Internationale pantservoertuigen APC IFV ontwikkelingen

[Huzaar1]

Dus gaan alle tracked IAFV's waarop wordt geleund eruit?

[Harald]

CAN BOXER REPLACE WARRIOR AS AN IFV?

By Nicholas Drummond

This article considers the controversial question of whether the British Army still needs a tracked infantry fighting vehicle when WARRIOR is retired in 2025 or whether BOXER can fulfil this role.

Disclaimer: The author is an advisor to KNDS Germany which makes both Boxer and Tracked Boxer; however, the views expressed are his own opinions, not those of the Company he works with.

Under previous plans, the British Army intended to field four armoured infantry battalions in WARRIOR and four mechanised infantry battalions in BOXER. Four further light mechanised infantry battalions would have had a mix of FOXHOUND and MASTIFF mine-protected, ambush-resistant (MRAP) vehicles. This would have provided a total of 12 out of 31 infantry battalions with protected mobility. Under current plans, the four WARRIOR armoured infantry battalions will convert to BOXER and become mechanised infantry battalions.

The WARRIOR upgrade programme was cancelled in 2021 on grounds of cost.1 It had been budgeted at around £750 million for 380 vehicles, but after a delayed development process, the cost rose to £1.5 billion. Any army has to live within its means, otherwise meaningful regeneration quickly becomes unaffordable. So the rationale for cancellation is easy to understand.

The problem created by this decision is that the army has now reduced the number of infantry battalions with protected vehicles by a third. Ukraine has amply demonstrated that threat posed by artillery and armed drones makes protected mobility a universal requirement across all land force types.

BOXER will be a superb mechanised infantry vehicle. Analogous to the US Army's Stryker, it is designed to give the British Army a true expeditionary capability while offering utility across conventional and asymmetric warfare scenarios. Battalions that have them will literally be able to get in, drive 1,000 kilometres and be ready for operations when they arrive at their destination. BOXER's unique combination of operational and tactical mobility will have a transformational impact, making it ideal to fight the FIRST BATTLE. This is the concept of deploying pre-emptively to prevent territory from falling into the hands of an aggressor. BOXER is also well suited to fighting the DEEP BATTLE, where infantry battalions act as a screening force. This enables artillery to be used to degrade enemy forces at stand-off distances. Sophisticated sensors linked to precision guided munitions and 155 mm artillery have become pivotal in establishing efficient kill chains. Forward located BOXER battalions will find and control fires. They will also use anti-tank missiles to destroy enemy armour as it approaches. Their most important function is to deliver infantry mass that physically holds ground. This approach reflects the "new way of winning" described by the Army's new Land Operating Concept.2

However, when it comes to fighting the SECOND BATTLE and the CLOSE BATTLE, BOXER is less than ideal. Mobility is not the issue here. In some situations, like winter mud or deep snow, tracked vehicles will be preferable, but BOXER's cross-country performance is a step-change versus previous generations of wheeled combat vehicles. The issue is protection. When you conduct a deliberate assault against an enemy position, you need to maximise survivability. An infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) needs to be able to absorb punishment in the same way as a main battle tank (MBT).

NATO armies have added appliqué armour to tracked IFVs so that they offer increased protection for their crews. When WARRIOR was used in Afghanistan, the "Theatre Entry Standard" added significant extra armour increasing weight from around 25-28 tonnes to well over 40 tonnes. BOXER weighs-in at around 32 tonnes with permissible weight growth to 40 tonnes. Once you exceed this limit, its off-road mobility is compromised. Besides this, the whole point of an 8×8 platform is to provide a rapid and agile combat vehicle able to travel vast distances at high speed. So when you add acres of extra armour, you defeat its core purpose.

Current thinking among NATO members suggests that there is a need to have two separate platforms for expeditionary and manoeuvre warfare tasks. This has lead to a new duality:

Medium forces built around 8×8 mechanised infantry vehicles
Heavy forces configured around main battle tanks and tracked infantry fighting vehicles.
Wheeled vehicles excel at pre-emptive expeditionary deployments, which means they get where needed quickly and then hold ground to fight the FIRST BATTLE and DEEP BATTLE. Conversely, tracked infantry fighting vehicles deploy less quickly but are more resilient, making them ideal for combined arms manoeuvre, operating in partnership with MBTs, artillery and combat aircraft to fight the SECOND BATTLE  and CLOSE BATTLE.

