Light Tanks... de toekomst ?

[Huzaar1]

Ik vind het nog steeds een interessante optie om de CV90120 toe te voegen aan de pantser infanterie bataljons.
4 per compagnie of zo.
Daarnaast de samenwerking met de Duitsers uitbreiden op tank gebied.

Dat is 105mm, geen 120.
En wat is de meerwaarde t.o.v een Leopard2 dan van zo'n cv90?

[Zander]

US Mobile Protected Firepower surges forward
17th March 2017

"As of today, [MPF] is not an "interim" solution. BOIP (fielding numbers) have been determined and set. Again, as of today, every IBCT will get a company of MPF."
Col William Nuckols, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at MCOE


The US Army's MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower) programme has been confirmed and will be introduced into the infantry brigade combat teams (IBCTs).

There has been a considerable build up to this programme throughout 2016, and the US Army Manoeuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) at Fort Benning is defining MPF requirements and moving it towards the RfP stage.

Col William Nuckols, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at MCOE, confirmed to Shephard on 16 March: 'As of today, [MPF] is not an "interim" solution. BOIP [fielding numbers] have been determined and set. Again, as of today, every IBCT will get a company of MPF.'

This would see a production requirement of around 500 if the Army National Guard IBCTs, war reserves, prepositioned stocks and training needs are included.

Some also feel that MPF could have strong international interest. This production number is important as it influences industry's level of interest and willingness to invest in the programme. A larger quantity also offers possibilities for better pricing through economies of scale buying and learning-curve production.

This is the reason that both General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems invested in prototypes to show off at the AUSA Annual exhibition over the last two years, but up until now the general feeling was that MPF is a 'nice to have' possibility rather than a serious development in the making.

But Nuckols told Shephard that MPF is a priority for the army, and the Chief of Staff, Gen Mark Milley, has directed that the emphasis has to be on rapidly fielding a system that addresses the core operational needs.

To meet this aggressive timeline, an innovative approach has been initiated with upfront industry involvement in the requirements process. In mid-2016, industry was briefed on the draft Capability Development Document (CDD) – an internal document specifying the operational requirements, attributes and system performance as well as the priority of importance of the requirements.

However, the idea was to get industry to suggest what could or could not be done as well as the best method of packaging the requirements to design a total vehicle based on the priorities identified. Since then, the army has received and reviewed white papers and been briefed by a number of companies providing thoughts on the contents of the CDD, which have been viewed by Maj Gen Eric Wesley Cdr of MCoE and Maj Gen David Bassett of PEO Combat Vehicles, as well as members of Department of the Army G-8.

Col Nuckol acknowledged the tension that exists between the rapid equipping procurement route and the more traditional development approach, so the close dialogue between these participants seeks to reduce that.

The army's goal is to finalise the CDD for an Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) review, which can trade requirements, before reaching an approval in May 2017. But some MPF key requirements are becoming clearer, and Col Nuckols said that the main armament will be a cannon, initially 105mm, but with the ability to go to 120mm in the future. Lethality is seen as paramount.

The acceptable combat weight of MPF has increased with C17 air transport of two vehicles necessary, so C130 transport will likely not be a requirement. An air drop capability is an 'objective', Nuckols said, but the MPF is addressing a critical need from all IBCTs so it would be difficult to mandate air dropping, which is only a need of the airborne IBCT.

The CDD is being structured with tiered requirements. The objective is to provide maximum opportunity for trade-off for a more rapid fielding, reduced price or reduced risk. On the other hand, MPF will look to future improvements to address some capabilities that might be traded off today.

The idea of pre-planned product improvement, once a common feature in acquisitions, appears to be making a comeback. Col Nuckols suggested that the MPF would have 15% inherent growth capacity in the platform to accept new capabilities down the road. In addition to the larger gun, another future feature that has been identified is active protection systems.

Coincidently, speaking at a an army rapid equipping forum in Washington D.C. in February, Maj Gen Bassett spoke of the use of block upgrades to maintain and enhance the M1, Stryker and Bradley combat capabilities. The US Marine Corps' Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) acquisition is also seeking an accelerated selection and fielding of non-development vehicles.

