 |
| BAE CV90 Armadillo |
 |
| FFG PMMC G5 |
 |
| General Dynamics Piranha V |
 |
| Nexter VBCI |
 |
| General Dynamics ASCOD |
via Defense News
One of Europe’s most important armored vehicle export contests moved closer to resolution today when four manufacturers delivered best and final offers covering five different platforms to the Danish Ministry of Defence.
Denmark is looking for a fleet of wheeled or tracked vehicles to replace aging M113 armored personnel carriers.
Numbers are uncertain at this stage. Denmark included options for 206,360 and 450 machines built in six configurations in their requirements.
Industry executives reckon the current focus appears to be leaning toward an initial buy of 206 machines.
The competition pits tracked contenders BAE Systems Hagglunds with its CV90 Armadillo, Flensburger Fahrzeugbau Gesellschaft (FFG) with the PMMC G5, and General Dynamics European Land Systems ASCOD against 8x8 wheeled rivals Nexter with the Vehicule de Combat d’Infanterie (VBCI) and General Dynamics with the Piranha V.
BAE, FFG and Nexter confirmed they have submitted a final offer. General Dynamics declined to comment.
Companies submitted original bids in 2012 with the current contenders shortlisted in February 2013.
One industry executive said the competition is important in its own right because it’s a buyer’s market for armored vehicles in Europe right now, but winning the deal could also have wider significance.
“The contract could be a potential gateway into a market for the large number of M113s coming up for replacement; a good chunk of those will involve high-end users like the Danes,” said the executive, who asked not to be named.
The Danish decision probably won’t answer the perennial tracks-versus-wheels argument, but it might provide a pointer or two as to which way the debate is moving, particularly as the selected vehicle will likely have to operate in extremes of climate from the Arctic to the desert.
One French source said there was informal feedback that the wheeled vehicles outperformed the tracked during a 17-week trial of all the vehicles last year.
I just don't get it! What am I missing!
IF the Frenchman is being honest, and if the evaluators weren't busting sunshine off his ass then what happened to simple physics when it comes to ground mobility! Are we simply seeing the effects of limited budgets on defense departments and the advantage of lower fuel/maintenance costs trumping real mobility over all ground?
"Are we simply seeing the effects of limited budgets on defense departments and the advantage of lower fuel/maintenance costs trumping real mobility over all ground?"
ReplyDeleteTotally agree!
Btw: Norway receive first batch of CV-90 MultiC
ReplyDeleteThey really are in to this design, true multi tasked one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLet's wait and see who gets the contract in the end. If you testing all round mobility, tracked vehicles should be most reliable that's pretty obvious. Probable reasons for these (alleged) results could be various:
ReplyDelete1. the 'tests' were tailor made to favour operating conditions of wheeled vehicles (for whatever reasons),
2. the test specifications focused on terrain where operating conditions are less likley to cause performance difference (central Europe for example with extensive roads network, or desert and dry ground, etc.);
3. the results of mobility have been pondered by maintenance and fuel costs, thus giving wheeled vehicles a advantage in test results;
4. some theaters of operations where tracked vehicles would definitely show better results have been left out for political reasons (because Danish government considers it unlikely its troops would be deployed there; example: 'East Ukrainian mud bath', or arctic conditions, which contrary to article seems rather unlikely because the Danish Arctic Command would be equiped with other vehicles anyway).
5. the results relate to global performance of the tested vehicles, not just mobility, with all the up/down sides of each model being considered, includind maintenance and durability.
... Or maybe a mix of all the above reasons.
You have to remember that even i the tests are not tailored to wheeled vehicles in wheels vs tracks ,wheels will easily outpreform tracks on Cost,runing cost and maintenace,IED and mine protection and survivability,self deployability over long distances, mobility and speed on roads etc. Tracks win in off road mobility and posibly weight growth capability altough it seems that wheels can now work with huge weight
Delete@ Mr.T: I agree ! that's also a point i was making. One important issue you're alluding to is 'self-deployability' over long distances. It is absolutely true in that regard, that deployment from landing point (in case of oversea mission) or forward projection from initial base (in case of continenal european operation) would be faster and easier using wheels.
