Swedish Army Tests First CV90 Mortar Vehicles...is it me or did the CV90 suddenly get old?

via Defense Aerospace.

For the first time, the Swedish Armed Forces will be able to shoot, reload ammunition and operate the CV90 mortar vehicle while protected.

Two of the mortar carriers that FMV received from the industry this week are now being used by the Army Ground Combat School for training instructors. The vehicles receive high marks from the prospective instructors. "Easier and smoother than I could imagine," says Master Sgt. Joakim Kylstad.

To the proven Combat Vehicle 90 system has been added an embedded grenade launcher (mortar) function, giving increased ability to support units by being faster at moving into battery, firing and moving, otherwise known as “shoot and scoot” in artillery circles.

The first four vehicles are now available and will be used for training, methodology tests and system validation. Recently, the first training was conducted by the Armed Forces' future instructors.

“This is the first time we can load up with ammunition, shoot and drive away. While we are training future instructors, we are also gaining experience that we can use to improve the system, technically as well as in operational tactics, until the production vehicles are delivered,” says Major Nils Carlsson at the development unit at the Swedish Armed Forces Ground Fighting School.

A platoon with conventional towed mortars can prepare to fire in ten minutes, while with the Granatkastarpansarbandvagn 90 (Armored Grenade Launcher Vehicle, or Grkpbv90), the platoon must be able to do it in two minutes and also be ready to move on less than one minute after firing the last round.

Master Sgt. Joakim Kylstad was one of the participants in the instructor training. He notes that they are not there in time. “We are still an inexperienced crew, but still we can group in about five minutes, but it is still much better.”

Wow.  I'm looking at this thing and I really like it.  I also noticed that Poland is doing the same and I'm crossing my fingers, knocking on wood that the USMC eventually adopts the same for the ACV (the concept if not the same weapon system).

But I noticed something else too.

For some reason I can't explain the BAE CV90 suddenly looks old.  Maybe I'm looking at all the new designs coming out and ignoring the fact that the CV90 has been steadily updated with new tech.

But the image remains.

Old tech.

I hope BAE is working on it cause I'm sure that's played a part in it being non-competitive in recent tenders.

Lockheed Martin's WCSP via @JohnHawkes Twitter Page.

HOTEL MUMBAI | Official US Trailer...this movie looks like a MUST see!

I've read the stories regarding what has to be ranked as one of the ... if not THE most horrific terror attack in human history.

I know the movie will not come close to the actual horror and bravery (especially of the security forces that battled these subhuman terrorists) but I'm still anxious to watch this.

I consider it a must see.

Hollywood can't do the story proper justice.  It's beyond their ability, but the story is finally getting out to the masses.

That alone makes me want to support the effort with my dollars.

Well I guess we know which Golfer is the Aussie...

Quand t’as l’habitude de porter du Lacoste... pic.twitter.com/qKT4l5Cewk

— La Po17ice 👮🏻‍♂️🇫🇷 (@La_Pollice) March 6, 2019

FMTV...from logistics to troop carrier to protected transport to self propelled artillery? The IDF expands its roles!

***Need a Hebrew speaker to translate this vid***

Just from the looks of things (cause I didn't understand a word), it seems like the IDF is looking to expand the FMTV into a broad family of vehicles.  Also interesting is that they're basing this mod on the A1 variant instead of waiting for the US Army's A2 variant with the traditional truck profile (instead of cab over wheels which exploded mines under the cab instead of forward of it).

I won't get ahead of things though.  From my chair (and with the little info I've received), this thing looks like its for use in riot control, border security operations etc...Full scale combat will see the Namer, Eitan and other dedicated IFV/APCs continue to shoulder that load.

Credit must be given though.  They're using the FMTV in a new and unique way.

Open Comment Post. 07 March 2019

ST Engineering testing out the Bronco 3 in Finland via @Gunship Girl's Twitter Page...

Pentagon must balance military needs with the need for NATO allies to do more.

via Washington Examiner.

When it comes to U.S. security interests in Europe, the Pentagon must balance military needs with the need for NATO allies to do more.

That concern is again relevant following Senate testimony on Tuesday in which America's top military officer in Europe called for more military assets to be delegated to his command. General Curtis Scaparrotti, who is also NATO's supreme commander, says he needs more intelligence assets and two more destroyers, to add to the four already present. And Scaparrotti was clear with the senators."I am not comfortable yet with the deterrent posture that we have in Europe,” he said.

