Light Tanks... de toekomst ?

[Harald]

Mobile Protected Firepower Bridges Infantry Brigade Combat Team Direct Fire Capability Gap

Expected for release this later this month, a draft request for proposals will take US Army plans to add "Mobile Protected Firepower" to its Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCT) a step closer to realization. The vehicle selected to fulfill the service's emerging requirement will also determine if a long dormant capability is revived; battlefield delivery of light tank-type vehicles by airdrop. The 1996 retirement of the 82nd Airborne Division's M-551 Sheridan armored reconnaissance vehicles, and cancellation of the M-8 Armored Gun System, the Sheridan's intended replacement, left the Army's airborne formations with a direct fire capability gap the service intends to restore with a new combat vehicle. 

"We expect to issue a draft RFP sometime in June with a final following in December, for the vehicle selected, airdrop capability is an objective, not definitive, requirement,"  according to Colonel William T. Nuckols, director of the Mounted Requirements Division at the US Army Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia. Nuckols spoke with the National Interest on May 17, confirming imminent release of the draft RFP by email on June 12. Nickols' group is central to ensuring the selected vehicle fulfills the requirement to provide infantry with the capability to engage line of site targets with a large caliber gun, from a mobile, protected platform.
 
Initially, MPF requirements were drawn up to re-equip Army airborne formations with an air-droppable light tank. Plans changed as the service saw need to provide its regular IBCTs with a fire support vehicle offering mobility and survivability not available from comparable in-service assets such as the M-2 Bradley. Envisioned organizational structure calls for each Army's IBCT to receive an MPF company, approximately 14 vehicles. "We are planning for a vehicle to primarily support our IBCT in standard configuration, rather than one that would be configured only for airborne," Nuckols said.

MPF fits into the Army's newish Joint-Entry Operations Concept, one calling on airborne troops to prevent enemy forces from employing area-denial tactics. Until a vehicle candidate is selected, it will remain unclear if paratroop formations will have to seize contested airfields, prior to MPF arrival by conventional landing. Based on the M-551, the weight limit for airborne armored vehicles is approximately 18 tons. For the MPF program, Nuckols said there is no specified weight ceiling, "but we do require that two MPF be transported by a single C-17."

Nuckols said the service is "not looking for a replacement for the M-551 Sheridan or M-8 Armored Gun System, we intend to field an infantry support vehicle, an asset that can defeat most battlefield targets, it's not intended to fight enemy tanks, whatever vehicle is chosen will have that capability." He said requirements would likely force vehicle weights beyond 18 tons, rendering the airdrop requirement a 'nice to have'.

Lt. Colonel Scott Coulson (retired), formerly with the US Army Capability Integration Center at Fort Eustis was heavily involved in the MPF initiative, working as an advocate to ensure overall program support. "The MPF Industry Day last August was the start of the program, while it was not then a budget line item, as is now the case, during Industry Day high-level details on MPF lethality, mobility, protection, and sustainability were discussed with contractor representatives," Coulson spoke with National Interest on May 16. Due to the high costs of non-government funded prototype and concept development activities, Nuckols anticipates between three to five industry teams will submit proposals after the release of the final RFP release, anticipated in December.

Regarding firepower, Nuckols said the Army is leaning towards a 105mm gun armament, enabling the MPF to engage main battle tanks as a secondary mission. An autoloader, reducing crew size is favored. The new AMP round, now in the development and qualification phase, will replace legacy 120mm tank ammunition including the M830 High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT), M830A1 Multi-Purpose Antitank (MPAT), M1028 canister, and M908 Obstacle Reduction round. "Should the Army go with a 105mm for MPF, I would anticipate a similar multi-purpose round along the lines of AMP may be developed," Coulson remarked.

Army infantry brigades may not be the only US military formations in line to receive the MPF, Nuckols said the Marine Corps is monitoring developments. Coincidently, the MPF is slated to begin fielding at about the same time USMC M1A2 main battle tanks are passing the 25-year mark. "I think the vehicle is going to be of high interest to the Marines, they have a similar need for an expeditionary fire support vehicle for infantry, additionally, the MPF is intended to operate without resupply during the initial hours of an operation."