DeleteYes tracks are deployed by lories wheels can cross whole of Europe in a day or two. Remember Russians rushing in to take Pristina airport in Kosovo ,tacks couldn't do that Alies had to airlift troops with no armor to get a foot hold on the airport.
DeleteKosovo experience also sugests that rubber padded tracks had problems on frozen mountain roads.While wheels with snowchains could traverse them unimpeded.
Or it could be that tracks and wheels don't really differ that much. You know how sometimes "theory" doesn't end up holding water in RL conditions. You also got to remember that tracked or wheeled, drivers avoid certain terrain instinctively, so even if he was in a tracked vehicle, he would drive around a mud pool rather than through it and risk getting bogged, which means the advantage a track over a wheeled is negated by driver's choice of pathing.
ReplyDeleteAnother good example is "maximum speed". A tank may have a max speed of 200 km/h (an example). It's better than one going at 60-80 right? Wrong. No driver runs around at that speed and risks a crash, so even if 200 is the "theoretical max", the practical limit is much lower. Same with the argument on "mobility", tracked can tackle slightly worse terrain, but the "slightly worse" looks so bad that drivers automatically shy away from it. Remember, tracked can get bogged too!
A better test rather than technical readouts would be to run a platoon of these through the badlands and see if there is really any difference in how they will end up operating.
I've seen the difference between tracked and wheels when I was still part of a continental European army. The difference is quite telling for 'central europe'. Tracked vehicles definitely have an advantage over wheels, even though you're right in the sense it doesn't mean that nothing can stop them.
DeleteTraditionnally, since 1960s, there has been an argument regarding track vs wheels between French and German defence procurement agencies. The French, with a view to expeditionary missions in dryer areas of the world, have always been advocating more for wheels, at one point even suggesting construction of MBT on wheels. They later stepped away from that approach as tracks were definitely betterregarding all round mobility, but they went ahead with the idea when they built the AMX10-RC. The Germans experimented on something similar on the early 1980s, but only one prototype of 'RadPanzer 90' was ever built. The failure of this project can be explained in part by the failure of the German armoured recon vehicle 'Luchs' which was an attempt at favouring wheels of tracks for recon missions. The German 'Luchs' has stability and mobility issues on muddy terrain and would be very accident prone. Also drawing on their experience in WWII, the Germans always thought that tracks would beat wheels in that part of the world.
The French on the other hand had a more global approach to the question and this is why they focused much more on wheels in various vehicle types (including combat vehicles). One advantage this has given them in recent technology developments regarding wheels and tyre resistance, is that their "VBCI" vehicle can still operate and drive with 2 wheels/tyres destroyed. the "modular" nature of having an 8 wheels vehicle is definitely not to be underestimated against IEDs or direct/indirect hit. By contrast, once your tracks are hit and out of function, you're stuck ...
actually on the subject of Wheels vs Tracks in speed. The dirty secret is, there is no real reason why tracks are slower.
ReplyDeletethe fastest tracked vehicle run was in the 1930's on a prototype built by Walter J Christie clocked at 167 KPH or 104 MPH. the critical factor that keeps Tracks form getting a speeding tickets is the governor. if you take away that with a good engine, a track in good shape, the right suspension and a crew hell bent for leather you could probably drag race against any 8x8 Wheeled Armored vehicle and do fairly well
The example I gave was a generalization, not really a point on tracked or wheeled speed. The point was that sometimes there are other factors affecting performance than pure physics.
DeleteAs for drag racing 8x8 and tracks, I won't really be surprised if that happens TBH.
Now try that in a forest or a city street. :) It'll give a new meaning to "store front parking".
the problem is not speed as such, is power needed to develop that speed (and fuel comsumption that is necessary). Don't forget you're talking about hundreds or thousands of vehicles ... Logistics do matter as well on these issues !
