TMV 6x6 Special Forces/Recon Vehicle.

Hat Tip to Military Photos.

FN's new Remote Weapon Station.

Bill Sweetman has an article over at Ares covering the wide number of 8x8 Infantry Fighting Vehicles on the market.  A segment of the defense industry that's kept up with the variety of IFV's are the RWS that are being used to provide them with firepower.  FN has demonstrated a new system at Eurosatory.    Via DefPro from FN Herstal.

Taking advantage of its experience in the field of Remote Weapon Stations with more than 630 units already contracted within the frame of several acquisition programs - some of them being deployed in Lebanon and Afghanistan -, FN Herstal announces the introduction of the newly developed deFNder™ medium remote weapon station that provides optimized remote firing capabilities while keeping the operator fully secure and safe from harm.

The deFNder™ is capable of integrating any FN Herstal machine gun up to .50 cal, including the exclusive M3P machine gun, which has a unique firing rate of 1,100 rounds per minute and features extended operation angles [-42°; +73°]. The deFNder™ is therefore well suited for:

• self-defense, fire support and combat missions – also in urban environments – when mounted on light, medium or heavy vehicles 
• turret onto turret applications
• border control or critical infrastructure protection missions.

The deFNder™ features a universal cradle accepting any FN machine gun from 5.56mm MINIMI up to .50 cal or 40mm AGLs. The cradle is mounted on a soft mount to ensure optimized firing capabilities and reduced level of shocks and vibrations. The weapon station does not exceed 120 kg in weight (without weapon and ammunition) and 640mm in height. It comes standard with a CCD and thermal uncooled camera.

Many have criticized the consolidation in the defense industry (myself included) but with the proliferation of different weapon systems and vehicles from even the limited manufacturers in this segment, its obvious that even more consolidation is on the horizon.

Consolidation and savage down sizing. 

We definitely live in interesting times.

Hagglunds SEP is now BAE Alligator!

Ground Combat Vehicle. 70 tons? Really? Really!

A commenter made this statement on a previous post.

H.G. Rickover said... No IFV will weigh up to 70 tons, Sol. That is an exaggeration.

Armor adds weight, but not in the same manner as old-fashioned steel plates. Besides, APS is a sound attempt to reverse the weight-gain spiral.

Trophy and IronFist are both mature APS currently being adapted across IDF armor fleet.

He also used this Army Times article to back up his assertions...

“We’re looking at a vehicle that ranges in weight between 50 and 70 tons,” Chiarelli said Wednesday at the Army’s armor conference.
He said he’s been involved in some heated discussions lately about the GCV and the debate “always comes down to the weight of the vehicle.”
Critics point out that at 70 tons, the GCV would be the heaviest infantry fighting vehicle in existence and as heavy as the Abrams tank. Chiarelli said the extra weight in armor protection would be used only when needed.
“We’re not talking about a 70-ton vehicle, we’re talking about a 70-ton vehicle when we need it,” Chiarelli said.

The Army has been walking back the weight on this vehicle ever since people got wind of it and collectively said WTF!!!!

As a matter of fact, my buddy Johnathan (it would be nice if you included the author and publication!) sent me an article where the Army Chief of Staff is quoted as saying that he wants the GCV to weigh less than projected.

Parts of the Army is aware that this is a non-starter.  Parts of the Army is disturbed by the possibility of having a vehicle that will not be strategically mobile.

Parts of the Army (it appears) wants a different set of requirements.

The curse of FCS strikes again.

But back to the point of this entire exercise.  The GCV is slated to weigh up to 70 tons.  That my friends is a fact.

Christopher F. Foss on the Ground Combat Vehicle.

via Janes.

Combat weight could be more than 60 tonnes because of the high levels of protection required as a result of operational experience in Iraq and more recently Afghanistan. With such a heavy platform, there will be constraints as to where the vehicle can be deployed. It is expected that the GCV will be fitted with a remote-controlled turret armed with a 30/40mm ATK MK44 cannon and a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun.

I am so happy to see the "experts" finally weighing in on this concepts extreme weight.  Foss is the first of (I believe others will join him) many voices raising concerns about the strategic mobility of this vehicle.

As a side note, I wasn't aware that the Puma was 42 tons...a better option might be to simply upgrade Bradley's.  This GCV concept is sounding more and more like a terrible idea.

Piranha V Brochure.

Another follow up on some of the vehicles that caught my eye at Eurosatory.  The Piranha V has crossed the threshold.  A 30 ton wheeled armored vehicle?  I can't wait to see how it performs operationally.  The Germans are pushing the class with the 'Boxer' but I'm still not sold.  I wonder if it would be cheaper for the Army to buy new built Piranha's instead of doing a radical upgrade to their Strykers.

Piranha Clas5 En

Otokar's Arma Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

All images courtesy Otokar.

Via Otokar.  More info on Otokar's vehicle line-up can be found here.