Estimates state up to 500 vehicles could be procured for Army and National Guard infantry brigades, equipping Marine tank battalions could raise the number in excess of 600. In the meanwhile, the 82nd Airborne is evaluating several USMC LAV-25 light armored vehicles for suitability in airborne operations, if successful up to 50 may be acquired from USMC stocks.



http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/mobile-protected-firepower-bridges-infantry-brigade-combat-21347

[Harald]

Speed Up Light Tank, Heavy Armor Modernization, HASC Tells Army

WASHINGTON: Congress wants the Army to get its tanks in gear. Today, the House Armed Services Committee released its draft of the 2018 defense policy bill, which all but begged the Army to accelerate its air-deployable Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle. MPF would fill a void in light tanks that's existed since the M551 Sheridan was retired in 1996. A separate provision would order the Army to report on its plans for modernizing its heavy armored forces across the board, including "the development of a next generation infantry fighting vehicle and main battle tank" to replace the M2 Bradley and M1 Abrams respectively.

By contrast, the Army's current focus is low-cost, short-term upgrades of existing weapons. Incrementalism has been the Army's strategy for at least four years, since it had to cancel the Ground Combat Vehicle program and replace it with a Next Generation Combat Vehicle initiative that may or may not deliver a new design in 2035. That's too slow for HASC, which wants the Army report to include "an accelerated long-term strategy for acquiring next generation combat vehicle capabilities" (emphasis ours).

HASC's call for a review echoes a white paper released by Senate Armed Services chairman John McCain in January. McCain urged the service invest in new technologies and new designs for its Armored Brigade Combat Teams. The Senate hasn't released its draft bill yet, but we imagine the two chambers will easily come to agreement on this provision.

McCain's white paper did not address the Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle, however. That's in part a matter of focus: MPF would bulk up airborne brigades and other light infantry units, rather than serving with the heavy armor brigades, which McCain — and for that matter HASC — see as critical to deterring high-end adversaries like Russia.

HASC, however, is clearly enthusiastic about the light tank, too. "The committee recognizes that the Army Chief of Staff has made MPF a high priority modernization program (and) believes the Army is developing strategies to potentially accelerate the MPF schedule given that the current projected schedule has MPF fielding beginning in 2024," the draft language states. "Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a briefing... by October 5, 2017, that outlines potential opportunities for MPF program acceleration. The briefing should include a review of testing requirements and potential areas for consolidation; funding required in fiscal year 2018 and beyond to accelerate the program; and any areas of legislative relief that would be required in order to accelerate the program." In congressional terms, that's a wide-open invitation to ask for more money and legal leeway.

The language directing the report on heavy armor is not quite so warm. It begins by discussing how budget cuts — particularly the Budget Control Act — have slashed Army R&D and procurement, leaving the service with an aging and potentially outgunned armored force. "The committee is concerned that the tactical overmatch that U.S. ground forces have enjoyed for decades is being diminished, or in some cases, no longer exists," the draft language states, before lamenting the lack of a ground combat vehicle modernization strategy next to the Army's much more clearly articulated — and funded — approach to helicopters.

"The committee believes there is an immediate need for a more accelerated ground combat vehicle modernization strategy that should include the development of a next generation infantry fighting vehicle and main battle tank, while also looking for ways to accelerate needed upgrades for legacy combat vehicles in the near term to address immediate threats," the draft language says. While the draft doesn't specify, one key upgrade would be Active Protection Systems (APS) to jam or shoot down advanced anti-tank missiles.

The draft goes on to prescribe that "Elements of the report should include: the Army's combat vehicle modernization priorities over the next 5 and 10 years; the extent to which those priorities can be supported at current funding levels within a relevant 15 time period; the extent to which additional funds are required to support such priorities; detail how the Army is balancing and resourcing these priorities with efforts to rebuild and sustain readiness and increase force structure capacity over this same time period; and explain how the Army is balancing its near-term modernization efforts with an accelerated long-term strategy for acquiring next generation combat vehicle capabilities." Besides the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley, the report would also encompass other elements of the Armored Brigade Combat Team such as
◾the new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), essentially a turretless utility variant of the Bradley;
◾the geriatric M113s the AMPV is replacing;
◾the M109A7 Paladin howitzer, which puts an old cannon on a new automotive system;
◾the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) to replace the Humvee;
◾and the M88 Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles, a hybrid between tank and tow truck that can pull a broken-down M1 Abrams.

A separate provision in the bill calls for upgrading the Army's Heavy Equipment Transport (HET) trailers to handle the latest uparmored Abrams, the M1A2 SEPv3, which weighs in excess of 80 tons. That's the kind of attention to detail that modern mechanized warfare requires. As Clausewitz wrote, "everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult."