DeleteAlso tracks have to be changed and cost a lot of money ... developping same speed with tracks would entail more frequent changes than wheels, i.e. more costly again, more maintenance, more logistics and less combat readiness for same number of vehicles (if we're judging just the aspect of speed).
The advantage of wheels, and that has been one argument of most of the supporters of the wheel solution, is an analysis of the density or road infrastructure in various areas where weather conditions would favour tracks. Their argument has always been that because of this density wheels would not really be at a disadvantage, while providing for more versatility on 'Reg' type deserts and other dry/hard surface. That argument is very debatable ...
more likely to end with a drive through and a turn over... still It would be EPIC!
DeleteAny way I know that the G5 is about 25 tons the VBCI is also about the same as is the CV90. I guess that means that they are aiming for 25 tons
Another issue is reliability and up time. I have seen numerous reports of tracked vehicles that are usually in the 70-80% up time range and wheeled vehicles in the 97-99% up time. You would have to work extremely hard to sell me on the idea that the off road capabilities of the tracked vehicle will justify that in every road march a company is certain to have at least one vehicle break down.
DeleteEvery soldier I have talked too loves the Stryker and loathes the M113 for this very reason. Every field op they go on the Strykers work and arrive while the M113 is broke waiting on a tow or repair personnel.
you are really sold on the move to wheels aren't you? no doubts? no questioning the ability to cross marginal terrrain? what has me wondering is why we have a Warfighting Lab and have seen no reports or studies on the concept and what it would mean to the Corps.
DeleteActually Sol, it's more like tired of thrown tracks. He's not really too far wrong in saying that there is a breakdown every march, thrown tracks is an intrinsic part of armour, long term friction heating of tracks causes them to loosen, amid other things.
Deleteif you have a unit thats throwing tracks then they're not doing there PMs at halts during the march. intrinsic? doesn't have to be. not if you're doing the dull boring work of keeping your vehicle up. i bet you have the same vehicles going down and can point to the same TC and crew on which it happens.
Deletedon't confuse lazy Marine-ing with poor equipment.
I am not completely sold on, but i am definitely open to it. The German wiesel and the CV-90 have me very intrigued by what you can do with tracked vehicles. Honestly, this little guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC#mediaviewer/File:W2_lepzmrs.jpg intrigues the crap out of me.
DeleteI will also admit that you have 6 year old Strykers being compared to 30 year old M113 and AAV7s. What would be the difference if we had 6 year old CV-90s or Puma's instead?
Really my biggest pet peeve is how reliability, availability, and maintainability are talked about so heavily in the acquisition process then receive such little weight when comparing different designs. What i would rather have is vehicle that always works even if it means that i have to give up some performance.
Also the Army talked seeing 90%+ uptime on some of the FCS designs with the band tracks before that program was cancelled. If these designs show that level of reliability i would jump on that band wagon.
hope you don't mind but
DeleteI will also admit that you have 6 year old Strykers being compared to 52 year old M113.
I've always believed that tracks vs wheels is a false dichotomy, and there needs to be fleets of both.
Deletefalse dichotomy like apples and oranges: in some areas, you can grow (use) both, in others only one or the other ... question for small armies is to achieve economies of scale, thus choosing between one or the other.
DeleteBut it would be a big mistake for the US to do the same.
Speed is not only related to top speed but also to range. FFG says range for its vehicle is up to 1,000 km.
DeleteAnother point is manoeuvrability: http://youtu.be/D4OTszqbWtQ
Either you're a sales rep for FFG, or they should hire you ! Just looking at the picture of the PMMC tells me there are a couple of things wrong it, starting with the fact this is merely an APC, maybe a good one, but nothing more ... when you want to introduce "modularity" in your forces, you don't pick a vehicle that would be capable of accomplishing only half the missions it's supposed to !
DeleteAlso can't find any real info about ballistic protection of that APC ... as for autonomy, sure it can drive on a German "autobahn" from Hamburg to Munich and back at 15 kmh, i have no doubt about that ! But autonomy in deployment areas would be more around 500-600 km, no more !!