The United States anticipates re-equipping Army divisions around Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) equipped with a mix of M1A2D Abrams MBT and the forthcoming XM30 Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV). The latter will replace the M2 Bradley IFV and will offer much higher levels of protection. This will complement existing Stryker Brigade Combat Teams equipped with the Stryker ICV. In Europe, France and Germany are jointly developing the Main Combat Ground System (MGCS). This is a family of vehicles that will include a main battle tank, an infantry fighting vehicle, and a manoeuvre support vehicle, all built around a common platform. This will provide a solution similar to Israel's Merkava MBT and Namer IFV, which are both based on the same heavy platform. Future IFVs are expected to weigh in the region of 50 tonnes. This is well above the weight limit of any wheeled 8×8.

If the UK decided to adopt a new IFV to replace Warrior it has four potential choices:

XM30 OMFV – GDLS Griffin / Katalyst based on the Ajax platform
XM30 OMFV – Rheinmetall Lynx KF41
Franco-German MGCS IFV
Tracked Boxer
All of the vehicles listed above are still in development. The US Army will select its OMFV winning candidate by 2027. It could be a smart move to wait until this programme delivers, or even to join it as a partner. Either GDLS Griffin / Katalyst or Rheinmetall KF41 would be suitable for the UK's needs. GDLS's vehicle has synergy with Ajax and could be made at its UK facility in Merthyr. If Rheinmetall wins, its Lynx KF41 could be made by RBSL in Telford. The Franco-German MGCS IFV would give the UK a common platform for both MBT and IFV, which would be efficient, less costly and easier to operate. Tracked BOXER made by KNDS provides commonality with the Boxer fleet already being acquired. It has an increased GVW to 50+ tonnes, allowing a significant extra amount of armour to be fitted while using the same turreted mission module as wheeled BOXER.

If we separate the infantry fighting vehicle and infantry carrier vehicle (8×8) functions, does BOXER still need a turreted cannon?

The answer has to be "yes."

The point of any cannon-equipped vehicle is to provide a mix of weapons that offer a layered response to different threats. A coaxial 7.62 mm machine gun will deal with enemy infantry in the open. A 12.7 mm heavy machine gun will neutralise light vehicles and aerial threats. A 30 mm or 40 mm cannon will defeat other IFVs or 8x8s and suppress dug-in troops. A Javelin ATGM missile will destroy enemy MBTs. It is not a good use of expensive anti-tank missiles to engage IFVs. So having a mix of weapons allows the right tool to be used for the right job.

So far, UK BOXER will only have a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun mounted on a Kongsberg RS4 weapon station. This is good for self defence, but less than ideal for any kind of offensive operations. A variety of potential turret options has been demonstrated on BOXER and all appear viable. These include the Rafael Samson 30, which is in service with Lithuania, and KNDS's RCT30, which has been selected by the Bundeswehr. The Nexter T40 and Kongsberg's RT60 have also been shown in prototype or LRIP form. To be clear, using BOXER for offensive operations when it is only equipped with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun is a no-no.

One school of thought is that as soon as you add a larger weapon to Boxer, it will look like an IFV so will be used as an IFV. Well, the US Army Stryker also has a turret. So the question is how do you use a cannon-equipped Stryker tactically?

In defence, 8×8 vehicles will be sited in such a way as to maximises infantry survivability. This can be achieved by placing them near a main defensive line to provide direct fire support for dug-in troops. In urban areas, the vehicle might be hidden from view, or be positioned to cover key approaches, firing up a street or protecting a junction. It will also be placed where it can provide a withdrawal route in case troops on the ground are overwhelmed. In all defensive situations, 8×8 platforms will be ready to support the fight or to aid a withdrawal to the next defensive line. 

In the attack, 8×8 vehicles will be used to deliver infantry mass where needed. The key question is where should troops dismount?3 In a situation where an enemy is equipped with large numbers ATGMs, de-busing just in front of an enemy forward will be risky – unless the vehicle has an active protection system (APS).4 Initially, Stryker doctrine envisaged units de-busing one tactical bound or geographical feature from the objective. Training and experience suggests that Stryker units can advance so quickly, achieving a shock effect, that infantry can de-bus on the objective. So the answer to the question will depend on the situation. It will require the commander on the ground to make the right call. APS will enable 8×8 vehicles to be used in a way that's very similar to a tracked IFV. This belief has shaped French doctrine. L'Armée De Terre no longer has a tracked IFV, merely the VBCI with a 25 mm turret. This was used like a tracked IFV in Mali and proved to be extremely effective. 

For a deliberate set-piece assault against a well-prepared defensive position, which may include a minefield that needs to be breached, a heavier protected tracked IFV will always be preferable to a lighter 8×8, regardless of the weapon mounted on it. Whatever the UK decided to do, if we decide that a turreted BOXER offers more utility than a tracked WARRIOR replacement, then we ought to resource the missing four battalions that were meant to get an upgraded WARRIOR. 