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/06/speed-up-light-tank-heavy-armor-modernization-hasc-tells-army/

[Kaaskop2]

Ik keek gisteravond nog even een stuk over 170 Israelische tanks tegenover 1200 Syrische ..Golanheights..

Dan besef je ook meteen dat wij hier verkeerd bezig zijn. Wij hebben momenteel 16 lease tanks...en wat cv90 waar je in zo'n gevecht ook niets aan hebt.

Nederland moet MBT gaan aanschaffen en wel in voldoende mate...wat als je straks tegenover 1000 Russische T-90 's komt te staan ?....

Dan heb je niets aan Boxers, Fenneks en meer van die troep..Tanks tanks en nog eens tanks heb je nodig

Mooi verhaal, maar in welk scenario neemt Nederland het ook alweer op tegen duizend Russische tanks? Dat is bijna de helft van de operationele Russische tanks.

[Oorlogsvis]

Ik keek gisteravond nog even een stuk over 170 Israelische tanks tegenover 1200 Syrische ..Golanheights..

Dan besef je ook meteen dat wij hier verkeerd bezig zijn. Wij hebben momenteel 16 lease tanks...en wat cv90 waar je in zo'n gevecht ook niets aan hebt.

Nederland moet MBT gaan aanschaffen en wel in voldoende mate...wat als je straks tegenover 1000 Russische T-90 's komt te staan ?....

Dan heb je niets aan Boxers, Fenneks en meer van die troep..Tanks tanks en nog eens tanks heb je nodig

[Ronald Elzenga]

Ziet er op eerste gezicht strak uit.
Alleen de schietbuis ziet er wat gedateerd(koude oorlog) uit.
Dat samen met de vlakke, nagenoeg 90 graden geplaatste pantserplaten op de toren oogt de toren in zijn geheel wat jaren 80/90.

De toren is dan ook geen Turks fabrikaat maar een CMI Cockerill 3105 turret. Die oogt vind ik ook inderdaad wat gedateerd, maar is dat dus niet.

[Zander]

Ziet er op eerste gezicht strak uit.
Alleen de schietbuis ziet er wat gedateerd(koude oorlog) uit.
Dat samen met de vlakke, nagenoeg 90 graden geplaatste pantserplaten op de toren oogt de toren in zijn geheel wat jaren 80/90.

[Harald]

Kaplan MT medium weight tank ready for testing



Turkey's FNSS Savunma Sistemleri has released details of a new Kaplan (Tiger) MT Modern Medium Weight Tank.

FNSS and Indonesia's PT Pindad unveiled the jointly developed medium weight tank, Kaplan MT, during the 13th International Defense Industry Fair (IDEF) in Istanbul. The Kaplan MT brings a new breath to the battlefield with its accurate direct fire capability, a wide selection of ammunition ranging from close fire support to anti-tank ammunition, and superior tactical and strategic mobility.

The vehicle's new generation engine, coupled with a fully automatic electronic controlled transmission, results in of 20 hp/ton ratio; depending on the configurable protection system.

KAPLAN MT owes its advanced mobility capability to it's 6 wheeled anti-shock suspension system, built on torsion bars with double pinned tracks twhich provides optimum performance on both urban infrastructure and cross country. The vehicle is fully operable in a broad range of altitude and humidity, and tempratures. (-18°C/+55°C)

The vehicle's power pack is equipped with capacity cooling pack and fuel tanks. The cooling pack is cooled by an intelligent software driven hydraulic fan for optimum torque extraction and fuel economy, and two separate fuel tanks provide a minimum operating range of 450km. An auxiliary power unit enables turret operation when vehicle engine is not running by charging battery system. Advanced battery monitoring system is also equipped for optimum power management and silent watch capabilities.

Mobility:
•Maximum Road Speed: 70kitvb
•Road Range: 450km
•Gradient: 60%
•Side Slope 30%
•Vertical Obstacle. 0.90m
•Trench Crossing. 2.00m
•Turning Radius: Pivot
•Operating Conditions -18*C/+55'C

New fire control system enables rapid preparation for fire engagement, high accuracy in range measurement and high first round kill probability either in motion or standstill, both day and night.

The new FCS solution enables the commander to take the gunner's role in case of emergency and to fire at selected targets.

Weapon Systems:
•CMI Cockerill 3105 turret
•105mm Gun – mam Armament
•7 62mm coaxial machine gun – secondary armament

The vehicle's firepower ts provided by a CMI Cockerill 3105 turret, integrated with a high-pressure 105mm Cockerill Gun and an advanced autoloader. Thanks to this turret, the Kaplan MT has high firepower power despite its relatively low weight.