As for ability to manoeuver, great to see a "Wiesel" crew having some fun in the snow at their barracks, but not sure that works as a sales' pitch for FFG ;-)
Wait I thought the Danes were already using the CV90 and Piranha III. Why wouldn't they use one of those systems to replace the M113?
ReplyDeleteYeah we have the CV-9035 with an 35mm cannon mountet..... more a combat vehicle than an APC!
DeleteIn any case it seems thy are looking for an APC not IFV so tracks loose much of their pros.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that difference applies anymore. Today's projects focus more on multipurpose vehicles, so distinction between APC and IFV doesn't realy work ... what do you call an APC with a turret, 20-30mm autocannon gun and cal. 50 in addition to it, what's the difference to an IFV, except for wheels or tracks ?
DeleteTruth be told, for an army the size of Danemark's, it's not too bad if you make a mistake and go for 100 % wheels, but it's a different story if the US goes down that road too ... don't let yourself be fooled by Stryker performance, especially in contrast to M113 that go back to 1960s.
Anymore I think the brass doesn't care about tracked vs wheel. It's ground vs.air. Helos, Ospreys, etc vs gound vehicles. And they have chosen air. Wheels are fine if all you plan on fighting is COIN / counter terror ops. The infantry are just occupation troops in their minds. The combat troops are airmobile or maybe armor but even armor is only for invasions...which they think we wont be doing. Tracks are better for amphibious assault...but we aren't really serious about hitting the beach in a ground vehicle, we will be flying in our speedy MV-22's to secure the beachhead and the APC/IFC or WTF will be just the follow on to follow them.
DeleteThink I am full of it? Osprey vs Amphibs: which did they choose to finance?
The Danes already operate the CV90 so there are already familiary with its operating costs. I guess they looking at whether or not the costs savings of another vehicle would be worth MORE than those gained by operating more CV90s.
ReplyDeleteAnd we are looking at rubber band tracked vs wheeled, not steel tracks. The savings in maintenace from band tracks and reliability obviously can't be compared to older comparisons of steel tracks which might make the performance close enough to supposed performance of wheeled APCs.
I am betting the CV90 Armadillo with band tracks has the advantage of better cross country performance than wheeled vehicles and that the better costs and maintenance than conventional steel tracks make it the favorite.
there are however issues with reliability of rubber tracks in certain weather and ground conditions ... as opposed to steel tracks. I certainly remember that snowed in, frozen roads in Central Bosnia were no picnic for rubber tracked vehicles ... nothing is as clear cut as it may seem at first sight.
DeleteOne French source said there was informal feedback that the wheeled vehicles outperformed the tracked during a 17-week trial of all the vehicles last year.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to be a d1ckhead here but not all terrains are suited for wheeled and tracks. Australian army sent the ASLAV/LAV to East Timor and they didn't last long. The rocks and terrains were so rough they tore the tires into apart. In the end, Australian army called in M-113 to patrol the outer tracks while the ASLAVs patrolled the city streets.
The French source maybe somehow linked to the wheeled Nexter...
DeleteFFG looks interesting. FFG is located in Flensburg just 5 km south of Denmark's border. The company is extremely small compared to BAE, GD or Nexter. The price for the FFG's PMMC G5 could be very interesting and competitive due to missing big heads.
VBCI has specialy developped tyres, which resist to multiple shot from 7.62, and 12.7 ( not sure ).
DeleteJust simply know that it resisted in Adrar des ifoghas : MARS style landscape of cuting rocks and 50° in shadows..
That has been mentioned already above ... tyre "resilience" seems to have improved a lot, but on the other hand, what happened in Ifoghas mountains is not necessarily reproducible elsewhere ... The Aussies in East Timor had exact opposite experience with their wheeled vehicles (couldnt withstand 'local rocks'). In addition to that, northern Mali has both patches of sand type desert and 'Regs' (rocks) .. and there are also examples of VBCIs being stuck in the sand there. So again it's not as clear cut as that.
DeleteTwo of topmost vehicles on photos have rubber tracks, how such tracks can be reparied in the field i wonder?
ReplyDelete