Ultimately, this discussion is not about wheels being preferable to tracks. It is about the need for both. Although the British Army needs to adopt a much greater expeditionary focus, something that BOXER will facilitate, it needs the duality of medium (wheeled) forces that can deploy with speed although they are less resilient, PLUS heavy (tracked) forces that are more resilient, but deploy less quickly. This approach is necessary so that the Army is usable across the widest possible range of scenarios, but also to enable us to operate with our NATO allies and partners, who are all heavily invested in medium and heavy forces.

The unifying capability across FIRST BATTLE and SECOND BATTLE doctrine is artillery systems. As noted above, these will support both medium and heavy forces at stand-off distances. Our GMLRS regiments are gaining new rocket and precision guided missiles (PrSM) for their M270A2 launchers, increasing effective range from 70 km to 150 km for rockets, and to 499 km for PrSM. Furthermore, 52-calibre howitzers have set a new tube artillery standard with ranges increased from 20-30 km to 40-50 km. With artillery located further back, to increase counter-battery location times, and thus survivability, it is less dependent on tracked platforms to ensure mobility. This is why systems like Caesar, Boxer RCH155, Atmos, and Archer are gaining in popularity over traditional tracked self-propelled guns.

Any requirement for heavy armour comes with a supplementary need for heavy equipment transporters to ensure the operational mobility of the units equipped with them. All tracked vehicles create logistical support and transportation challenges. For this reason, heavy tracked platforms have increasingly become niche capabilities. Therefore, we are seeing armies focus their resources around building a larger medium element, supported by heavy and light forces.

A quick observation about light mechanised forces is that these generally reflect the reality that not every unit type needs an 8×8 platform. Some capabilities can be well served by lighter, less expensive 4×4 MRAPs. Vehicles like FOXHOUND, JLTV, HAWKEI, AMPV, MILOS M16, EAGLE, and LINCE, are well suited to command, liaison, and light patrol roles. We also need smaller, less expensive personnel carriers, such as BUSHMASTER, COUGAR, PATRIA 6X6, GRIFFON, and DINGO. As a rule of thumb, in terms of weight classes, 50% of an Amy's vehicles should ideally  be medium wheeled (8×8), 25% ought to be heavy tracked, and 25% should be light wheeled (4×4) to ensure utility across most anticipated deployment types.

To summarise, BOXER equipped with a turreted cannon and an active protection system able to counter anti-tank missiles, is capable of performing an IFV role. However, it lacks the passive armour protection needed to ensure the same level of survivability as a main battle tank. If you add extra protection to an 8×8 platform, you undermine its core purpose, which is to be an agile and highly deployable capability. Therefore, a dedicated tracked IFV is desirable as this can be heavier, more resilient and more survivable in an assault. Tracked vehicles are better able to negotiate the most challenging off-road environments, even though the difference between them and wheeled vehicle is less than it was.

https://uklandpower.com/2023/09/05/can-boxer-repace-warrior-as-an-ifv/

[Harald]

https://twitter.com/i/status/1696880964461264918

GDLS' StrykerX 8x8 NextGen demonstrator brings to the Stryker FoV capabilities such as silent movement, silent watch and reduced fuel consumption via a series hybrid diesel-electric powertrain. StrykerX features a side-by-side crew compartment and 360° see-through armor system.

[pz]

Link naar PDF document over de aanbieding van Rheinmetall voor het OMFV programma. Document bevat 19 pagina's met tekeningen / informatie (verkoopverhaal) maar geeft ook inzicht wat er wordt aangeboden.   

LYNX OMFV AMERICA'S NEXT INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLE

https://www.allisontransmission.com/docs/default-source/vocations/b339us0223_arv-textron-omfv_sp_letter_lr_combined_web.pdf?sfvrsn=6caea01d_1

[Huzaar1]

Dit is nu misschien te betalen, maar dit heet zo'n gigantische upkeep. Is niet te betalen en zo rijk is Polen niet. Ben benieuwd hoe dit verder loopt op de langere termijn. Dit slokt al het geld op wat Polen wellicht nodig heeft om het land leefbaar te maken en houden. Of voor onderwijs, of voor zorg.

4% lijkt me niet houdbaar.

[Parera]

Allemaal leuk en aardig natuurlijk die mega aankopen van de Polen maar ik vraag me ondertussen wel af of er een plan achter zit of dat het gewoon kopen om te kopen is. Al zijn de IFV's nog wel een van de laatste puntjes die nog vernieuwd moesten worden.

