In an industry briefing for its re-booted Next Generation Optionally Manned Combat Vehicle solicitiation, the US Army has told vendors the most important requirement for its future IFV is protection. The previous requirement for two OMFVs to fit in a C-17 has been relaxed. #OMFV
Even though contenders can now offer vehicles in the 40+ tonne weight class, it seems unlikely that anyone will offer a heavy IFV like the Israeli 60-tonne Namer. This is because vehicles in this weight class are too difficult to deploy and support in an expeditionary scenario.
The change in OMFV specifications will re-open the competition to BAE System's 5th generation CV90 (a big leap forward) and KMW's Puma, Rhenimetall's KF41 Lynx and Hanwha's AS21 Redback.
Despite changes to the requirement, General Dynamic's OMFV contender, the Griffin III, remains in a strong position. With a 2+6 configuration, it has a small protected volume, which means it will maximise protection for any given weight.
Griffin III, Puma and CV90 Mk IV may have an advantage over AS21 Redback and KF41 in that they will be better protected at a lower GVW. There is also the concern that putting 3+9 soldiers in a single vehicle may be too risky in terms of casualties if the vehicle is hit.
However, Rheinmetall's KF41 Lynx and Hanwha's AS21 Redback certainly move the IFV game forward. Their larger protected volumes are spacious and practical. If they can provide their occupants with decent protection, these will be the IFVs to beat.
While OMFV survivability is a priority, in terms of lethality, the vehicle will mount Northrop Grumman's new XM913 50 x 330 mm cannon. With a depleted uranium APFSDS penetrator, this is expected to penetrate 200-220 mm of RHA at 1,500 metres.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It was right to retire the British Army's Thales Watchkeeper WK450 UAS. It took far too long to bring it into service and by the time it arrived, newer and better systems were available. It was also difficult to operate. The question is what do we replace it with? (1/6)
An obvious choice is General Atomics Mojave, which is optimised for STOL operations from austere locations. This has a larger payload, double the range and better ISR sensors. It can also carry up to 16 Hellfire missiles for strike tasks. Crucially, it is harder to jam. (2/6)
Mojave, which is a modified version of General Atomics' MQ-1C Gray Eagle UAS, weighs 1½ tonnes and has a reinforced undercarriage. Technically, it compares well to Watchkeeper while also being considerably less expensive to purchase and operate. (3/6)
The @GD_LandSystems M10 Booker is not a derivative of the ASCOD platform, but an all-new design. The hull has well-sloped armour, an 800 hp diesel driveline and @Horstman_Group hydro-pneumatic struts. The 105 mm gun based on the UK ROF L7 and is mounted in an Abrams-based turret.
As impressive as the vehicle itself is the acquisition approach. 12 prototypes from two companies were down-selected. These were tested extensively. A winner was chosen and awarded a LRIP contract for 26. Now that all issues are resolved a full production contract can be issued.
At each stage of the process, risk was managed. The onus was on @GD_LandSystems to resolve any issues in order to move the program to the next stage. Brigadier Glenn Dean, who has assumed overall responsibility for MPF deserves credit for doing a fantastic job.
Over the last 15 months, @LockheedMartin's M270 & HIMARS rocket launchers have performed extremely well, obliterating Russian targets while reducing collateral damage at ranges of 70 km, which is beyond the enemy's capacity to return effective counter-battery fire.
Ukraine's success with HIMARS confirms what we already believed, that precision-guided deep fires rockets and missiles enable smaller armies to deliver an effect that belies their size relative to larger, less capable adversaries.
Before the Russo-Ukrainian War, the USA had already initiated an upgrade programme to increase GMLRS range from 70 km to 150 km, while the new Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) can hit targets at 499 km, versus the existing ATACMS with a 150 km range. This is a significant upgrade.
The British Army's Protected Mobility Pipeline (PMP) programme will see 14 platforms merged into 5. Three PM platforms (light, medium, & heavy) will replace Foxhound, Mastiff, Ridgeback, Wolfhound, Husky, Foxhound, and Panther. This will streamline through-life support.
As good as Boxer is, only 4 infantry battalions will be equipped with it. So having a larger fleet of lower cost PMVs will be essential. Also, the way in which they're being used in Ukraine, as battlefield taxis that move infantry out-of-contact, points to a new way of operating.
For some roles, it makes sense to purchase an off-the-shelf solution from abroad (e.g., Oshkosh JLTV) where the price is lower than domestically produced vehicles can match. But for others, British industry is perfectly capable of producing a state-of-the-art 4x4 or 6x6 PMV.
When it comes to properly regenerating NATO forces, a prevailing view is that the Russo-Ukrainian conflict will be long over before any new capabilities ordered today are delivered, so any uplift in defence spending is pointless. THIS VIEW IS TOTALLY WRONG. Here's why...
While the conflict has resulted in the comprehensive degradation of Russia’s land force capabilities, Russia is not yet a spent force. Vladimir Putin has not accepted defeat, nor has he relinquished his territorial ambitions.
Even if the conflict is resolved in the short-term, either through the voluntary withdrawal or forced eviction of Russian forces from Ukraine, Putin is likely to use any peace agreement as an opportunity regenerate his army.
I've been analysing the British Army's overall structure in anticipation of the Defence Command Paper Refresh. It'll be interesting to see how it will be reorganised to accommodate the headcount reduction from 77,000 to 72,500.
Since many units are already operating below their permitted headcount, or are reliant on the Army Reserve to deploy, we could see much leaner units across the Army. Will 450 person infantry battalions be fit for purpose?
I am sure those responsible for reconfiguring he Army will be trying all kinds of models to make the new structure work. But I fear a bold correction may be necessary to ensure the combat units we do intend to field have sufficient potency and resilience in terms of headcount.