ARMA is the modular multi-wheel configuration wheeled armoured vehicle with superior tactical and technical characteristics. Thanks to the high level of ballistic and mine protection as well as the outstanding design allowing the integration of various types of mission equipments or armament, ARMA is an adaptable 6x6 platform for evolving mission needs in a modern battlefield forming an optimum solution among mobility, modularity and protection.
ARMA 6x6 has an 18,500 kg combat weight and carries a driver, commander and eight dismounts. ARMA is transportable by various means including C130 aircraft.
ARMA with longitudinal and transverse differantial locks, geared hubs and double wisbone type independent hydropneumatic suspension, offers respectable all terrain mobility on difficult terrain, high level safety and comfort for the crew.
ARMA is developed and validated by Otokar's R&D capabilities and now ready for production.

RG41 Video.

And BAE was kind enough to supply a few photos of this new beast.

CV 90 Armadillo Video.

AMPV unveiled?

via DefPro.

The German-based companies Krauss-Maffei Wegmann (KMW) and Rheinmetall have placed on display before the international audience gathering at Eurosatory 2010 one of the four prototypes of their newly developed family of armoured multipurpose vehicles (AMPV) in the 5.3 to 9.3-ton class. The vehicle, which has not been only developed for the Bundeswehr’s GFF/GTF project, having requested protected C4I and mission-specific vehicles as well as protected transport capacity, is designed taking into account the operational experiences made by the German armed forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I guess this is the official unveiling because this vehicle has been up on KMW's website for at least a year or two.  Another 7 ton Humvee/JLTV/light weight MRAP/patrol vehicle.

We have too many of these already.  I don't really see much of a future in this segment.  One dirty little secret of the current conflicts is that Infantry operating on foot or out of larger vehicles like the MTVR are as effective as those operating in uparmored Humvee type vehicles.

Textron gobbles up Millenworks.

via DefPro.

Textron Systems, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, today announced that it has acquired MillenWorks, an internationally recognized innovator in advanced mobility solutions for demanding on-road and off-road applications. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. The Tustin, CA-based company with expected 2010 revenues of about $28 million will add strategic capabilities to Textron Marine & Land Systems, an operating unit of Textron Systems, in New Orleans, LA.

Wow.  Talk about a preemptive strike!  I thought for sure BAE would buy these guys out, instead Textron beat them to the punch.  Millenworks is famous for its suspension work and its vehicles are beyond innovative...they're fabulous.  Their Light Utility Vehicle was, in my opinion, more in keeping with what the JLTV was originally designed to be.  A next generation, light weight, highly protected, highly mobile and highly adaptable platform.

I'm not sure the current participants can be called lightweight.

Textron stole one from the big boys with this acquisition.

CV90 Armadlillo. An answer for the Canadian Close Combat Vehicle requirement?

CASR has an interesting proposal regarding the CV90 and how the Canadian forces could benefit from its use.

This proposal is simple: borrow a small number of  up-to-date,  well-protected  CV9040Cs  from Sweden  (as done with German Leopard 2A6M tank). Buy sufficient surplus CV9040Bs to take the place of  CF wheeled  LAVs  for winter ops. Update CV9040B running gears but remove the dated turrets. Uparmour 'B hulls [3] to CV9040C standards,  plating over turret rings. Substitute an existing CF  Remote Weapon System [4] for vehicle self-defence (accompanying CV9040Cs will perform the direct-fire support role). The goal is twofold: field CCVs quickly in Kandahar and prove the CCV concept to Canadians.

Do you notice how similar the mythical CCV is to the CV90 Armadillo?  Its almost startling!

What also stands out is how the Canadians have readily accepted the limitations of the Stryker like LAV-III.

Instead of upgrading it, they're willing to let this evolutionary tree dead end (as it should) and are moving in an entirely new direction.

I said before that the US Marine Corps should seriously consider the CV90 Armadillo as its Marine Personnel Carrier.  Seems like the guys at CASR are thinking the same way with regards to their forces.


Note*
I found this after I wrote this piece.  The people at BAE stated that the CV90 Armadillo wasn't in the running for the US Army GCV or the USMC Personnel Carrier Programs.  Seems like my thoughts on the CASR proposal and the Armadillo looking tailor made is spot on.  Check this out.

http://www.defensefile.com/Customisation/News/Military_Vehicles/Armoured_and_tracked_vehicles/Canadian_Close_Combat_Vehicle_Program_Collaboration.asp

Now we know.  The CV90 Armadillo is for Canada!

CV90 Armadillo.

Defense News is reporting that the CV90 will be at Eurosatory.

"This is a concept of a flexible family of vehicles of modular type built around the CV90 platform," said Hakan Karlsson, vice president of marketing communications for BAE Global Combat Systems in Ornskoldsvik, Sweden.
An ideal armored combat vehicle, Karlsson said, offers a balance between high mobility, high payload and extremely high protection; should have a practical and effective interface for digitally equipped soldiers and the digital battlespace; should be reliable and affordable; and above all, offer a low logistics footprint. This has been the ethos behind the development of the Armadillo build standard, Karlsson told journalists May 27 in a London briefing.

