8-wheeled-antitank-vehicle.html

[Harald]

US Army's new tank programme takes shape

Key Points
•An MPF vehicle would likely weigh less than or around 32 tonnes and be armed with a 105 mm or 120 mm cannon
•The army hopes to avoid a lengthy development process and wants industry to do its own design work

The US Army is working to formulate specific requirements for a Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) platform that so far appears akin to a light or medium tank.

Army planners want to "speak definitively about requirements" and then have industry respond with design ideas before the programme begins, Major General David Bassett, programme executive officer for ground combat systems, told reporters on 4 October at the Association of the US Army (AUSA) annual conference. "We're not willing to wait for a lengthy bottom-up design process", he said.

The army would like to get more than one vendor for a competitive programme, but is not yet sure if there will be sufficient resources for that, Maj Gen Bassett added.

Colonel James Schirmer, programme manager for armoured fighting vehicles, said the service does not have a product specification for MPF, but is starting work on that soon.

Still, he said it would likely have a 32-tonne maximum weight and address target sets that require at least a 50 mm cannon, although he added that the army does not want a new suite of ammunition so this likely leads to a 105 mm or 120 mm weapon. The army would be open to a tank capable of air drops, but 32 tonnes weight likely precludes that (although two could potentially fit in a C-17 Globemaster III transport).

The MPF must go where infantrymen go, so the army is interested in a smaller platform that could traverse bridges or narrow streets, but should be tracked so it can still roll through obstacles, Col Schirmer said.

http://www.janes.com/article/64383/ausa-2016-us-army-s-new-tank-programme-takes-shape

[Harald]

GD Takes Shot at Army Mobile Protected Firepower  ( extra info omtrent de Griffin van General Dynamics )

General Dynamics Land Systems rolled out a lightweight tank at AUSA 2016 as a possible answer to the U.S. Army's search for mobile protected firepower.

With its M1 Abrams turret and streamlined chassis, the gunmetal gray technology demonstrator definitely stood out as one of the most interesting exhibits at this year's show.

"Five months ago, after listening to the Army for a year trying to talk about mobile protected firepower, we said 'we really can't wait any longer,'" Michael Peck, director of business development for General Dynamics Land Systems said at the Association of the United States Army's annual meeting.

GD Land Systems, the maker of the M1 Abrams tank, took an Abrams turret and reduced the weight from 22 tons to eight tons, Peck said.

GD officials went to Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, or ARDEC, and borrowed the lightweight 120mm gun designed originally for the Army's now defunct Future Combat Systems, Peck said. The FCS gun weighs about half as much as the two-ton 120mm Abrams gun, he said.

When the crew gets in the turret "it looks exactly like an Abrams — the gunner, the loader, everybody is in the same place," he said.

The turret offers the same capability as the Abrams SEP V2, Peck said.

"Same fire controls, same electronic packages, the same monitors, the same spare parts — you name it; it's all the same," Peck said.

The demonstrator's chassis comes from the AJAX program GD built for the United Kingdom to use as a recon vehicle, Peck said.

Right now, the vehicle weighs 27 tons, but there are things the Army could do to make it lighter, Peck said.

"This is a true tech demonstrator," Peck said. "We took mature technology that we either owned or could borrow and in five months put it together."

Army officials took notice of GD's effort, but made it clear that they can't favor one vendor's solution over another, said Maj. Gen. David Bassett, who runs Program Executive Office Ground Combat Systems.

"I got to give General Dynamics some credit for their tech demonstrator," Bassett told a group of defense reporters today.

"What they did was they started with a presumption that there was an opportunity to leverage all the Army's investment in Abrams ... which is a pretty smart way of going about offering a benefit maybe the Army may not have thought of."

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/04/gd-takes-shot-army-mobile-protected-firepower/

[Sandgroper]

Ik sta niet raar te kijken als er over een paar jaar serieus dit soort "tanks" binnen de US Army in gevoerd gaan worden

Wat gebeurde er met de M8 Bedford ? Wat gebeurde er met de RDF / LT ?
Waar zijn de lichte vervangers van de AMX-13 ? 

Waarom voor een 27 ton zware Griffin gaan, als CV9035, Boxer, AMV XP, Ajax al 35 tot zelfs 42 ton (Ajax) doen ?

Light tanks zullen er best wel komen.  Maar denk dan aan de reeds bestaande Japanse Type 10 van 40 - 48 ton.  Of de in ontwikkeling zijnde Israelische Carmel tank die nu nog 30 ton weegt, maar waarschijnlijk uit komt op 40 ton.

