Author Topic: Bradley Replacement Competition  (Read 2588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Bradley Replacement Competition
« on: November 28, 2018, 21:55:31 »
Anyone watching this replacement competition for the Bradley?  It seems quite interesting with the three different contenders.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24114/one-of-these-big-cannon-toting-armored-vehicles-may-replace-the-bradley-fighting-vehicle



Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,128
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2018, 22:16:45 »
Anyone watching this replacement competition for the Bradley?  It seems quite interesting with the three different contenders.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24114/one-of-these-big-cannon-toting-armored-vehicles-may-replace-the-bradley-fighting-vehicle

It looks like they've already exceeded the M4 Sherman in size and weight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,511
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2018, 22:20:34 »
I like griffen but the cv90 has my heart. Its the lightest of the three and it has a 40mm gun which is more than enough for an IFV.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,173
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2018, 10:30:37 »
I like the CV-90 as well, but I have to wonder if the design is already at it's weight max and has no more growth in it? Whichever design they choose I hope it comes with a family of vehicles including a "boring armoured box" version to do all the jobs the M113 did so well.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #4 on: November 29, 2018, 11:13:50 »
I like the CV-90 as well, but I have to wonder if the design is already at it's weight max and has no more growth in it? Whichever design they choose I hope it comes with a family of vehicles including a "boring armoured box" version to do all the jobs the M113 did so well.

Is being "at its weight" necessarily a bad thing? Or does a constant expectation of adding more and being able to add more just drive lazy engineering and bad tactics?  How about learning to exploit what is available?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 276,576
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,512
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2018, 13:31:23 »
Whats the Russian equivalent of the Cv90?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,173
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #6 on: November 29, 2018, 14:40:06 »
BMP 3?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2018, 15:52:21 »
Whats the Russian equivalent of the Cv90?

T-15 Armata or similar version

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,511
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2018, 16:09:26 »
Armata is a tank. While most armies don't require their IFV's to be air droppable we do. This lim its armor and weight. Being road bound is an invitation to get hit by a roadside bomb or mines. Any new IFV must reflect this reality,like a modified hull which would channel the blast away from the crew.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 182,421
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,974
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2018, 16:16:18 »
This thread inspired me to watch Pentagon Wars last night...
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,702
  • Freespeecher
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2018, 19:02:12 »
I like the CV-90 as well, but I have to wonder if the design is already at it's weight max and has no more growth in it? Whichever design they choose I hope it comes with a family of vehicles including a "boring armoured box" version to do all the jobs the M113 did so well.

The CV90 is the basis for all kinds of real and projected vehicles, including a SPAAG, AMOS mortar carrier, engineering vehicle, light tanks with 105 and 120mm cannons and so on. From that perspective, a very long run of variants is entirely possible, and from a logistics POV, very doable with minimal R&D.

While there is no reason you could not do the same thing with the Lynx or any of the other entrants, the basic R&D work needs to be done, adding time and cost. One vehicle which should be worth looking at is the Korean K-21, which has a lightweight composite hull and is much lighter at 25.6 metric tons but has the sort of mobility and protection that the other entrants have.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #11 on: November 30, 2018, 19:04:12 »
Can't help but wonder what might have happened if horses could have been bred to new standards as fast as new vehicles can be created.

But they couldn't.

And for a few thousand years people had to manage with what was possible.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,128
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #12 on: November 30, 2018, 19:16:32 »
This thread inspired me to watch Pentagon Wars last night...

I prefer 'Stalingrad'. 'Tis the season! :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVvoo1qFPDo

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline suffolkowner

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 11,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 319
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #13 on: November 30, 2018, 19:23:24 »
Is there an obvious benefit to the 50mm versus 57mm other than smaller calibre/more ammo?

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 229,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,128
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #14 on: November 30, 2018, 23:44:44 »
Armata is a tank. While most armies don't require their IFV's to be air droppable we do. This lim its armor and weight. Being road bound is an invitation to get hit by a roadside bomb or mines. Any new IFV must reflect this reality,like a modified hull which would channel the blast away from the crew.

I think we're all being limited by an unrealistic expectation of what we expect from our Infantry, especially with respect to the vehicles we mount them in. Infantry don't do their jobs from the equivalent of the light tank, at least 99% of the time. They do it on their bellies, with grenades, rifles and bayonets.

Sure, the vehicles from which we engage the enemy need to be survivable, and having a gun on it is a bonus, but the main 'enabler' we need to properly close with and destroy the enemy is armour and artillery, and mortars and anti-armour weapons and machine guns and pioneers, and close air support.

A huge focus on making the Infantry 'Junior Zipper Heads' is probably not the answer.