This is an exciting vehicle that should easily fulfill a number of needs.  The US Army is looking for a Bradley replacement in the GCV concept.  The US Marine Corps is looking for a Marine Personnel Carrier.

The CV90 Armadillo looks capable of filling both roles.  Lets be honest.  The idea of whether or not you want your personnel carrier engaging in duels with other fighting vehicles is dubious at best.  Carried Infantry is the weapon of choice and providing covering fire and transporting them safely is the main role of these vehicles.  Mobility and speed count for far more.  Mobility comes in several different forms.  Strategic---does it fit on ships and aircraft---Tactical---can it keep up with the M1 Abrams in all environments...Those are the questions that the Army and Marines need to be asking.  The GCV won't and as currently spec'ed the MPC can't.

The CV90 Armadillo will.

BAE provided the above pics and stats are to follow shortly.

Hopefully they'll also provide visibility on any work being done to the legacy AAV.  If the EFV is canceled then a crash upgrade program will need to be conducted (to probably include new build vehicles) to maintain them for another 15 to 20 years.  I'm hoping for engine, weapon and even hull upgrades ---with an eye toward increased sea speed---but we'll see.

Note.  BAE has stated that they don't plan on offering this vehicle for the GCV program.  The idea to do so originates here.

Information on this vehicle is practically nill.  But from a visual look-see it has.

1.  RWS.  Its mounting a 50 caliber machine gun but I imagine its scalable.  BAE has done mock-ups with RWS' as large as 35mm cannons.  I doubt that this could handle that but a compact ATK 25mm cannon seems within the realm of possible options.
2.  Trophy?  I don't know if those 'items' at the corners of the vehicle are a version of Trophy or another system but it appears that they're making it known that some type of anti-missile system is available...or at the very least, room is made for it.
3.  Grenade launchers.  Steerable?  I found this very interesting.  Some have proposed that the ubiquitous grenade launcher can be used in an anti-personnel role.  Not sure it thats the case here or if its just part of the vehicle defense system.
4.  Vehicle Commander sitting directly behind the driver.  Nicely done and a benefit that few outside the tracked community fully realize.

Questions  left to be answered.

1.  How many troops does it carry?
2.  Any allowance made for IED protection?  I know that it does, but they can say it to keep the critics at bay.
3.  Why does it ride so low?  Can its suspension be adjusted?
4.  There was a system developed and tested on the SEP to defeat anti-tank missiles...is that available on this?

Hmm.  I do believe I'm in love.

MRAPs. We get heavier, allies get lighter.

The latest news from Australia and the UK gives interesting news.  While our MRAPs have on average gotten heavier (with the M-ATV being the lone exception) our allies are looking at lighter offerings.

From the UK, we have the example of Force Protection UK's Ocelot Light Protected Patrol Vehicle.  This truck will operate in the same manner as our future JLTV (perhaps in a more tactical role with no provision for the utility variants).


In Australia we just got word that their new Hawkei Light Protected Vehicle has made it to the second round in their selection process.

What's obvious is that the JLTV as its currently designed (by all competitors) is just too heavy.  Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against highly protected vehicles.  The issue becomes one of fewer returns with every ton increase in weight.  MRAPs are notorious for poor ride and handling qualities (bad for troop effectiveness once they reach the objective) and for their inability to navigate confined areas of roadways (mostly tight mountain passes).  The number of injured and killed by accidents is probably one of the more under reported consequences of the war against IEDs.

All this leads to the Marine Corps decision to pursue an uparmored Humvee, instead of the JLTV.  The more I look at this issue the better I like the Granite Tactical solution.

Capability Gap. No Combat Engineer Vehicle.

I know what you're saying right now.  That's false, we have the Assault Breacher Vehicle.  I would beg to differ.  The Assault Breacher Vehicle is properly named.  It is an assault enabler.  It will clear obstacles, whether tank traps or land mines.  What it can't do is properly assist in the defense.  What it can't do is help with emplacements,  build or destroy berms...do the other tasks that we ask Combat Engineers to do on a daily basis while under fire. 
The vehicle that was suppose to fulfill the role of CEV was the now canceled Grizzly -- that's too bad.

What's worse is the fact that many of our Allies have these vehicles while maintaining much smaller formations than we do.  The German designed and built Kodiak would be a fine addition to our Army's heavy armored formations.

Simply placing a blade on the front of an M1 Abrams is not good enough. The problem with the new direction (and the lack of capability found in our Army) is that we've done a complete 180 from the bearing that was set during the 90's.  The light weight Stryker will in future versions top 30 tons.  The GCV is estimated at a minimum of 50 tons and at its heaviest up to 70 tons!

A light weight, airmobile force of the future is a pipe dream that's already been discarded.  Amazing.  Now get our Army's Sappers a real CEV.