These, coupled with the increased authority vested with the service chiefs by the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, give strength to Nuckols' statement that this new approach being taken on MPF has the potential to establish a model for future acquisition programs.

There are challenges in moving a system to field rapidly. In the past, parts, manuals and system support have lagged fielding with serious readiness implications. However, these are lessons that could have been learned. There is also the lure of pursuing the better concept over fielding what is possible today, which is known as 'requirements creep' and it has caused a number of previous army projects to go astray. For now, though, MPF is on track.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/us-mobile-protected-firepower-surges-forward/?page=1


CMI Defence and BAE Systems Hägglunds present the CV90105(/120)
http://defence-blog.com/army/cmi-defence-and-bae-systems-hagglunds-present-the-cv90105.html

Ik vind het nog steeds een interessante optie om de CV90120 toe te voegen aan de pantser infanterie bataljons.
4 per compagnie of zo.
Daarnaast de samenwerking met de Duitsers uitbreiden op tank gebied.

[Harald]

Onze Zuiderburen hebben nog interessante optie's en niet alleen voor "light" tanks, maar ook bijvoorbeeld op de Boxer

Cockerill Systems UAV pairing

[Harald]

US Mobile Protected Firepower surges forward
17th March 2017

"As of today, [MPF] is not an "interim" solution. BOIP (fielding numbers) have been determined and set. Again, as of today, every IBCT will get a company of MPF."
Col William Nuckols, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at MCOE


The US Army's MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower) programme has been confirmed and will be introduced into the infantry brigade combat teams (IBCTs).

There has been a considerable build up to this programme throughout 2016, and the US Army Manoeuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) at Fort Benning is defining MPF requirements and moving it towards the RfP stage.

Col William Nuckols, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at MCOE, confirmed to Shephard on 16 March: 'As of today, [MPF] is not an "interim" solution. BOIP [fielding numbers] have been determined and set. Again, as of today, every IBCT will get a company of MPF.'

This would see a production requirement of around 500 if the Army National Guard IBCTs, war reserves, prepositioned stocks and training needs are included.

Some also feel that MPF could have strong international interest. This production number is important as it influences industry's level of interest and willingness to invest in the programme. A larger quantity also offers possibilities for better pricing through economies of scale buying and learning-curve production.

This is the reason that both General Dynamics Land Systems and BAE Systems invested in prototypes to show off at the AUSA Annual exhibition over the last two years, but up until now the general feeling was that MPF is a 'nice to have' possibility rather than a serious development in the making.

But Nuckols told Shephard that MPF is a priority for the army, and the Chief of Staff, Gen Mark Milley, has directed that the emphasis has to be on rapidly fielding a system that addresses the core operational needs.

To meet this aggressive timeline, an innovative approach has been initiated with upfront industry involvement in the requirements process. In mid-2016, industry was briefed on the draft Capability Development Document (CDD) – an internal document specifying the operational requirements, attributes and system performance as well as the priority of importance of the requirements.

However, the idea was to get industry to suggest what could or could not be done as well as the best method of packaging the requirements to design a total vehicle based on the priorities identified. Since then, the army has received and reviewed white papers and been briefed by a number of companies providing thoughts on the contents of the CDD, which have been viewed by Maj Gen Eric Wesley Cdr of MCoE and Maj Gen David Bassett of PEO Combat Vehicles, as well as members of Department of the Army G-8.

Col Nuckol acknowledged the tension that exists between the rapid equipping procurement route and the more traditional development approach, so the close dialogue between these participants seeks to reduce that.

The army's goal is to finalise the CDD for an Army Requirements Oversight Council (AROC) review, which can trade requirements, before reaching an approval in May 2017. But some MPF key requirements are becoming clearer, and Col Nuckols said that the main armament will be a cannon, initially 105mm, but with the ability to go to 120mm in the future. Lethality is seen as paramount.

The acceptable combat weight of MPF has increased with C17 air transport of two vehicles necessary, so C130 transport will likely not be a requirement. An air drop capability is an 'objective', Nuckols said, but the MPF is addressing a critical need from all IBCTs so it would be difficult to mandate air dropping, which is only a need of the airborne IBCT.