[Harald]

Het is geen MBT, daarom zie ik ze nog even niet binnen 'stromen'.
Het is inderdaad een prima platform voor iets waar gewichtsbeperkingen aan vastzitten, maar met de recente release van Russische nieuwe voertuigen, en de Chinese, hebben de westelijke machten maar 1 keus, en dat is ook kiezen voor MBT's.

Met grote aantallen, zie ik ze ook niet komen binnen de US Army, maar zoals Mourning het beschreef, zie ik voor die eenheden wel de mogelijke invoering van een "light" tank.

ALS het al gebeurt dan in redelijk beperkte aantallen voor de 82nd en/of de 101st. Daarbuiten... misschien de 10th Mountain?

[Huzaar1]

Het is geen MBT, daarom zie ik ze nog even niet binnen 'stromen'.
Het is inderdaad een prima platform voor iets waar gewichtsbeperkingen aan vastzitten, maar met de recente release van Russische nieuwe voertuigen, en de Chinese, hebben de westelijke machten maar 1 keus, en dat is ook kiezen voor MBT's.

[Mourning]

ALS het al gebeurt dan in redelijk beperkte aantallen voor de 82nd en/of de 101st. Daarbuiten... misschien de 10th Mountain?

[Harald]

Ik wel

we kunnen niet in de toekomst kijken, dus we zullen zien ....

[Huzaar1]

Ik sta niet raar te kijken als er over een paar jaar serieus dit soort "tanks" binnen de US Army in gevoerd gaan worden

Ik wel

[Harald]

Zal wel een mild steel prototype zijn. Het apparaat ziet er jaren verwijderd van operationele gereedheid uit.
Tjah, fijn voor de niche van overgefinancieerde krijgsmachten dit apparaat.

Ik sta niet raar te kijken als er over een paar jaar serieus dit soort "tanks" binnen de US Army in gevoerd gaan worden

[Huzaar1]

Zal wel een mild steel prototype zijn. Het apparaat ziet er jaren verwijderd van operationele gereedheid uit.
Tjah, fijn voor de niche van overgefinancieerde krijgsmachten dit apparaat.

[Harald]

General Dynamics unveils Griffin tracked vehicle with 120mm cannon



General Dynamics has unveiled a Griffin demonstrator of new tracked vehicle with XM360 120mm cannon at Association of the United States Army (AUSA).

The Griffin vehicle based on AJAX tracked platform and equipped XM360 120mm cannon. General Dynamics is using the XM360 because it is much lighter than the Abram's existing turret and the aim is to create a lighter vehicle under 32t.

Еhe Griffin, combines the DNA of the Abrams turret and 120mm gun with innovations from the company's full series of AJAX ground combat vehicles.

AJAX provides a step-change in the Armoured Fighting Vehicle capability being delivered to the British Army.

http://defence-blog.com/army/general-dynamics-unveils-griffin-tracked-vehicle-with-120mm-cannon.html

[Harald]

AUSA 2016: Mobile firepower plans emerge

The Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) programme is one of the few new ground combat vehicle acquisitions being currently pursued by the US Army. 

MPF is one of three associated requirements all directed to improving the viability of the IBCT (Infantry Brigade Combat Team) to execute force projection operations by either parachute air drop, transport aircraft lift, or helicopter air assault. 

The increasing spread and effectiveness of A2AD (Anti-Access/Area Denial) weapons and technology are magnifying the risk of successfully executing such operations. 

The Army sees the solution in an offset insertion' approach - in essence landing further from the desired objective area and then moving to it by land.  The problem is that US Army IBCT's are primarily light infantry lacking the capability to rapidly move the distances necessary.

The Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV) - formerly the Ultra Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV) - an unarmored off-road infantry squad carrier is being sought to solve the lack of mobility.  It is to be complemented by the Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV) which will have some protection and move in advance of the GMV units to find and fix the enemy. 

The final element is the requirement is the MPF that will provide fire support. 

It is defined as 'a lightweight combat vehicle that provides the IBCT long range, precision direct fire capability that ensures freedom of movement and action during joint expeditionary maneuver and joint combined arms operations'. 

Specifics on what the Army exactly wants in the MPF have been rather general since its first mention in the Combat Vehicle Modernization Strategy released in late 2015. 