The basic issue here is not that Scaparrotti needs two more U.S. ships, but that the U.S. needs its NATO allies to free up their own ships. The central problem is that NATO members continue to limit the general's ability to deploy their destroyers where he needs to. Put simply, into the Black Sea. Only the U.S. and Britain are willing to do so with regularity.

Story here. 

This issue is beyond simple but our policy makers are making it unnecessarily complex.

Have you ever seen an able bodied individual that is sucking social programs dry?  Let's assume that they don't have a hidden ailment, that they are as they appear.  Strong, youthful and able to do at least a bit of manual/entry job labor.

But instead of working they sit back and consume the treasure of others.

Infuriating isn't it?

Unfair isn't it?

Yet it happens because leadership allows it to happen. 

Expand that thinking to the nation state level and you have the issue of the US and Europe.  They're more than capable of defending themselves against Russia as that country now exists but we continue to subsidize their defense while at the same time complaining that they won't do more.

From their chair the thinking has to be...why should we?  You guys will do it for us!

Tough love is often hated at first.  It requires the entity/person that its being applied to, to get off their behinds and do work.  But at the end of the day they're better for it.

The EU needs some tough love.

RAF claims to have killed 4K terrorists in Syria...Air Power Advocates are lining up to say they won that war...

Why put boots on the ground when you can neutralise enemies from the air? The RAF has killed some 4,000 fighters in Iraq and Syria. https://t.co/kGE7AboHS0

— Nicholas Drummond (@nicholadrummond) March 7, 2019

And here we go again.  Air Power Advocates are in the cheap seats chirping about winning the war in Syria.  

I find the argument not only old but infuriating.  

The facts of this fight should piss us all off...this is my personal tick tock of things...

1.  ISIS never numbered more than at MOST 150K fighters according to the most GENEROUS open source materials.

2.  ISIS was allowed to rampage across Iraq and Syria in open columns of vehicles without apparent opposition although they could have EASILY been killed at the their birth.

3.  Western leadership (to include Washington, the UK, France, and others) watched the events unfold and did not react in a timely manner.

4.  There was no real unified effort against the terrorist threat.  At times we couldn't tell whether the real target was ISIS or Assad.  This campaign in actuality looked like a regime change op instead of trying to stomp out a regional terrorist threat.

5.  While the air war chugged on ISIS was allowed to dream of a "caliphate", spread their propaganda to the US and Europe (so effectively that they were able to convince fools on both continents to join) and caused the disease to spread to the rest of the Middle East/Africa.

Chest thumping is hardly called for.  If anything we should wonder why such a small force took so long to defeat.

It gets worse though.

Air Power Advocates will claim victory and Land Power realists are already on their back foot to the threat.

It's always about money.

This argument isn't about combat efficiency.  Its about budget share.  Leadership in the West still wants painless, cheap wars.  Air Power Advocates are once again promising that, even though we all know better.

Polish Army to buy tracked tank destroyer armed with anti-tank missiles...

via Defense 24

Polish Ministry of Defence is making plans to acquire tank destroyers based on a tracked chassis, armed with ATGMs. The new vehicles could potentially be received by the resuscitated 14th Anti-Tank Artillery Regiment, based in Suwałki.

The Armament Inspectorate is willing to carry out a technical dialogue, aimed at obtaining information pertaining to gaining a capability to act against armour and armoured vehicles with the use of tank destroyers.

The Armament Inspectorate suggests that it is willing to acquire a squadron-level module designed for a purpose of acting against armour and tanks of the latest generation, fitted with active protection systems, of both soft kill, as well as hard kill nature. According to the requirements of the MoD, the self-propelled tank destroyer should be able to act against the enemy vehicles with the use of ATGMs and it shall also be based on a modern, tracked platform.

The programme in question is probably a result of the analytical effort related to the Barakuda and Karabela projects, whereas the former one concerned a tank destroyer using missiles and guns, while the latter project pertained to a heavy ATGM. Now, it is probable that acquisition of a tracked-chassis tank destroyer with an ATGM launcher has been placed in the technical modernization plan. Otherwise, no grounds would exist to initiate a technical dialogue by the Armament Inspectorate.