[Benji87]

Poland to buy heavy infantry fighting vehicles
 

On August 14 in Warsaw, the Minister of National Defense, Mr. Mariusz Blaszczak, approved a framework agreement to purchase new heavy infantry fighting vehicles.

The subject of the framework agreement between the State Treasury – Armaments Agency and the Consortium consisting of Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa SA and Huta Stalowa Wola SA is the delivery of several hundred Ciężkiego Bojowego Wozu Piechoty (CBWP) vehicles.

The new CBWP vehicle will be based on the South Korean-made K9 Thunder chassis and armed with the ZSSW Remote Controlled Turret System. It is a heavily armed and armored troop

This vehicle is based on the universal platform, which enables CBWP to be deployed on a battlefield with main battle tanks, not behind them, thus making it possible to deliver infantry landing parties right in the middle of the fight.



The CBWP heavy infantry fighting vehicle will be able to carry a crew of three men and 8 troops and will provide fire support to the transported group in any weather conditions day and night. Designed for interaction with armored units, the CBWP will be characterized by a high level of ballistic and mine protection, as well as traction capabilities.

https://defence-blog.com/poland-to-buy-heavy-infantry-fighting-vehicles/

[Harald]

Nou succes met die megadingen. Lijkt me niet de meest handige uitslag. Maar zoals artikel stelt, banden aanhalen.. heeul belangrijk blijkbaar.

It is understood that the Redback performed marginally better than its German competitor, the KF-41 Lynx, with Defence deferring the decision ultimately to Government as both vehicles were deemed "suitable" for Defence's requirements.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land/12448-commonwealth-reveals-winner-of-land-400-phase-3

However, it was not enough to overcome what were clearly Australian concerns about performance, supply lines and the diplomatic ties between the two Indo-Pacific countries. The South Korean's Redback was designed for use by Australia and supply lines for any South Korean kit are much shorter.

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/07/hanwha-defeats-rheinmetall-for-5-7-billion-aussie-infantry-fighting-vehicle-deal/

Het lijkt wel dat de Politieke beslissing de doorslag heeft gegeven

[Harald]

Letland krijgt 200 stuks nieuwe Patria's, deze moeten allemaal geleverd zijn in 2029

https://www.facebook.com/Sargs.lv/posts/430279645161004
 

[pz]

K41 is ook niet klein.
Maar had het niet verwacht inderdaad. Risicospreiding is wat waard, maar denk dat er ook wel wat overeenkomst zit tussen een boxer en de K41.

De K41 heeft daarnaast ook nog wel wat mooie ijzers in het vuur liggen. XM30 als hoofdprijs.

XM30 ik gok op GDLS (Protectionisme en net 500 x MPF aangeschaf, in basis hetzelfde onderstel) Maar wie weet...

[Huzaar1]

Nou succes met die megadingen. Lijkt me niet de meest handige uitslag. Maar zoals artikel stelt, banden aanhalen.. heeul belangrijk blijkbaar.

[pz]

Koreans beat Germans to win armoured troop carrier deal

Gevalletje risicospreiding :

Amerikanen de Tank M1
Duitsers de Boxer
Koreanen de IFV

https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/koreans-beat-germans-to-win-armoured-troop-carrier-deal-20230726-p5drc2#:~:text=Korean%20firm%20Hanwha%20saw%20off,board%20HMAS%20Adelaide%20in%20NSW



A Korean defence company has won a multi-billion dollar contract to build dozens of new armoured personnel carriers for the army, in a major boost to ties with one of Asia's economic and democratic powerhouses.

Korean firm Hanwha saw off Germany's Rheinmetall after a five-year tender process to seal the deal to build 129 infantry fighting vehicles, The Australian Financial Review understands.

However, the contract is not as lucrative as initially promised after the number of vehicles to be built was slashed from 450, a casualty of the Defence Strategic Review.

Cabinet's national security committee made the decision on Tuesday, with the Korean and German governments and the bidders contacted on Wednesday. The decision could be announced as early as Thursday.

The contract will underpin defence ties with South Korea, as Australia looks to strengthen relationships with regional partners at a time of rising tensions with China. It also softens the government's recent decision to halve the number of self-propelled howitzers it will buy from Hanwha.

The deal is a boost for Geelong's economy, where Hanwha is building a new factory near Avalon airport to assemble armoured vehicles in Australia. However, it is unclear how much assembly will take place here, with the companies given the option of submitting bids based on building overseas.

Because of Hanwha's location in his electorate, Defence Minister Richard Marles recused himself from the decision-making process.

The total cost of the project had ballooned from $18 billion to $27 billion before the project was cut back in April.

Hanwha's vehicle, called the Redback, reportedly emerged as the army's preferred choice following testing, although Rheinmetall's Lynx also met the capability requirements.

