A guest post from Jed.
The term “medium armour’ is banded around in connection with the SDSR post 2020 force structure, but what exactly does that term mean in this context ?
The Army has been ‘experimenting’ with medium armoured formations on paper, and in exercises at BATUS in Canada for some years, in the form of mixed formations of Challenger 2 and Scimitar recce vehicles – I seem to remember a good article in Combat & Survival (last year ?) but I must have recycled it as I cant find it now……
I suppose in any such exercise the Scimitar CVR(T) variant was being a surrogate for the still non-existent FRES (SV). With its slightly larger caliber main gun (40mm CTA) the idea seems to have been to use FRES(SV) in direct support of infantry, as well as in its traditional ‘Formation Recce Regiment” roles.
Before we progress any further lets just take a quick look at the old armoured formations setup. We had the ‘heavy armour’ in the shape of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (MBT) regiments, numbers of which have been constantly dwindling for some years now. Then we had the 5 Formation Recce Regiments based on CVR(T) family of vehicles – more light than medium armour. Finally we have the TA Yeomanry regiments, although I am not sure that these have really been ‘armoured’ since they lost their Fox scout cars after the wall came down.
So when we talk about medium armour in the context of the 2020 force structure, do we mean a ‘medium’ weight vehicle, in the shape and form of the FRES Scout Vehicle, or do we mean some sort of new hybrid formation ? Well it could mean both.
Personally I think it means the 5 Formation Recce regiments will become 5 multi-role ‘medium’ armoured regiments, based on FRES(SV) and related family of vehicles. With a 40mm gun that offers a good punch in its APFSDS round, good enough to destroy most if not all modern IFV’s, a general purpose HE round for use against soft skin vehicles and bunkers, buildings etc, and an air bursting HE round that can be used against enemy troops in defilade, that does not sound too bad – or does it ?
Personally I think there is a an awful lot missing from the concept, so accepting that this is probably what we are going to get, I would like to widen the discussion to the more generic aspects of “medium armour”:
Contents
Why go medium ?
Well it depends on your concept of operations, but it could be because medium weight class vehicles are cheaper to procure and maintain than MBT’s, or perhaps because you have a focus on expeditionary operations and its easier to move a medium weight vehicle long distances by either sea or air. It could be because to be survivable at all on the modern asymmetric, IED and RPG filled battlefield requires a level of protection that means ‘light’ armour is a thing of the past; except in some very special circumstances. Maybe it’s a budget driven fudge, rather than a doctrinal thing…… but I digress.
Although recent advances in blast protection, active armour and even ‘old fashioned’ technology like the “anti-RPG cage’ mean that medium armoured vehicles, whether wheeled or tracked, have much better survivability, perhaps the game changer in this respect is active protection systems. The pioneering Israeli products such as the Trophy system (recently tested in combat as well as passing US Army evaluation), have been joined by many products from many manufacturers. Generally speaking these system employ sensors to warn of incoming projectiles and munitions which are launched to disrupt or destroy the incoming. The offer an additional layer of protection, which when added to modern composite and re-active armour, and good mobility mean that a medium armoured vehicle is much better protected against infantry anti-tank missiles and rockets. Some of these active defence systems are even supposed to have an ability against tank gun rounds !
So we have an added dimension to the rules of: “don’t be seen, if your seen don’t be hit” – we can get into the “if your hit, keep moving” etc later.
By the way, one argument I am not going to rekindle is wheels versus tracks, there are plenty of vehicles in both categories that come fall in the “medium weight” category, and I have no intention of going into benefits of one form of locomotion over the over, it’s a moot point for the purposes of this article.
So protection has improved to the point that, while a medium weight vehicles is no Chally 2, Leo 2 or Merkava 4 able to waddle through hell, new technology means its probably good enough for most jobs the vehicle is required to do.
Weapons (“we need more guns….” Neo, The Matrix).
So the other side of the iron triangle that we need to consider is weaponry. Of course here we have many, many options and again it’s a bit dependent on what exactly you want your medium armour capability to achieve.