Noteworthy, the Barakuda project still assumes that capability should be established to destroy main battle tanks and other vehicles using active protection systems. The above means that the new ATGM shall be capable to overcome such protection system, also in case of solutions that are designed to physically destroy the missiles.

Currently the Polish military operates a single type of a tank destroyer – the BRDM-2 vehicle fitted with the 9P133 Malyutka missile. These are operated by the 14th anti-armour artillery squadron based in Suwałki. The unit in question is to be reinforced, according to the Armed Forces Development Programme. No information has been released officially, as to what unit is going to receive the new systems. However, it is hard to imagine that the restored unit would receive the obsolete BRDM vehicles. It is plausible that the new platforms would be assigned to the 14th Regiment after all. 

Story here. 

Polish Army - Automating the future of artillery and the modern battlefield

EUCOM Commander wants a full armored division, combat aviation brigade, two more destroyers and more...TO DEFEND EUROPE?!?!

Read the entire article but this part had me sitting back in my chair in utter amazement..

Scaparrotti’s needs in 2018 included an armored division with a full combat aviation brigade, long-range artillery, engineers and sustainment brigades, as well as guided missile destroyers, a carrier strike group, and attack submarines.

On land, Scaparrotti said Tuesday he needed “greater capability … with my enablers,” and in the air, he was looking forward to the use of fifth-generation aircraft, as well as bombers, both to deter Russia and to be ready. “I’m looking forward to those being stationed permanently, in some numbers, in Europe as well,” he said.

Scaparrotti acknowledged strides over the last three years. There were three carrier-strike deployments — once to the High North for the first time in 20 years — and the U.S. has overcome logistical hurdles to move its forces around the continent.

“Three years ago, we were moving one brigade at a time, and challenged. A month ago, I moved four brigades — two armored, two [combat aviation brigades] — simultaneously. That’s progress,” he said.

Story here. 

This makes no sense.  He's posturing forces in Europe like the flag is about to go up. 

F-35's shooting down ICBMs is NOT gonna happen according to Missile Defense Experts...

via Reuters.

Looking for a quick way to stop North Korean missiles immediately after lift-off, the Pentagon is studying as a near-term option whether a group of F-35 fighter jets hovering around North Korean airspace could pick off freshly-launched rockets.

In its current form, the idea defies physics, missile defense experts say. It calls for interceptor missiles that fly so fast they could melt one expert said, and the only surefire way for U.S. military aircraft to defeat a missile with current technology would be to fly in hostile airspace, according to three experts interviewed by Reuters.

The idea, part of a six-month study launched last month, shows how the Pentagon is seeking ways to neutralize the threat posed by Pyongyang even as President Donald Trump meets North Korean leader Kim Jong Un this week in Vietnam in his effort to stop Kim’s nuclear program.

-----------------------------------------

“If you are on top of it you can shoot it down,” the retired rocket scientist said. “But the odds are going to be very low that you can be on top of it.”

Even if a much faster and lighter version air-to-air missile was mounted in an F-35 jet, depending on the distance the weapon would have to fly so fast it would begin to melt, Postol added.

Story here. 

Yep.  The Pentagon is throwing stuff against the wall in order to support the F-35.  Even the crazy, insane and impractical is being touted as an F-35 mission.

Desperate people saying desperate things.

More on the Bulgarian Wheeled Infantry Fighting Vehicle tender...

via Shepard Media.

Despite continuous delay in Bulgarian tender for new armoured vehicles, a number of potential bidders have confirmed their commitment to the procurement programme.

After failing to meet the January 2019 deadline for sending out RfPs in the tender for 150 new wheeled armoured vehicles, Shephard now understands that the acquisition programme will eventually be launched by the end of 2019.

‘This year will also be launched the project for the acquisition of new infantry combat vehicles for the establishment of Battalion Battle Groups within a Land Forces Mechanized Brigade’, confirmed the Public Relations Directorate of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Bulgaria in an official reply to Shephard.

Bulgarian defence minister, Krasimir Karakachanov, had announced in local media that more paperwork needs to be done to prepare the final RfP document for the new wheeled vehicles.

Despite the ambiguities surrounding Bulgarian vehicle tender, a number of potential bidders remain optimistic about the future of the procurement programme and confirm their commitment to Bulgarian army’s modernisation efforts.