Protection Systems:
•Ballistic Protection (Hull + Additional Armour)
•Mine protection (Underbelly Mine
Protection)
•CBRN protection system
•Air conditioning system
•Automatic fire suppression system
•Smoke grenade launcher

New generation KAPLAN MT's precision direct fire capability ensures sufficient lethality coupled with outstanding tactical and strategic mobility. The vehicle's rear configuration power pack, heavy duty suspension system, double pin tracks and advanced electronic control systems each contribute to ensure freedom of action during expeditionary maneuver.

http://defence-blog.com/army/kaplan-mt-medium-weight-tank-ready-for-testing.html

[Ace1]

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

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

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

Kan iemand mij uitleggen waarom BAE Systems Hägglunds voor de CMI Defence gaat bij de CV90105 en bijvoorbeeld niet voor het L7/ M68A2 105mm kanon wat van de Britse tak van  BAE Systems komt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Ordnance_L7

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1128_Mobile_Gun_System

http://z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/ar/t2071.htm

[StrataNL]

Aanvulling nieuwe Boxers met AMOS, niet nog weer wijzigingen maken binnen de huidige aantallen en typen.
Boxer Amos kan idd geen geweergroep meenemen, maar hopelijk juist meer mortiergranaten dan 48 stuks zoals bij de Patria AMV.
Mortiergroepen met 120mm, is een getrokken stuk achter een Fennek of Boxer. Door AMOS te integreren op een Boxer wordt deze onderdeel van het VuursteunCommando mortiergroep 120mm. Net als dat de 155mm Pantserhouwitser ook onder het VuursteunCommando vallen.
Daarbij zou ik wel standaard een aantal Boxer AMOS onderbrengen als toevoeging aan de Boxer eenheden als (in)Directe vuursteun. Deze kan dan uitgebreid worden afhankelijk van missie/opdracht.
Een Boxer AMOS zal (voor mijn gevoel) altijd achter de andere voertuigen rijden, een ondersteunende rol.

Tevens AMOS heeft een groter bereik (indirect max 10 km) dan de 120mm Mortieren (8 km) en is veel flexibeler.
Bereik AMOS direct vuur (vlakbaan, geen boog) 150 tot 1550 meter.

Kan ik me goed in vinden. Daarnaast heeft de AMOS dacht ik ook nog de mogelijkheid voor geleide projectielen.
Broodnodig gezien de huidige staat van het VustCo maar ja.... budget.

[Harald]

Een IWS of Lance 35mm toren kun je met de huidige opzet invoeren zonder dat je nieuwe voertuigen moet kopen (hooguit nieuwe modules).
Als je Boxers met AMOS wil in de huidige organisatie zul je Boxer onderstellen ergens anders weg moeten plukken of nieuwe laten bouwen.

Immers een Boxer Amos kan denk ik geen geweergroep meenemen (je zit met je munitieopslag etc.)

Aangezien het plaatje nu net een beetje duidelijk is wat betreft rollen van de Boxer en Bushmaster lijkt het mij niet wenselijk om nu wéér de boel om te gooien.

Aanvulling nieuwe Boxers met AMOS, niet nog weer wijzigingen maken binnen de huidige aantallen en typen.
Boxer Amos kan idd geen geweergroep meenemen, maar hopelijk juist meer mortiergranaten dan 48 stuks zoals bij de Patria AMV.
Mortiergroepen met 120mm, is een getrokken stuk achter een Fennek of Boxer. Door AMOS te integreren op een Boxer wordt deze onderdeel van het VuursteunCommando mortiergroep 120mm. Net als dat de 155mm Pantserhouwitser ook onder het VuursteunCommando vallen.
Daarbij zou ik wel standaard een aantal Boxer AMOS onderbrengen als toevoeging aan de Boxer eenheden als (in)Directe vuursteun. Deze kan dan uitgebreid worden afhankelijk van missie/opdracht.
Een Boxer AMOS zal (voor mijn gevoel) altijd achter de andere voertuigen rijden, een ondersteunende rol.

Tevens AMOS heeft een groter bereik (indirect max 10 km) dan de 120mm Mortieren (8 km) en is veel flexibeler.
Bereik AMOS direct vuur (vlakbaan, geen boog) 150 tot 1550 meter.
 
Interieur XA-361, Finlandse Patria AMV AMOS :

[StrataNL]

+1
Zo-wie-zo geen CV90-120 !, daar hebben we de Leopard voor.
Maar AMOS op Boxer, dat vind ik nog wel een goed idee als aanvulling voor (in)direct vuursteun.

