Future Armour

[ueo]

There is, the problem is no one can afford it.

BEG - BEST EDUCATED GUESS

or SWAG (silly wild assed guess)

 

[KevinB]

Pretty neat I would be curious to see how they do in an exercise.

I suspect that a lot of these sorts of tests are being done to see what can be done to make the XM-30 MICV a “battle ready” vehicle from the get go.

The M2A4 Bradley is pretty much EOL for the line.
It already got a larger power pack Cummins V903 ET675 and new transmission, 675hp up 75 from the A3, and up 175 from the early Brads.
It has 3x the available electrical power from the A3, as well as increased cooling capacity (engine, transmission, and electronic device) allowing it to power networked communications, EW Systems, APS, and other power consumers.
Additionally it has had a significant amount of suspension upgrades - to return the off route mobility that the early ones had while allowing all the additional armor that has been added.
The proposed Hellfire swap to the TOW was not initiated - so while some Bradley can control NLOS ATGMS - no effort was made to integrate F&F and/or NLOS capabilities itself.

IFV’s have often been used to carry additional mobility tools - so it doesn’t seem to be too far fetched for various AFV systems to carry UGVs. for various purposes.
Several years ago, UGV’s similar to the above where demonstrated self dismounting off of HEMMT PALS beds -- those were primarily designed as logistical support “mules” --
It seems very very clear to me that pretty much no one wants to get out of their AFV during contact - and unhook UGV’s, so the ability of UGV’s to self deploy under fire has been a key ask.

The question is going to be how to effectively store them on the vehicle - in a manner that they do not get damaged, damage the host vehicle, but also remain quickly deployable.
As well will be be designed to be recovered or self recover onto the host vehicle.

Also the image in the TWZ article shows the FireAnts in a storage/transport mode on the Bradley -- none are equipped with a weapons package.
So still in the crawl portion of the design integration.

 

[GR66]

For those that view drones and the "transparent battlefield" as signaling the death of the tank, there is this counter-argument from some tankers in the US as well as an overview of some of the experimentation going on.

U.S. Army officers defend armor’s role on modern battlefield

U.S. Army armor officers argue that armored formations remain viable on the modern battlefield despite the spread of drones and precision-guided weapons, according to an essay published by the Modern War Institute at West Point. The piece, written by Lt.

defence-blog.com

 

[PrairieFella]

From Noah Gairn's substack. Hes getting info MCAV is expanding scope. STANAG VI is interesting. Basically eliminates wheels. Ajax, CV90, Lynx are the only major AFVs I know with STANAG VI. MICV will be as well I think. For context M3 Bradley is STANAG IV. Baseline LAV 6 w/o add-on armour is STANAG III.

"It seems that MCAV requirements have shifted significantly from the RFI. New requirements circling around not only expand the scope of MCAV with new variants, including Direct Fire, New Recovery, and Mortar variants, but also have shifted from a STANAG IV protection requirement up to a STANAG VI."

 

[KevinB]

I will assume that means STANAG 4569 Level 6
- basically 500m protection from 30mm APFSDS ammunition

Next assumption that is frontal arc only, for upper glacis and turret.
It will be interesting to see if there is a multi hit protection requirement in there as well.

​

That basically requires a Bradley M2A4 with ERA, CV-90 MkIV with ERA or either of the XM-30 MICV candidates.
Basically a 40-45t plus AFV

 

[PrairieFella]

I will assume that means STANAG 4569 Level 6
- basically 500m protection from 30mm APFSDS ammunition

Next assumption that is frontal arc only, for upper glacis and turret.
It will be interesting to see if there is a multi hit protection requirement in there as well.

​

Theres also the artillery consideration. Lvl 6 - 155 mm High Explosive at 10 m

Angle: Azimuth 360°; elevation: 0–90°

That basically requires a Bradley M2A4 with ERA, CV-90 MkIV with ERA or either of the XM-30 MICV candidates.
Basically a 40-45t plus AFV

Looks like the wheel mafia is losing sway. With all prpjects on the books and the money flowing, I can almost see a glimmer of hope the army is actually getting serious.

 

[KevinB]

Theres also the artillery consideration. Lvl 6 - 155 mm High Explosive at 10 m

Angle: Azimuth 360°; elevation: 0–90°

Good catch I knew there was a larger blast spec but blew by it (pardon the pun)

Looks like the wheel mafia is losing sway.

I am cautiously optimistic that the CA is accepting that wheels have a role, but so do tracks.

With all prpjects on the books and the money flowing, I can almost see a glimmer of hope the army is actually getting serious.

I will be much happier if there is at least 2 Bde of Heavy Armoured Vehicles.

My next area of concern is that one will end up with mixed LAV and MCAV BN’s as no one opted for a LAV Mortar variant etc.
Like when 1VP had TUA M113’s and AVGP’s.
Great TOW platoon got places…
The rifle coy’s are waiting on recovery.

 

[PrairieFella]

Good catch I knew there was a larger blast spec but blew by it (pardon the pun)

Ba-BOOM-tiss.

I am cautiously optimistic that the CA is accepting that wheels have a role, but so do tracks.

My confusion with the plan is it seems we'll have a light bde, heavyish bde and a couple mediumish bdes. We shall see.

I will be much happier if there is at least 2 Bde of Heavy Armoured Vehicles.

For sure.

My next area of concern is that one will end up with mixed LAV and MCAV BN’s as no one opted for a LAV Mortar variant etc.
Like when 1VP had TUA M113’s and AVGP’s.
Great TOW platoon got places…
The rifle coy’s are waiting on recovery.

If they procure mortars under MCAV that could mitigate this. Tracked mortars with armour units (LdSH, 4 Cav, whichever bn gets a future IFV variant), wheeled with wheeled mechanized.

 

[KevinB]

Ba-BOOM-tiss.

My confusion with the plan is it seems we'll have a light bde, heavyish bde and a couple mediumish bdes. We shall see.

The CA never ceases to amaze
TBH I never could fathom how new Leo2’s were acquired without a tracked IFV back when Afghan money existed.

Light Infantry Regiment/Bde has 3 roles currently.
Probably could easily be justified to expand beyond 3 BN.

For sure.

I still see Russia as the number 1 threat.
Hence why I would prefer an Armoured Division for Europe.
A 1 Armoured 2 Inf Bn predeployed
B 2 Armoured 1 Inf Bn in Canada
C mixed Canada and Europe Div HQ Armoured Engineer Bn and Fires Bde with additional equipment pre-deployment in Depots in Poland and Latvia

The LAV Bde’s provide protected mobility for Dom OP’s - as well as weight for PSO’s and follow on tasks as required initially responded by the LIR GRTF.

If they procure mortars under MCAV that could mitigate this. Tracked mortars with armour units (LdSH, 4 Cav, whichever bn gets a future IFV variant), wheeled with wheeled mechanized.

Ideally there would be a plan to get a common turret that was able to mount on either.

120mm Turreted Mortar
ATGM system (if not integrated to the MCAV and IFV systems)
C-UAS (I’m kind of partial to the M-SHORAD as it’s in use down here on a Stryker)
C-UAS DE

Etc.