‘This tender is in our focus since the very beginning and with all our respect to the decision of the Ministry of Defence of Bulgaria, we shall be following the developments in due course. The decision does not change the fact that Bulgaria is particularly important for Otokar, where Otokar vehicles are already serving successfully in the region since early 2000s’, said Serdar Gorguc, Otokar’s general manager a statement to Shephard.

At the same time Birgitta Selonen, chief communications officer at Patria stated, ‘Patria is interested in taking part in the Bulgarian tender and is prepared to work on a strong proposal once the RfP gets out. As of today Patria does not recognize any significant impact on its plans in case of possible delay’.

Other companies showing interest in the Bulgarian tender, including General Dynamics European Land Systems and Nexter, were not able to provide comment at the time of writing.

The Bulgarian Army has a long time requirement for 150 wheeled, armoured vehicles - including 90 wheeled IFVs and 60 support vehicles – which eventually will equip three combat battalions of the mechanised brigade. However, the procurement programme, which was approved by Bulgarian authorities almost a year ago and has an estimated budget of approximately Bulgarian Lev 1.020 billion ($609 million), is still in the making and raising concerns over the final outcome of the acquisition. 

Shepard Media has been KILLING IT lately.  Maybe its cause they've been writing about stuff I'm interested in, but the team over there has really gotten back on track after a big time lull.

As far as the Bulgarian tender?  It seems to be following the latest trend.  Special Ops forces seem to be expensive to maintain for some of these armies, Light Infantry is deemed to be ineffective in a conventional fight and heavy armor is a maintenance nightmare for these users.

So that leaves medium weight forces as the latest hot thing.  Remove tracks from those forces and get almost the same capability on wheels and you have a force that can pretty much fight both low and high intensity combat.

Is this the reality? 

I don't know, but it does seem to be the thinking.

2d AABn assaults from the USS Oak Hill...video by Pfc. Skylar M. Harris

Open Comment Post. 06 March 2019

US Army is getting a new combat helmet!

via Military Times.

U.S. Army equipment officials will soon begin fielding a new combat helmet designed to give soldiers 100 percent greater protection against head trauma injuries on the battlefield.

This month, soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, will receive the Army's new Integrated Head Protection System, or IHPS, which will replace the Enhanced Combat Helmet in close-combat units.

"Our next-generation helmet -- the [Integrated] Head Protection System -- it has a 100 percent greater blunt impact protection over the ... Enhanced Combat Helmet," Lt. Col. Ginger Whitehead, product manager for Soldier Protective Equipment, said recently.

Story here. 

First I hope the USMC piggy backs off this Army program with a quickness.  Second I'll take a couple...one for display, and one for play!

S-92B...

An A+ never looked so good! 💯✏️ Learn about our newest S-92 offerings: S-92A+ and S-92B: https://t.co/NM1ffFPrGM #HAIExpo19 pic.twitter.com/iwWn1wNmsz

— Sikorsky (@Sikorsky) March 5, 2019

Can't quite make out the difference.  Is the "B" smaller than the "A+"?

Australian Ministry of Defense & Elbit develop a new turret?

via Shepard Media.

At the Avalon Air Show, the Australian Department of Defence launched Electro Optic Systems’ (EOS) T2000 turret for armoured vehicles. Defence Minister Christopher Pyne was present at the global launch of this turret that was developed in partnership with Elbit Systems of Israel.

The new medium-calibre turret will be produced in Australia for both export and potential applications with the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

An EOS spokesperson told Shephard, ‘It is designed for global opportunities and is currently being bid into three opportunities, one of which is the Australian Land 400 Phase 3 programme. The Australian configuration is specifically optimised to meet the Land 400 Phase 3 requirement and delivering a low-risk, already integrated, high-technology turret.’

The T2000 can be armed with an M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon, Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm/40mm cannon or Bushmaster III 35mm/50mm cannon, all from Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems. Also possible is the Rheinmetall MK-30/2 30mm cannon. Up to 200 ready 30mm rounds are stored in the turret, and the main armament can elevate/depress from +60° to -10°.

Additionally, the turret has a 7.62mm coaxial machine gun (eg M240 or MAG 58 with the option of a MK52 Bushmaster 7.62mm chain gun from Northrop Grumman).