A better all arms battlefield team, kind of like the Germans' Blitzkrieg showed us in WW2 (or the Allies' last 100 days in WW1) is probably more like what we need to get better at. The equivalent of a Sherman Tank (in height anyways, as we seem to have already exceeded the weight) is probably putting the emPHASIS on the wrong syllABLE.

My $0.02 worth.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,511
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #15 on: December 01, 2018, 00:21:01 »
The US and Britain showed the world what modern mechanized war was all about in their destruction of Saddam's army with such legacy equipment as the Chieftain and Abrams,Bradley and Warrior IFV. Now after numerous upgrades its time for a modern IFV incorporating lessons learned and Trophy type armor protection. The new IFV should be selected with the IED threat environment as well as peer type combat.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #16 on: December 01, 2018, 13:08:33 »
Armata is a tank. While most armies don't require their IFV's to be air droppable we do. This lim its armor and weight. Being road bound is an invitation to get hit by a roadside bomb or mines. Any new IFV must reflect this reality,like a modified hull which would channel the blast away from the crew.

T-14 Armata is a tank.  T-15 Armata (which I linked) is an IFV.  CV90 is both a light tank and an IFV depending on the weapons load as the CV90 has carried 100mm and 120mm weapons with no dismounts.  Hence my comparison to a similar hull form with different weapons loadout which is a goal of the Armata program.

I think we're all being limited by an unrealistic expectation of what we expect from our Infantry, especially with respect to the vehicles we mount them in. Infantry don't do their jobs from the equivalent of the light tank, at least 99% of the time. They do it on their bellies, with grenades, rifles and bayonets.

Sure, the vehicles from which we engage the enemy need to be survivable, and having a gun on it is a bonus, but the main 'enabler' we need to properly close with and destroy the enemy is armour and artillery, and mortars and anti-armour weapons and machine guns and pioneers, and close air support.

A huge focus on making the Infantry 'Junior Zipper Heads' is probably not the answer.

A better all arms battlefield team, kind of like the Germans' Blitzkrieg showed us in WW2 (or the Allies' last 100 days in WW1) is probably more like what we need to get better at. The equivalent of a Sherman Tank (in height anyways, as we seem to have already exceeded the weight) is probably putting the emPHASIS on the wrong syllABLE.

My $0.02 worth.

Well the eternal question is does doctrine inform the technology choice or does the doctrine need to conform to the technology chosen?  US is reacting to the Armata development among other things.  They want a IFV that when it runs into a T-15 be able to kill it.  US doctrine is always leans towards firepower first.  Current IFV developments are to uparmour to the point where you can take a 30mm round and keep going.  US wants to be able to penetrate that armour no matter the enemy equivalent vehicle.

I suspect that the US Army is large enough that they will continue to have a mixed bag of infantry running the light through heavy types.  And will just refit their current heavy infantry units with this new vehicle.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 178,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,051
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #17 on: December 01, 2018, 13:37:25 »
I think we're all being limited by an unrealistic expectation of what we expect from our Infantry, especially with respect to the vehicles we mount them in. Infantry don't do their jobs from the equivalent of the light tank, at least 99% of the time. They do it on their bellies, with grenades, rifles and bayonets.

Sure, the vehicles from which we engage the enemy need to be survivable, and having a gun on it is a bonus, but the main 'enabler' we need to properly close with and destroy the enemy is armour and artillery, and mortars and anti-armour weapons and machine guns and pioneers, and close air support.

A huge focus on making the Infantry 'Junior Zipper Heads' is probably not the answer.

A better all arms battlefield team, kind of like the Germans' Blitzkrieg showed us in WW2 (or the Allies' last 100 days in WW1) is probably more like what we need to get better at. The equivalent of a Sherman Tank (in height anyways, as we seem to have already exceeded the weight) is probably putting the emPHASIS on the wrong syllABLE.

My $0.02 worth.

I'll buy that. When I left the Reg F artillery to head a Res F rifle company in a Winnipeg Highland Infantry battalion that shall remain nameless I found my platoon plus was really more interested in playing silly-b*gger in the woods wearing any uniform and webbing other than what the CF issued it than doing anything else. I started them back into basic battle-drills and, in order to build up some MCpl leadership and responsibility experience, broke out our four 106mm recoilless rifle jeeps assigned them crews. Well, you can probably imagine how well that went over.

I may be generalizing a bit much here but I don't think that your average infantryman is too inclined to get deeply into the finer points of vehicle manoeuvring and the anti-tank defence. Not that they can't do that but let's face it, some of the capabilities of IFVs these days are well beyond anything of decades ago and reach out beyond the company's. There was a time when artillery had the anti-tank role (and within the artillery there used to be specialization as between tube, anti-tank and anti-aircraft because they are very different specialized skills). What's left of that capability is now one more thing infantry have to learn and deal with.

