The US Army and Denmark are both trying to find replacements to the M-113. That's to be expected. What I find just plain weird is how four different vehicles with extremely different capabilities are being offered for the same requirement.
The Danes are being offered...
 |
| G5 |
 |
| Armadillo CV-90 |
US Army is being offered...
.jpeg) |
| Stryker Tracked |
The Tracked Stryker just strikes me as plain weird. Supposedly it will be widened and have another road wheel applied but with as big a portfolio as General Dynamics has (if you include the European Division) then its just beyond me, how they couldn't come up with a better offer. Lets be clear on one issue. Commonality with the Stryker is just in name only. We'll see how the finished vehicle performs but I'm skeptical.
The turretless Bradley makes more sense (in my opinion) and why the Army didn't just run with the offer (and sole source the contract) was a mistake on their part. Especially if they can use the hulls in storage to save money. Its a known commodity and its basic configuration is capable of keeping up with M1 Abrams...something the M-113 had difficulty with.
As far as the Denmark comp is concerned, its hard not to like both vehicles. It will be a dogfight for sure and both vehicles have pluses...a reader wrote that he thinks the FFG G5 is almost a sure lock to win but I haven't read that anywhere else.
Time will tell but its a contest worth watching.
The Tracked Stryker just strikes me as plain weird. Supposedly it will be widened and have another road wheel applied but with as big a portfolio as General Dynamics has (if you include the European Division) then its just beyond me, how they couldn't come up with a better offer. Lets be clear on one issue. Commonality with the Stryker is just in name only. We'll see how the finished vehicle performs but I'm skeptical.
.jpeg)
Sol, help me out here.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the role of an APC in modern war fighting?
Why do we have APCs on one side and IFV on the other and not an entire IFV fleet?
I just don't see the point of a M113 (or its replacement) in the coming years.
in my opinion the difference between an APC and a IFV is how you fight the vehicles. in classic terms you use an IFV to deliver your infantry ONTO the objective. that means they fight from inside the vehicle suppressing enemy fire along the way and killing infantry while mounted. a APC delivers your infantry CLOSE TO your objective where they dismount and conduct the assault on foot while being supported by the APC's heavy machinegun and maybe missiles if they're equipped.
Deletethe problem for the IFV infantry types is that they have the shock to get to the objective but not enough infantry to hold it, and if they do then you're talking about a traffic jam of vehicles. quite honestly i think you're gonna see the IFV go the way of the dodo bird. APC's might still get large caliber cannons but everyone will fight them like an APC and not like a IFV.
The vehicles they will be replacing will be the ammbulances, command vehicles, mortar carriers, etc., not necessarily an APC with 9 infantryman.
Delete"The Army plans to buy 2,907 vehicles in five variants: 522 general purpose models to haul supplies and whatever else needs protected transport; 386 mortar carriers for quick-reaction fire support; 993 command vehicles packed with radios and computers; and two types of medical vehicle, 790 armored ambulances (or medical evacuation vehicles) for up to six patients and 216 mobile mini-clinics (medical treatment vehicles) to conduct life-saving surgeries as close to the front line as possible."
http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/22/army-issues-rfp-for-6-billion-m113-replacement-armored-multi-p/
APC's for solely carrying infantry just aren't part of Mechanized Infantry Army's doctrine, that is designated for Bradley IFV and the future GCV.
Will they ferry troops? Some of the General Purpose carriers will be like buses traveling from point A to point B, but probably not in an assault.
A turretless bradley is no different than a m-113 as far as protection. The Bradley does not have a v-hull, steel chasis, or composite tiles. A aluminum chasis is not good for the future. Here's some pictures of a destroyed bradley after it melts down to a pancake, this is what you will get with a turretless bradley. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?148976-Bradley-s
ReplyDeleteThe M113 had a horrible reputation for not surviving IEDs. In Vietname, they used to line the floor with water-filled jerry cans and sandbags to prevent AT mines from killing the occupants.
ReplyDeleteThe Bradley also had bad reputation for IEDs in Iraq hence the reason why they want a replacement for it in the GCV.
"The exact requirements are largely classified, although the public documents make clear that 'Underbody Force Protection/Survivability' -- i.e. resistance against IEDs -- is a non-negotiable top priority."
http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/22/army-issues-rfp-for-6-billion-m113-replacement-armored-multi-p/
Is it me or is anyone else troubled by the fact that Denmark might get a better M113 replacement than the US?
I used to think the Bradley chassis was a lock, but I really hope it isn't at least not currently designed. It's a shame that the BAe is going to propose a Bradley and not a CV90 Armadillo.
BAE obviously did a cost analysis, looked at the political climate and decided that all the Army could afford was a revamped Bradley. funny thing is that the CV90 will be able to haul more and will be much better protected.
DeleteNot invented here will be a problem as well for BAE especially since they would still want some industrial involvement with the folks in Sweden and elsewhere. It's one of the reasons the CV90 lost the competition in the UK, we wanted more workshare than BAE wanted to give. Or so the story goes, saying that all we really get from the GD ASCOD 2 win is turret work and electronics as far as i am aware.
ReplyDeleteOMG, that tracked Stryker's narrow tracks that look like a WWII German PzIII. Ground pressure can't be good.
ReplyDeleteits gonna be worse than not good once they heavy it up so that it meets blast protection requirements. General Dynamics is really mailing it in lately, i guess they're happy with the M1 Abrams and Stryker contracts cause they're not working to get any new deals.
Deleteactually, GD will be putting much wider tracks on the final prototype.
Deleteany info would be appreciated. GD is a closed shop.
DeleteIt's a very useful stuff. I really enjoy a lot.
ReplyDeletemilk exports
I am wondering about repairability and durability of rubber tracks on the danish APC...
ReplyDeleteHow to repair such tracks in combat?
How rubber tracks would behave on rocky terrains with rocks with sharp edges?
The rubber track has a repair kit that make it possible to move max 100 km at low speds 15-20 km/h.
DeleteThey are tested in rocky terrains with rocks with sharp edges and there are no problems. Remember that the robber track contains 100 steel wires that insures it does not snap.
The rubber track has a higher reliability and the same durability as the steel track. Danish, Norwegian and Canadian test shows this.
FFG is not a sure lock to win. Fare from it.
ReplyDeleteIt would be stupid to buy a vehicle that has no weight development potential. The M/113 weighed 11 tons in the first version and the latest version G4 weighs 21 tons. The G5 does not have the potential for a 30/40 years use and development of the protection.