,
21 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
AFV Weight and size - a thread. A few of my recent #AFVaDay have dwelled on weight and size of contemporary AFV, thought it worth a longer note.
AFV weight is relentlessly increasing - since the 60s Western MBT are up >40%, IFV/AFV are >50%. We dont mention it much, but this is an issue for Russia/China too - whilst lighter in all cases they are very closely matched in trend. 
Look at Warrior in original (24t) and today (~42t). Contemporary IFV like Lynx are similarly huge by comparison (34-50t). Russia on a similar trend - compare BMD-1 (right, 7.5t) with BMD-4M (left, 13.5t) or BMP-1 (12.5t) with Kurganets (25t)
In the West we are at a practical limit now (or beyond it). >70t for an MBT is enormously heavy. In the pursuit of survivability we have made platforms so heavy they are slower, larger and overall less survivable.
Survivability is a broader concept than just physical armour, and we seem to have missed this of late. Adding armour is useful in the crucible of a round impacting the platform, but has a huge cost in outer layers of the survivability onion.
The vehicle is bigger, so is more readily seen. The engine is working harder, making more noise, heat and requiring more fuel and spares, increasing the logistic footprint in the operational area, making detection easier.
V high weights make movement relatively predictable. There arent many places you can take >70t MBTs without destroying the infrastructure (suboptimal if locals are meant to remain on side) or bogging down in some manner.
More predictable movements = easier ambushes, obstacle placement and pre-planned fire zones. Makes you easier to outmanoeuvre and reduces the likelihood of being able to act with initiative and surprise.
The size of these vehicles has a big impact on their utility beyond ‘direct’ survivability. Moving, storing and operating enormous things is an enormous problem for logisticians.
If you want to deploy fast and in volume, as is the desire of things like STRIKE, the larger and heavier you are the slower your formation deploys and maneuvres and the easier you are to plan against.
A400M etc into small airfields vs container ships and trains into major hubs then requiring connecting HET transport massively impacts response times and agility into theatre.
An older slide from a briefing a few years back. GCV (now cancelled) was to be larger than M1 Abrams despite offering no greater firepower or capacity vs Bradley. CVR(T) vs Ajax similarly striking.
One shouldnt purely offer problems without some nod toward solutions. For AFVs we need to think more broadly about survivability. It is a multifaceted concept and purely armouring the vehicle is only a small element.
ERA and advancing passive armour technologies offer weight savings over traditional armours. However these are almost always added additionally instead of as an integrated altenative (accepting this often isnt possible though), resulting in weight increases.
APS continues to show promise for allowing armour to be reduced should efficacy continue to improve however in measure/countermeasure race simple unanticipated disruptive change can render vehicles relying on APS critically vulnerable where passive armour retains some protection
Signature management remains an area of great potential. Ultimately he who sees first shoots first and generally wins the fight. Rendering oneself effectively or literally invisible is key to this battle.
We saw some interesting disruptive tech in recent years, BAE’s Adaptiv being one such example. Stealth vehicles in some form likely to be key area in future. Meanwhile Barracuda et al provide some initial capability in this vein.
Mission systems on current and next gen AFVs are making them highly detectable in the electromagnetic spectrum. Claims that APS radars can be detected at >100km. The enormous volume of voice and data traffic can be picked up at extreme range.
The outer layer of the onion – ‘dont be there’ is an issue of unmanned technology, but there will never be a time where humans must be put in harms way. Increasing capabilities in UGVs may offer some options however.
Ultimately the only solution to reduce weight is to find a technology that we trust enough to remove traditional armour for when the worst happens and projectile meets vehicle. A massive political, cultural and trust issue that we may never overcome? /end
Correction (posted wrong image with this, if only twitter allowed editing...) - left is a BMD-3