I sometimes think that the crewing of IFV's (essentially the driver, gunner, commander and maybe the "LAV Capt") should be a wholly different career field which specializes in the intricacies of the care, feeding and employment of those vehicles (including the longer range anti-tank battle in all phases of war) while the infantry focus on the dismounted close-in aspect of the battle. Obviously both elements should be organic to the battalion, but not necessarily the same career field.

Just spit shootin' here.

 :subbies:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 19,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2018, 14:21:12 »
...
I sometimes think that the crewing of IFV's (essentially the driver, gunner, commander and maybe the "LAV Capt") should be a wholly different career field which specializes in the intricacies of the care, feeding and employment of those vehicles (including the longer range anti-tank battle in all phases of war) while the infantry focus on the dismounted close-in aspect of the battle. Obviously both elements should be organic to the battalion, but not necessarily the same career field.

Just spit shootin' here.

 :subbies:

I heard somewhere that the Aussies use armoured crew to drive the IFV and the infantry perform the dismounted role.  Not sure if that's true or if it was a trial or not.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2018, 15:22:29 »
.....
Well the eternal question is does doctrine inform the technology choice or does the doctrine need to conform to the technology chosen?  US is reacting to the Armata development among other things.  ...

Why is the response to a more powerful tank a more powerful tank? 

Isn't the desired endstate an elimination of the threat that the more powerful tank provides?

Yes, it makes sense to me that a tank should be able to defeat the threats it encounters on the field and so a tank should be able to defeat a tank.  But what is the purpose of the tank?  Is it just an anti-tank weapon?  Or does it bring some other capabilities to the all-arms team?

And yes, the artillery did supply tubes with specialized targeting capabilities for General Support, Anti-Air and Anti-Tank but wasn't that more a function of the technology of the time requiring a gun to deliver enough energy to defeat the targets in question at the necessary ranges?  Guns big enough that they had to be transported on wheels and hauled by an internal combustion engine.

Now some of those targets can be defeated at useful ranges by weapons that can be carried on the backs of infanteers making it possible for the infanteers to eliminate threats they previously had to rely on supporting arms to manage.

I am still of the belief that the answer to a squadron of cavalry is not a squadron of cavalry but a well drilled and disciplined bunch of archers.

And while in the realm of silly buggers and good idea fairies it occurred to me some time ago that the Carl Gustav, the LAW and the ATGMs are single shot weapons.  We have drills for single shot weapons.  If you want a refresher head on down to Kingston and watch the Fort Henry Guard.   We might want to ditch the red coats and open up the spacing a bit  but volley fire, rolling fire, fire by ranks, by sections, platoons, fire and retire.... especially with PRRs available .... all seem to me to be worth exploring as infantry tactics for the anti-tank platoon.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 178,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,051
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2018, 17:43:20 »
Why is the response to a more powerful tank a more powerful tank? 

Isn't the desired endstate an elimination of the threat that the more powerful tank provides?

Yes, it makes sense to me that a tank should be able to defeat the threats it encounters on the field and so a tank should be able to defeat a tank.  But what is the purpose of the tank?  Is it just an anti-tank weapon?  Or does it bring some other capabilities to the all-arms team?

And yes, the artillery did supply tubes with specialized targeting capabilities for General Support, Anti-Air and Anti-Tank but wasn't that more a function of the technology of the time requiring a gun to deliver enough energy to defeat the targets in question at the necessary ranges?  Guns big enough that they had to be transported on wheels and hauled by an internal combustion engine.

Now some of those targets can be defeated at useful ranges by weapons that can be carried on the backs of infanteers making it possible for the infanteers to eliminate threats they previously had to rely on supporting arms to manage.

I am still of the belief that the answer to a squadron of cavalry is not a squadron of cavalry but a well drilled and disciplined bunch of archers.

And while in the realm of silly buggers and good idea fairies it occurred to me some time ago that the Carl Gustav, the LAW and the ATGMs are single shot weapons.  We have drills for single shot weapons.  If you want a refresher head on down to Kingston and watch the Fort Henry Guard.   We might want to ditch the red coats and open up the spacing a bit  but volley fire, rolling fire, fire by ranks, by sections, platoons, fire and retire.... especially with PRRs available .... all seem to me to be worth exploring as infantry tactics for the anti-tank platoon.