Two Rafael Spike LR2 anti-armour missiles under armour protection in a pop-up launcher are integral to the turret. Alternatively, the Javelin missile can be fitted.

An additional weapon (7.62mm to 30mm calibre) mounted in an EOS R400S Mk2 RWS can be installed atop the turret, with the R150 RWS available as an alternative. The RWS sensor unit serves as the vehicle commander’s panoramic sight. Such an RWS gives the turret a killer-killer capability, allowing two separate targets to be prosecuted simultaneously.

Armour protection options range from STANAG Level 2 through to 6. Depending on customer requirements, the turret has a combat weight of anywhere from 2t to 6t.

The turret has 76mm smoke grenades and it can also be equipped with the Iron Fist active protection system (APS) from IMI Systems of Israel.

Importantly, the T2000 can be ordered in either manned or unmanned configuration. The unmanned turret does not penetrate the hull of the host vehicle.

According to EOS, other situation awareness technologies in an integrated suite are Elbit’s IronVision see-through armour, a laser warning system and 360° radar.

Another feature is a management port that allows a UAV to be deployed and flown. A counter-UAV system can also be installed, which utilises the Iron Fist APS radar. A radio frequency UAV soft-kill capability can be fielded too.

Also present is ‘embedded training and crew procedural simulation’. In terms of sensors, software and human-machine interfaces, there is commonality with existing EOS RWS products, thus reducing the training burden.

At the launch, Pyne commented, ‘This latest development and successful collaboration is an example of Australia’s growing defence industry capabilities. EOS is a fantastic Australian success story, producing advanced remote weapons systems and sensors for export and use by the ADF and our friends and allies.’

Ben Greene, the group CEO of EOS, said, ‘The T2000 has been designed from the ground up as a new platform for supporting a wide range of emerging surveillance, protection and lethality solutions from multiple vendors in a fully integrated environment. The turret uses an industry standard vehicle interface and represents the next generation of capability integration.’

He added, ‘EOS will compete with this turret for the requirements of Australia’s allies and partners globally, and over A$1 billion [$700 million] of competitive offers have already been submitted in early 2019 for award from 2020.’

The turret will be initially produced in Canberra, with production commencing in late 2019. EOS is currently assessing the location for the new turret construction plant, with options including South Australia and Queensland.

I guess we know what's going on the Boxer now don't we?  Will it also be given to the Lynx?  Curious.  I thought Rheinmetall would be allowed to provide their own solution.

Or am I reading the whole "developed in partnership" wrong?

Gotta give Lockheed Martin credit. Their Modular Active Protection System passed US Army tests...

via Defense Aerospace.

 Lockheed Martin and industry partners supported U.S. Army integration of three countermeasures and a cueing sensor into the Modular Active Protection Systems (MAPS) framework for a six-week “rodeo” conducted at Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

In a series of live-fire tests, the MAPS-enabled systems defeated 15 out of 15 anti-tank guided missiles by jamming their signals, causing them to fly off-target.

“The success of the Army’s testing shows the effectiveness of an active protection system that can rapidly refresh with new components to meet specific mission and platform requirements,” said Michael Williamson, vice president of Sensors & Global Sustainment at Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin engineers led hardware and software integration of an Ariel Photonics countermeasure into the MAPS framework ahead of the tests. They also supported U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Ground Vehicle Systems Center efforts with BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman in integrating two other countermeasures and a cueing sensor.

Lockheed Martin was awarded the initial MAPS prototype controller contract in 2014 and continues to manufacture and deliver base kits to MAPS stakeholders. The base kit consists of a controller, user interface, power management distribution system, network switch and application software. It provides processing power to MAPS-enabled sensors and countermeasures and directs them in defeating incoming missiles and rockets.

The base kit supports the rapid integration of MAPS framework-compliant sensors and countermeasures to detect and defeat threats targeting MAPS-equipped vehicles. It is designed to protect current combat vehicles, as well as support future vehicle protection system capabilities.

I bang on them so when they succeed I need to give them credit.  According to what Defense Aerospace is saying they did indeed.

Congrats to them.

Now I want to see costs and a replication of those results in more vigorous testing.  Ft. Irwin or 29 Palms during a training evolution should be instructive...followed by testing at Ft Polk and Camp Lejeune and then something with our Canadian neighbors up North in the cold....