Auto-cannon
25mm to 35mm auto-cannon are popular. There are few users of the big 40mm Bofors and we have our new 40mm CTA, which has already been described above. Whatever the specifics we can see the utility of such weapons against other armoured vehicles, soft skinned vehicles, infantry in the open or concealed, even against helicopters etc. The thing is, when we are trying to decided what constitutes ‘medium armour’ in less generic terms, in other words what separates’ it from Infantry Fighting Vehicles (IFV) is the auto cannon the differentiator ?
Is it the weapon of choice for the IFV and armoured recce vehicle, and does our generic ‘medium armour’ monica suggest something else ?
We are lucky to have as a frequent commentor on this site Mr Tony Williams, an eminent weaponry expert, who has an excellent website with a page on Light AFV Guns, so click on that link and go have a read.
Anti-tank missiles
OK, I know, lots of countries mount anti-tank guided missiles on their IFV’s too. We have always been behind the curve on this one, but at least at one time we had the Striker variant of the CVR(T) family, and we had Spartan APC’s fitted with twin Milan launchers too. What we never did, and still don’t do is endow our IFV’s (Warrior) with the ability to take on heavy armour while on the move. In other words a Warrior has to stop for a Javelin team to debus and take cover, or at least shoot from the rear hatch, but I am not sure how practical that is !
Of course for us, this another budgetary thing, the U.S. has always had TOW on its M2 Bradley, and at the other end of the spectrum the new German Panther has two Euro-Spike Consortium Spike missiles on its unmanned turret:
As an aside, there are plenty of turrets with Spike integrated, but I have never seen a Javelin integration ?
A guided ATGW would allow our medium armoured capability to take on enemy MBT’s, for which it might be cost effective, but in the infantry support role, the ATGW might be a bit expensive for frequent use against buildings or as a bunker buster, so that moves us onto – big guns !
How big is big then ?
There are a number of ‘big guns’ available for a medium armoured vehicle, so again it comes down to what you want to do with the vehicle. At the really big end there are 120mm cannon, the RUAG 120mm gun is used on both the new Polish Anders and the CV90-120T vehicles:
Note the different approached, unmanned versus manned turret. Still, as someone commented on a different thread, front engine, rear troop compartment and rear door = Mini-Merkeva !
There has been discussion on the pages of this forum before suggesting that the RUAG 120mm gun would not be able to throw the NATO standard APFSDS round ‘hard’ enough to penetrate modern threat tanks. Even if that’s true, it might still be cost effective for lots of other target sets.
However if we don’t need or want to take on the bad guys MBT’s, then perhaps we could drop down to the good’ol NATO standard 105mm ?
The General Dynamics ASCOD family (the basis for FRES(SV)) has a 105mm variant, and the French AMX10RC and the newer Vextra are good examples of a wheeled vehicle with such a large gun:
However if 120mm is not going to take out an enemy MBT, then 105mm seems a bit pointless too (except in our case it’s already integrated with the ASCOD chassis ?).
Just to confirm, we are not getting into tank on tank slugging matches with our medium armoured regiments, so perhaps the Cockerill 90mm is going to be big enough for the infantry support role.
With plenty of ammo types, including HEAT, HESH and even anti-personnel canister, it would seem to have most of the bases covered in the infantry support role.
However stepping away from general purpose infantry support, and going back to anti-tank for a moment, even if the 105 or light weight 120 can’t produce the kinetic energy required for an MBT kill, they may still have an anti-tank ace in their pack, in the shape and form of IAI’s LAHAT gun launched ATGW. Designed originally to be fired from the Merkeva MK1 105mm gun, this laser guided tandem HEAT warhead missile can be fired from any 105mm or 120mm gun. Interestingly if you follow the link above you will see a photo of a quad pack for attack helo’s – well it looks to me that you could easily put 2 LAHAT in a turret mounted armoured pod like those designed for Spike, but more on that later.
The Most Versatile solution ?