Rheinmetall – which is already building a different kind of armoured vehicle at a factory near Brisbane – was seen as having a better offer for local industry, including the prospect of exports to Germany.

A deal worth $1 billion to sell Queensland-made Boxer vehicles is under a cloud because of the decision.

[Harald]

XM1304 Infantry Carrier Vehicle, Double V Hull A1-30 Millimeter (ICVVA1-30MM), formerly known as the Medium Caliber Weapon System (MCWS), is the latest variant of the Stryker Family of Vehicles and features customized SAMSON PRO 30mm remote turret provided by Rafael and Oshkosh.

https://twitter.com/ronkainen7k15/status/1681248404180209666?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1681248404180209666%7Ctwgr%5Ef3742d902c4da5a49609042902fd6dffad7f6f14%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.snafu-solomon.com%2F

[Harald]

Leichter Fahren – der Kampf gegen die Wachstums- und Gewichtsspirale
https://soldat-und-technik.de/2023/07/mobilitaet/35289/leichter-fahren-kampf-gegen-die-wachstums-und-gewichtsspirale/

(Vertaald via Google Translate)

Gemakkelijker rijden - de strijd tegen de groei- en gewichtsspiraal

De Russische invasie van Oekraïne heeft de oorlog tussen gelijkwaardige of bijna gelijkwaardige tegenstanders (peer-to-peer/P2P of near-peer conflicten) terug naar Europa gebracht. Dit dwingt de westerse krijgsmacht tot modernisering van hun wagenpark. Militair personeel merkt echter vaak dat hoewel de moderne voertuigen op de markt veel krachtiger zijn dan die uit het verleden, ze doorgaans ook veel zwaarder zijn. Dit document onderzoekt en evalueert benaderingen om dit probleem op te lossen.

Het aanbod om te voldoen aan de eisen van moderne gepantserde gevechtsvoertuigen (AFV's) omvat een mix van gemoderniseerde en opnieuw ontworpen platforms. In vergelijking met oudere voertuigen moeten moderne voertuigen meer en betere passieve pantserbescherming, grotere wapens, krachtigere sensoren in grote aantallen, actieve beschermingssystemen (APS), geavanceerde netwerkradio's en diverse andere functieverbeterende subsystemen bieden. Dit vereist op zijn beurt krachtigere motoren om de mobiliteit te behouden ondanks het toegenomen gewicht van bepantsering en missiesystemen, en om te voldoen aan de stroomvoorzieningsvereisten.

Krachtiger motoren verbruiken meer brandstof en hebben daarom extra hulpaggregaten (APU) of batterijen nodig om alle systemen van stroom te voorzien zonder alleen op de motor te vertrouwen. Bovendien zijn moderne AFV-dieselmotoren en transmissies zo klein geworden als de huidige motortechnologie toelaat, waardoor het moeilijk is om meer vermogen uit hetzelfde motorvolume te halen. Dit maakt het steeds moeilijker om gevechtsvoertuigen krachtiger te maken met behoud van de bestaande afmetingen en mobiliteitskenmerken - tenzij er een radicaal nieuw powerpack-ontwerp op de markt komt.

De gevolgen van toenemende vaardigheidseisen worden duidelijk wanneer moderne gevechtsvoertuigen worden vergeleken met hun oudere tegenhangers. Ter vergelijking: de Duitse Marder-voorproductievoertuigen hadden een gevechtsgewicht van ongeveer 27,5 ton, dat in de loop van de tijd toenam tot 33,5 ton voor de Marder 1A3 en uiteindelijk tot 37,4 ton voor de Marder 1A5. Het Puma-infanteriegevechtsvoertuig, bedoeld om de Marder te vervangen, lijkt deze trend tegen te gaan als je kijkt naar het gewicht van het voertuig van 31,45 ton in beschermingsniveau A (luchttransporteerbaar). Dit beschermingsniveau zou hooguit voldoende moeten zijn voor counterinsurgency-operaties en zorgt ervoor dat het voertuig licht genoeg is voor een luchtbrug met de A400M.

Een nog extremere vergelijking: het Britse Ajax heeft een gevechtsgewicht van zo'n 42 ton, wat vele malen zwaarder is dan de 12 ton wegende CVR(T) Scimitar Mk2 die hij vervangt.