However, Maj Gen Eric Wesley of the Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) told Shephard that the Army will 'involve industry up-front' and the centre hosted an MPF Industry Day at Ft Benning Georgia on 9 August to look at MPF operational context and high level capability as well as the programme plan

Traditionally the MCoE is not involved in the actual acquisition process and does not have contact with industry.  Its job is to draft requirements and then hand them to the systems acquisition side that falls under the Program Executive Office, in this case Ground Combat Systems. 

Fifty-four companies attended and although presentations were not publically released the MCoE gave Shephard a White Paper that laid out an overview of the MPF concept and primary requirements drivers.

Firepower is considered a priority for MPF.  It must provide: 'precision, all inclement weather, day/night direct fires against prepared enemy positions, bunkers, technical vehicles, and heavy armored vehicles, while stationary or on the move.'

Of equal importance is mobility which must be 'equal or greater than other vehicles within the IBCT'.  Of lesser priority but still important is protection from small arms, heavy machine gun, and overhead artillery and select chemical energy (CE) and kinetic energy (KE) fires and mines.

The Army has suggested that 14 MPF be assigned to support each IBCT which would equate to a requirement for over 460 systems.

After receiving industry input the intent is to review the draft Capabilities Development Document for further industry comment before a final version becomes the basis for the Analysis of Alternatives for which $10 million was requested for the Fiscal Year 2017 and finally for the Request for Proposals. 

With a desired operational date in the 2020s many hurdles need to still be overcome to get this 'priority' capability to the field.  Plus with the GMV targeted to be bought and fielded as early as 2019 the light infantry will be without a key combat capability for some time until MPF arrives.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/ausa-2016-mobile-firepower-plans-emerge/

[Harald]

BAE Systems unveils prototype of Expeditionary Light Tank at Fort Benning Expo 
(ik ben benieuwd of dit ook past binnen de plannen van het Mobile Protected Firepower [MPF) programma... )

BAE Systems unveiled a new prototype of Expeditionary Light Tank Air Deployable Tank at the  Fort Benning Expo.

At the 2016 Fort Benning Expo, BAE Systems will be highlighting the newest technologies in electronic systems, combat vehicles, body armor and more Expeditionary Light Tank.

The Expeditionary Light Tank is an improved version of the M8 AGS (Armoured Gun System) designed and manufactured by the Company BAE Systems. Following an international competition, in mid-1992 the US Army selected the FMC Corporation, Ground Systems.

According to www.armyrecognition.com, the BAE Systems Expeditionary Light Tank (ELT) is based on the Bradley IFV (Infantry Fighting Vehicle) hull. The ELT layout is similar to the M8 AGS with the driver position at the front, the turret in the middle and powerpack at the rear. Several stowage boxes are mounted to the right side of the vehicle. At the rear part of the turret there is a trapdoor to eject empty cartridge case.

The light version of ELT is made on all-welded aluminium armour which provides protection from small arms fire and shell splinters. This version is designed for rapid deployment force and can be airdropped with a weight of 18,000 kg. The ELT can be fitted with two armour package.

http://defence-blog.com/army/bae-systems-unveils-prototype-of-expeditionary-light-tank-at-fort-benning-expo.html

[dudge]

De Grieken, Spanjaarden, Zweden en Duitsers hebben allemaal hun eigen industrie die 100% dat ding zelf in elkaar zit.
De Duitsers voorzien half gebruikersland van spullen, in ieder geval de toren en veel electronica.
De gebruikende landen hebben zelf vaak de lagere echelons in onderhoud zelf in productie zoals tandenkransen. Met mazzel ook tracks, anders koop je gewoon Dhiels, loopwielen worden door lokale industrie gerepareerd en voorzien van nieuw rubber of gemaakt en hetzelfde geld voor de rest van het zooitje. Dat apparaat is wel zo kosten effectief. Ik stond ook perplex toen de reden 'financieel' was bij de bezuiniging.

Veel aanbod op de markt betekent meer concurrentie, en dat gaat zich uitbetalen qua prijsverschillen, daarnaast is het een poepgoed product.
Hij heeft geen pneumatische vering, mortieren, en kan ook niet vliegen. Het is een bonk staal waar je op kunt vertrouwen.. en dan ook echt vertrouwen. Als zo'n beest in goede staat is dan is er veel voor nodig om ze te stoppen, mits de luchtdreiging gecounterd wordt.

Denk inderdaad dat het niet of nauwelijks goedkoper zal worden in aanschaf. Zeker omdat er veel van dezelfde kostopdrijvende systemen in zullen zitten.

Het moet echt als complementair worden gezien.