The CDD is being structured with tiered requirements. The objective is to provide maximum opportunity for trade-off for a more rapid fielding, reduced price or reduced risk. On the other hand, MPF will look to future improvements to address some capabilities that might be traded off today.

The idea of pre-planned product improvement, once a common feature in acquisitions, appears to be making a comeback. Col Nuckols suggested that the MPF would have 15% inherent growth capacity in the platform to accept new capabilities down the road. In addition to the larger gun, another future feature that has been identified is active protection systems.

Coincidently, speaking at a an army rapid equipping forum in Washington D.C. in February, Maj Gen Bassett spoke of the use of block upgrades to maintain and enhance the M1, Stryker and Bradley combat capabilities. The US Marine Corps' Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV) acquisition is also seeking an accelerated selection and fielding of non-development vehicles.

These, coupled with the increased authority vested with the service chiefs by the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act, give strength to Nuckols' statement that this new approach being taken on MPF has the potential to establish a model for future acquisition programs.

There are challenges in moving a system to field rapidly. In the past, parts, manuals and system support have lagged fielding with serious readiness implications. However, these are lessons that could have been learned. There is also the lure of pursuing the better concept over fielding what is possible today, which is known as 'requirements creep' and it has caused a number of previous army projects to go astray. For now, though, MPF is on track.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/us-mobile-protected-firepower-surges-forward/?page=1


CMI Defence and BAE Systems Hägglunds present the CV90105(/120)
http://defence-blog.com/army/cmi-defence-and-bae-systems-hagglunds-present-the-cv90105.html

[Harald]

PT. Pindad & FNSS Joint Development Modern Medium Weight Tank

[Mourning]

Dat laatste product lijkt behoorlijk veel op de CV90-120T als je het mij vraagt. Dat Chinese ding lijkt veel op een mini-Challenger of een mini-Ariete.

[Jooop]

FNSS indonesische MMWT tank:

[dudge]

China Unveils New Tank for Mountain Warfare
China's top armor maker unveiled a new lightweight tank at the Airshow China 2016 in Zhuha.

Lees: http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/china-unveils-new-tank-for-mountain-warfare/

[Harald]

Light weight, low profile

FNSS Savunma Sistemleri of Turkey and local company PT Pindad have unveiled their Modern Medium Weight Tank (MMWT) at Indo Defence 2016.

The MMWT is being developed for the Indonesian Army and two prototypes are being built, one in Turkey and one in Indonesia – both to be completed in 2017.

It is fitted with a Belgian CMI Defence two-person turret armed with a 105mm rifled gun that is fed by a bustle-mounted automatic loader with a 7.62mm machine gun mounted co-axial with the main armament. The 105mm gun can fire a wide range of ammunition.

To enable stationary and moving targets to be engaged with a high first round hit probability, a computerised fire control system is installed; the commander and gunner are both provided with stabilised day/night sights incorporating a laser rangefinder. The commander is provided with a panoramic sighting system to allow for hunter/ killer target engagements to take place.

The powerpack is a high-performance diesel engine coupled to an electronically controlled automatic transmission and a cooling system to allow the MMWT to operate in high ambient temperatures.

FNSS is quoting a maximum road speed of 70km/h, a cruising range of up to 450km and a power-to-weight ratio of 20hp/tonne with a gross vehicle weight of around 35 tonnes.

The baseline hull is of all-welded steel armour to which an appliqué armour package can be fitted for a higher level of ballistic protection.

Under-belly mine protection is fitted, as is a fire detection and suppression system. Standard equipment includes an air-conditioning system, cameras for situational awareness and an auxiliary power unit that allows all the key subsystems to be run with the main diesel engine switched off.

The role of the MMWT is not to engage more heavily armed and protected main battle tanks but to engage lighter threat vehicles such as reconnaissance platforms, infantry fighting vehicles, troop carriers and combat support vehicles.

It can also be used to support dismounted infantry in the direct fire role, with the 105mm gun being used against pill boxes and other battlefield obstacles. Its light weight and low profile allow it to be deployed in areas that cannot be accessed by traditional MBTs that today normally weigh well over 70 tonnes.

http://www.janes.com/article/65134/light-weight-low-profile-indodef16-d1

[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.