Met uitzondering van enkele nieuwere gevechtstanks (MBT's), zijn de meeste nieuwe gepantserde voertuigen zwaarder dan hun tegenhangers van de laatste generatie. Gezien de tijd en kosten die nodig zijn om een ��moderne soldaat op te leiden en de kleinere omvang van de moderne troepen, zijn de hoge eisen die aan voertuigen worden gesteld geen verrassing. Het is echter duidelijk dat een dergelijke gewichtstoename niet duurzaam is. Zwaardere voertuigen verbruiken meer brandstof en slijten aandrijf- of chassiscomponenten sneller, wat meer logistieke inspanningen vergt. Zwaardere voertuigen kunnen sommige civiele infrastructuur, zoals bruggen, ook onbegaanbaar maken, ze lopen vaak vast in modderige grond en ze missen vaak het vermogen om amfibisch te rijden.

Dergelijke voertuigen kunnen ook te zwaar zijn om met transportvliegtuigen te worden gebruikt. Zelfs als het vliegtuig fysiek in staat is om het gewicht van een bepaald voertuig te dragen, is de gewichtslimiet van het laadperron van het vliegtuig doorgaans lager dan het totale laadvermogen van het vliegtuig, waardoor conventioneel laden en lossen van dergelijke zware voertuigen onmogelijk is. Dit probleem is niet alleen van theoretische aard, maar kan op een zeer praktische manier worden waargenomen in het voorbeeld van de Puma en A400M, waar de gewichtslimiet van het laadperron het niet mogelijk maakt om de Puma op de A400 te laden (zelfs in beschermingsniveau A).

Er zijn tal van prikkels voor de strijdkrachten om binnen hun mogelijkheden enkele tonnen te besparen. Ondanks inspanningen is dit tot nu toe een probleem gebleken voor de strijdkrachten die moderniseren, maar er zijn in dit opzicht een aantal veelbelovende mogelijkheden:

- Promotie van beveiligingsoplossingen (zoals handtekeningbeheer en APS) in plaats van passieve bepantsering
- Conversie van bemande naar onbemande torentjes.
- Ombouw van stalen naar composiet rubberen rupsen (CRT).
- Ontwikkeling van onbemande grondvoertuigen (UGV) voor specifieke taken.
- Ontwikkeling van voertuigen met een kleinere bemanning.

afslanken
Het verband tussen de introductie van oplossingen die verder gaan dan klassieke bepantsering en de vermindering van het toegestane totale gewicht van voertuigen was tot nu toe meer theoretisch dan praktisch. Hoewel veel bedrijven APS of producten hebben aangeboden om de thermische, akoestische en radarkarakteristieken van voertuigen te verminderen, zijn dergelijke maatregelen meestal genomen als aanvulling op, in plaats van ter vervanging van een hoog niveau van passieve bescherming. Als gevolg hiervan kunnen voertuigen die ermee zijn uitgerust nog zwaarder zijn dan hun conventioneel gepantserde tegenhangers.

(rest van het artikel achter betaalmuur)

[pz]

Two Rivals Are Battling to (Finally) Replace the Army's Bradley Fighting Vehicle

Late in June 2023, the U.S. Army announced that, of five teams tapped to submit detailed proposals for a successor to America's thousands of 40-year-old Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, two had made the cut. The Bradley vehicles recently saw a brutal baptism of fire in Ukrainian service assaulting a Russian minefield.

This marks the fourth attempt by the Army to procure a Bradley replacement in the last 20 years. The most recent, the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), was terminated abruptly and dramatically in 2020. For the competition's current iteration, the OMFV was eventually re-designated the XM30 Mechanized Infantry Combat Vehicle—a throwback to a 1960s-era acronym.

XM30 will boast much bigger 50-millimeter cannon, have a smaller two-person crew, use a hybrid-electric engine allowing quiet idling, and feature signature reduction and active protection systems to improve survivability.

The Pentagon plans to spend $1.6 billion more over the next three years for rival teams assembled by vehicle manufacturers General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) and American Rheinmetall (a subsidiary of a German company) to digitally design and, starting in 2025, physically assemble between seven and 11 prototype vehicles that will face off in trials. In 2027, the Army will choose a winner and begin procurement, with first operational units receiving deliveries in 2029. Procurement costs are expected to total $45 billion for an unspecified number of XM30s.

Ironically, the finalists are the same final two teams from the third iteration, likely drawing from the same basic designs. However, the Army's concept has changed substantially this time around, in favor of smaller vehicle carrying fewer crew and passengers so as to control weight and still achieve a higher density of armor. There is also, seemingly, a reduced emphasis on uncrewed operations—at least in their initial configuration.

So, if this competition finally resolves, it will result in different vehicles from those on the table in 2020.