Wat bedoel je met schuiven van de voertuigen ?

Een IWS of Lance 35mm toren kun je met de huidige opzet invoeren zonder dat je nieuwe voertuigen moet kopen (hooguit nieuwe modules).
Als je Boxers met AMOS wil in de huidige organisatie zul je Boxer onderstellen ergens anders weg moeten plukken of nieuwe laten bouwen.

Immers een Boxer Amos kan denk ik geen geweergroep meenemen (je zit met je munitieopslag etc.)

Aangezien het plaatje nu net een beetje duidelijk is wat betreft rollen van de Boxer en Bushmaster lijkt het mij niet wenselijk om nu wéér de boel om te gooien.

[Harald]

Ik ben het met je eens dat 13 lichte brigade ook vuursteun moet hebben, maar niet door de CV90120. Boxer met KMW IWS 35 of Rheinmetall lance of eventueel aangevuld AMOS, maar dan moet je alweer gaan schuiven met voertuigen.

+1
Zo-wie-zo geen CV90-120 !, daar hebben we de Leopard voor.
Maar AMOS op Boxer, dat vind ik nog wel een goed idee als aanvulling voor (in)direct vuursteun.

Wat bedoel je met schuiven van de voertuigen ?

[StrataNL]

Precies, het heeft toch rupsbanden ... dan is het een tank ..

Als 1ste .. Ja, Leopards moeten terug komen !
Maar ..
ik zou voor een splitsing gaan, Leopards zullen samen optrekken met CV90-35 , dus alleen rups en zware eenheden 
Als 2de ..  de wiel en "lichte" eenheden , een extra vuursteun platform bij de Boxers in de vorm van 120mm en 35mm.

Maar goed, das mijn idee, .. in het hogere gevechtsspectrum kunnen de Leopards en CV90's optreden, bij lagere kunnen Boxers met 0.5, 35mm en 120mm.
Hierdoor ook meer divers en breder inzetbaar

Ik ben het met je eens dat 13 lichte brigade ook vuursteun moet hebben, maar niet door de CV90120. Boxer met KMW IWS 35 of Rheinmetall lance of eventueel aangevuld AMOS, maar dan moet je alweer gaan schuiven met voertuigen.

[Ronald Elzenga]

De CV90 wordt in NL door het merendeel van de bevolking (en politici) een tank genoemd. Als wij CV90's 120's in gaan voeren en we zeggen "nee hoor dit is geen tank" dan staat iedereen je raar aan te kijken.

Als we helemaal geen Leo's in de gelederen hadden was het een optie geweest als vuursteun platform, of als 'poor man's tank' maar in de huidige situatie gewoon voor refurbished leo2's gaan wat mij betreft.

Ja, zo sta ik hier ook in. Ook de leopard 2 is niet onkwetsbaar, maar heeft zoveel meer incasseringsvermogen dan een lichte tank (op bijvoorbeeld basis CV90). En daarnaast zijn voldoende artillerie en zware mortieren dan ook nog wenselijk. Vul je ook een deel van de taken voor een lichte tank mee in. Zeker als je de meer geavanceerde varianten kiest.

ps. En laat politici en burger maar denken...zolang de tegenstander het verschil maar ziet en ervaart..

[Harald]

De CV90 wordt in NL door het merendeel van de bevolking (en politici) een tank genoemd. Als wij CV90's 120's in gaan voeren en we zeggen "nee hoor dit is geen tank" dan staat iedereen je raar aan te kijken.

Precies, het heeft toch rupsbanden ... dan is het een tank ..

Als we helemaal geen Leo's in de gelederen hadden was het een optie geweest als vuursteun platform, of als 'poor man's tank' maar in de huidige situatie gewoon voor refurbished leo2's gaan wat mij betreft.

Als 1ste .. Ja, Leopards moeten terug komen !
Maar ..
ik zou voor een splitsing gaan, Leopards zullen samen optrekken met CV90-35 , dus alleen rups en zware eenheden 
Als 2de ..  de wiel en "lichte" eenheden , een extra vuursteun platform bij de Boxers in de vorm van 120mm en 35mm.

Maar goed, das mijn idee, .. in het hogere gevechtsspectrum kunnen de Leopards en CV90's optreden, bij lagere kunnen Boxers met 0.5, 35mm en 120mm.
Hierdoor ook meer divers en breder inzetbaar