The Carl G and the ATGM systems are both reloadable but that's besides the point. Anti-tank guns weren't part of the artillery because they had tubes and wheels (although that might have tipped the balance at the time) They were not part of the infantry because the role of the infantry was and remains to close with and engage(destroy) the enemy. Anti tank weapons, on the other hand, (whether tube or missile) were and are designed for a stand-off role and were deployed in separate troops/batteries etc so that their operators could be trained in the tactics necessary to do that (and those tactics vary depending on the phase of war) and could be moved around the front to concentrate their effort in the areas with the most advantage for their employment.

IMHO there is clearly a role for some form of anti-tank weapon with the infantry but a rifle platoon does not need a TOW that can reach out to 3,750 metres (such as on the Bradley). Even the Javelin reaches out to 4,750 metres which is well beyond the range of most other infantry weapon systems. There will not be many positions where a rifle company is deployed (or at least shouldn't be deployed) where it has a visible engagement range that far.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that you shouldn't have anti-tank weapons in the battalion, I just don't see the heavier long range stuff as a weapon that you pass around to any old person or platoon or even company.

Right now every US Army light/standard rifle platoon has two or three Javelins in its weapons squad (depending on the ref material you look at) and every light/standard infantry battalion has a weapons company with 16 squads of which eight are armed with both TOW launchers and Javelin launchers. Every Stryker battalion has three 105mm Mobile Gun Systems per rifle company and each Stryker Rifle platoon has three Javelin launchers (there's no separate weapons company in a Stryker battalion). US Combined Arms battalions have no weapons squads, platoons or companies, just rifle platoons mounted in Bradleys (with TOWs and Javelins) or pure tank platoons.

By having it all parcelled down like that you loose the flexibility to mass your anti-tank resources and will probably have many of your AT resources mispositioned and unengaged while rifle company commanders will have to concern themselves with a deep battle (4-5 kms out if terrain permits) as well as the close in battle.

Longer range anti-tank systems should not be considered as "local defence" tools for the rifle company but a modular resource which a brigade group can allocate and position around it's area of operations just like tube/rocket and anti-air artillery (when available) is.  :2c:

On the other hand, the current US, British and Canadian armies beg to differ. So what do I know!  ;D

 :subbies:

Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2018, 18:58:15 »


Regimental lore has it that it was a gun like this one that fired the last shot of WW2 in NW Europe.  "Old Betsie" under the command of late Maj Mark Tennant of the Calgary Highlanders  when he was in command of the battalion 6-pdrs of the anti-tank platoon.  The alternative was the marvelous spring-loaded device known as the Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank.  I suspect the Highlanders would have carried the 6 Pdr if they had to but it seems to have been easier to leave the wheels on and tow it. 

As to range, with modern tactics promoting dispersal of forces while concentrating fires it seems to me that range is a good thing.  Especially if the other guy has more of it.

And the prospect of filling out a request for supporting fires in triplicate from central authority when the targets are inside mortar range and moving at 40 mph just doesn't warm my cockles the way you might expect.

Edited because the image of Old Betsie wouldn't link.

Cheers,  ;D :cheers:

« Last Edit: December 01, 2018, 19:04:12 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 178,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,051
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2018, 20:06:38 »
You kind of make my point. The 6 pdr had an effective range of about a third of that of of today's TOW and Javelin and even there--considering that the rounds were kinetic--would have had trouble piercing much of the day's armour (other infantry weapons' ranges haven't really changed that much since then) By the time the 6 pdr was given to infantry battalions, the AT artillery were fielding more robust, longer-range guns like the 17 pdr.

Similarly on the German side, at the battalion level short range anti-tank resources consisted of the panzerfaust, panzerschreck and anti-tank rifles. Anti-tank guns (PaK - Panzerabwehrkanone) were centralized at the infantry regiment and division level.

 :subbies:

Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2018, 22:31:59 »
True the 6 pdr was replaced by the 17 pdr (which was also mounted in the Sherman Firefly).  But the 17 pdr replaced the 6 pdr in the Anti Tank Regiments (some of them) while the infantry 2 pdrs ( also mounted on the old Matildas and RA portees) were upgraded to the 6 pdrs.

The point is that the weapons upgraded as the targets upgraded - some of them were deployed in penny packets to provide local support while others were grouped and held in the back pockets of various commanders to be able to influence the battle rapidly.

A similar situation is found in US battalions - some weapons are held close for local support other weapons, often exactly the same weapons, are grouped under higher command.

It doesn't seem that the issue should be if weapons should be concentrated or distributed but that there is a need for adequate numbers of weapons to permit local support as well as creating a reserve mass.

Same horse.  Different courses.

 :nod:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,511
Re: Bradley Replacement Competition
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2018, 23:23:10 »
The Israelis don't worry about their armor being too heavy. One concept they have adopted is to take a tank hull and make it an IFV.