The Cursed Odyssey of the Bradley Replacement

The M2 Bradley is an infantry fighting vehicle, a class blending some of a tank's firepower with the troop-carrying capability of an APC 'battle taxi.' Thus, the Bradley carries infantry to battle while also acting as a bruiser—armed with long-distance TOW anti-tank missiles and a rapid-firing Bushmaster 25-millimeter chain cannon that is lethal against personnel and lighter armored vehicles.
syria conflict coalition us

The M2 Bradley's current 30 tons of weight—twice that of its Soviet equivalent, the BMP-2—reflects more robust armor against heavy machine guns, artillery shrapnel, and autocannons.

While the Bradley was highly successful in the 1991 Gulf War, the post-Cold War Pentagon thought that intense armored battles were a thing of the past and wanted a much lighter family of vehicles—known as the Future Combat System—that would rely on networked communications and sensors to avoid losses.

he over-ambitious FCS program was canceled 2009 after consuming $18 billion. By then, combat experience in Iraq had convinced the Army that heavy armor was actually still very useful for keeping soldiers alive. The second Bradley replacement—the Ground Combat Vehicle—swung the pendulum far the other way, seeking protection margins that made it impractically overweight and leading to its cancellation in 2014.

The third attempt, the NGCV or OMFV competition, was meant to be more balanced. But the Army demanded an extremely rapid development timeline with inflexible requirements, scaring away industry interest. In the end, the Army turned its nose up at the two finalists, General Dynamics' Griffin III and Rheinmetall's KF41 Lynx, disqualifying the latter due to delays securing a transportation permit to deliver the prototype for evaluation and rejecting the former because it was too large and heavy.

The competition was re-launched the same year with the intention of inviting a more flexible and unhurried approach to industry. In 2021, five teams—Rheinmetall, GDLS, Oshkosh and South Korea's Hanwha, BAE Systems, and Point Blank Enterprise (most well known for body armor)—were awarded $300 million to develop proposals. Oshkosh and Hanwha collaborated on a concept evolved from the latter's K-21 IFV, and BAE Systems offered an evolution of the Bradley-based AMPV tracked utility vehicle.
Bringing out the Big Guns

The XM30 will retain tracks for all-terrain mobility, and come out heavier than the Bradley for increased protection. However, its weight and dimensions must still allow two to be transported in a single C-17 cargo jet. Towards that end, the Army settled on a design carrying just six soldiers into combat, with a crew downsized from three to two thanks to automation: a commander/driver and a gunner for the vehicle's remote-control turret.

Currently, U.S. mechanized platoons constitute three squads of nine infantry awkwardly spread out between four Bradley vehicles with a capacity of seven infantry each. Popular Mechanics asked Nicholas Drummond, a British expert on armored vehicles who serves as an advisor to armored vehicle conglomerate KNDS (not in the competition), if the 6-person squads risked being too small. Drummond stressed that his comments for the article were on an independent basis.

"I'm expecting platoons with 6 OMFVs," he replied. "Operating in pairs they will deliver three dismounted squads of 12 soldiers." He added that the C-17 requirement "suggests a maximum combat weight of 42.4 tons."

The XM30 will debut with the capability to drive autonomously between waypoints on a map, but uncrewed combat capability will come later—if ever. The vehicles software, intended to network seamlessly with friendly sources, will begin development separately from the vehicle itself in 2024-2025.

The XM30's primary weapon will be a 50-millimeter (2'') caliber XM913 chain gun autoloading linkless shells with a firing rate of 200 rounds per minute. That's twice the caliber of the Bradley's 25-millimeter gun, but each round is many the times weight and volume.

The XM913 has an effective range against armored targets up to 2.5 miles away, and softer ones up to 4.3 miles, with each shot hitting much harder. In addition to the XM1203 armor-piercing sabot rounds, against infantry, the gun can use XM1204 exploding rounds that can be programmed to either burst in the air to swat drones and threaten infantry in trenches, or to explode after penetrating the wall of a structure. Like the Bradley, the XM30 will also retain a machine gun and a missile-launcher for tackling heavy tanks and possibly low-flying helicopters at long range.

The Strong, Silent Type

Another landmark change for the XM30 involves using a hybrid-electric motor that will allow XM30s to efficiently idle without the growl and fuel expenditure of running its diesel engine all the time and, presumably, support more electricity-hungry systems.

While Pentagon emission reduction targets may influence demand for hybrid propulsion, they also have potential operational benefits in fuel logistics and acoustic stealth. That fits in with the Army's broader emphasis on 'signature reduction' for XM30, which likely implies the use of coatings, armor materials, heat venting pipes or camouflage systems to reduce or distort the XM30's thermal/infrared signature. Such measures employed on Russian tanks have proven effective in combat, according to Ukrainian reports. The Army might also look for means to reduce radar and electromagnetic signatures.

For protection after detection, the XM30 may integrate an Active Protection System that detects incoming projectiles by radar and automatically shoots them down before they can penetrate the tank. It may also discharge multi-spectral smoke grenades to obscure the vehicle from anti-tank operators and laser targeters.

Drummond also expects "...appliqué armour to be added delivering main battle tank levels of protection." In other words, the XM30 could be fitted in the field with additional heavy armor plating or explosive-reactive armor bricks to improve survival in high-risk environments without being weighed down during training, transit, or low-intensity operations.

The XM30 may also have an aperture to store, launch, and recharge small drones, which have proven extremely useful in aiding armor commanders in Ukraine by spotting enemies concealed behind cover.

Looking further ahead, the Army wants XM30 to support modular mission packages and retain room to install additional systems over 4-5 decades of service. As for the preceding M113 and Bradley, an 'ecosystem' of specialized variants based on the XM30 will likely develop that could include recon, anti-tank, air defense, engineering, armored recovery, medical evacuation, and command-and-control models.

The XM30 is also intended for export, increasing the user base and thereby improving economies of scale. Additionally, the Army is looking into use of AI-assisted predictive maintenance technology to reduce operating costs.

The Griffin Vs. the Lynx, Round 2

Given that so many fundamental characteristics of what the Army is looking for in the XM30 are now locked in, how will the prototype designs from Rheinmetall America and General Dynamics differ?

The best clues we have come from the vehicles that these will be evolved from.

Drummond asserted that "the GDLS [vehicle] is based on the same chassis as the M10 Booker MPF / light tank/assault gun. Rheinmetall's offering is based on KF41 Lynx. Both have 800 hp MTU engines mated to an electric hybrid drive system, and Horstman in-arm hydro-pneumatic suspensions."

The space-agey KF41 was originally armed with a 30mm gun and ablea to transport eight or nine soldiers—more than the Army wants the XM30 to be able to carry. "Lynx is a whopping great vehicle so it'll be interesting to see whether it has shrunk," Drummoned observed.

Currently, 218 KF41s at a cost of $2.4 billion are being delivered to Hungary, with Australia and Greece likely to buy hundreds more. Iraq, Romania and Ukraine are potential future clients as well. Equipment used in base-model KF41s includes Raytheon's Quick Kill Active Protection System, TOW or Israeli Spike anti-tank guided missiles, and the Raytheon Coyote drone.

The Lynx is configured for customizable modular armor that can be upscaled and tweaked depending on the threat environment. It's supposedly optimized for cost-efficiency and low technical risks by relying on mature off-the-shelf technologies. Lynx contracts seemingly imply a unit price of $9-11 million each. That's not that cheap, except when compared to Germany's pricier Puma fighting vehicles, though such contracts usually lump in additional services and bits of equipment.

American Rheinmetall's team has lined up prominent U.S. subcontractors supporting the team including Anduril, Allison, Textron, RTX, and L3 Harris.

GDLS has kept the appearance and even the name of their concept tank close to the vest, but most expect that it will be descended from the Griffin III demonstrator IFV unveiled in 2018.

The Griffin III demonstrator was derived from the Austrian-Spanish ASCOD armored vehicle family. Variously named versions are in service in Spain (Pizarro), Austria (Ulan), the United Kingdom (Ajax) and, most significantly, the U.S.—in the form of the Army's new M10 Booker light tank/assault gun.

While the Griffin III demonstrator sported a distinctive tiled camouflage system, later concept art associated with an electronic architecture system called Katalyst implies a different approach. The Griffin III was built from the onset to use the 50-millimeter gun in a turret that could elevate up to 85 degrees, enhancing utility against drones or battle amidst urban hi-rises.

"They have now moved beyond these [earlier demonstrators] but you can see the ASCOD/Booker/Ajax origins in each," Drummond wrote. "I have been very impressed by the way in which the MPF team worked with GDLS to develop Booker. This is a very swept-up project that has turned out well. The same US Army personnel will manage OMFV. I have confidence that OMFV will deliver a great capability and redefine the category. We might even see M30 OMFVs working closely with M10 Bookers in expeditionary units."

It's worth reemphasizing that any base designs will be heavily reworked to meet the fairly specific Army requirement in the digital design phase. Only then may we may get a better sense of how GDLS's and Rheinetmall's final submitted designs compare. And, in 2027, somewhere between 14 and 22 of these vehicles will hit the road and mud to determine which gets to inherit the mantle of the Bradley's considerable role in the Army's force structure.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a44402209/us-army-bradley-fighting-vehicle-replacement-competition/

Foto's en films niet toegevoegd, staan in de link.