OK those you who have read my stuff on this blog before will know what is coming next: A turret mounted 120mm smooth bore breach loading mortar ! These guns are the modern descendents of the French Thomson Brandt 81mm Gun-mortars that were used in many types of French armoured car. Capable of direct fire to approx 1.5km as well as the more usual indirect fire role, and as just another ‘tube’ for launching the LAHAT even capable direct fire in the anti-armour role (as an adjunct, Thomson Brandt had a ‘high velocity’ HEAT round which embedded the mortar bombs fins and propulsion charges in a combustible ‘shell casing’). In the indirect fire role the versatility is almost endless with laser guided, GPS guided, IR anti-tank, sub-munition cargo rounds and extended range rounds all in development or production. I am not talking about an AMOS or a NEMO here, but a turret mounted solution, so that you can still have crew heads out for situational awareness and a co-axial MG etc and example being BAe’s Advanced Mortar System Mk II.
Mock up (?) of a 120mm mortar turret on a Warrior. [ed, think this was called Project Thor]
Summary
No discussion of strategy or doctrine.
That might come later when we get into the post “SDSR Army” series of articles TD is planning. Instead I return to my original question – what is a “medium armour capability” ?
The after looking at all the above, the answer really remains “what do you want it to be?”. It can be wheeled or tracked, 30 to 40 tonnes, armed with an auto-cannon (and ATGW !) , a version of the ‘big tank gun’ (120mm high velocity smooth bore) or what might have been considered previously as a short ranged artillery piece (120mm mortar). Modern automotive technology should endow it with good tactical mobility, and even more wizzy modern technology gives it a chance of surviving against fair size blast bombs (IED) as well as ATGW and RPG type rockets (and bullets and shrapnel of course).
What do I think a medium armour capability will look like in the British Armies post 2020 force structure ? Unfortunately I think it will look like a reduced buy of FRES (SV) being used in an infantry support role.
What would I like it to be ? Personally I would like it to be the short wheel based CV90 FRES (SV) with its turret mounted CTA 40mm gun supplemented by two LAHAT in an armoured box launcher AND a 120mm mortar turret on the same or the full size CV90 chassis. Each regiment have two Sabre Squadrons of each.
However we all know that is not going to happen.
Over to the comments – what do you think reality will look like ?
And what would you rather see instead ?
Good article Jed, agree with most of what you say. With regard to missiles on AFVs, it had been frowned uponin the UK and I have even heard American experts criticise the practice. The argument, goes something like; when you start putting guns and missiles on an APC, it immediately makes it a high value target, for MBTs, and it’s not able to survive a hit from a tank, and when you hit an AFV you take out 10+ troops rather than 3/4 for a tank.
Having said that, if you find yourself in a position where you have been detected by MBTs and there is no tank or ATGM support, as has happened in Borg Gulf wars, then a ATGM in your toolbox would be bloody useful and a potential lifesaver!!
Back to the main thrust of your post, which is about medium forces. Surely, the forces are on average getting heavier!!! In the past you had more of a split between light and heavy, where the heavy bit was tanks and self propelled artillery. We are now moving to a force structure that has very few light components (Jackal and Foxhound) permitting, and we have 25-35 tonne tracked OR wheeled “MEDIUM” armoured forces. Certainly for the UK, the number of tanks is going to be so few that keeping them does not make our forces HEAVY!
The issue is should the MRB (Multi-role Brigades) be tracked or wheeled? I personally believe we either need some of them tracked and some wheeled or ideally have enough vehicles to use whatever is most appropriate!
I would have 3 brigades with Puma or CV90/Armadillo derivatives and 2 with boxer all 5 also equipped with Foxhound derivatives and supplied by advanced versions of the MAN RMMV, each brigade would also have at least a squadron of MBTs and 155sp artillery (AS90 or M777 portee ) plus MLRS and mobile CAMM
TD – many thanks for publishing and thanks for adding additional graphics and videos
Phil
Your right there are multiple ways to skin this. We can have tracked and / or wheeled based ‘medium’ formations; and that ideally to have enough of both to pick the right tool for the right job would be best.
However to look at TD’s “capability plus” model, perhaps we should be “tracked medium”, because France, Italy (even the US with Stryker) and other allied armies have long histories of using wheeled armour ???
Some very thought-provoking stuff indeed here, which I haven’t fully digested. Moreover, we’re off on our hols tomorrow and I can’t really leave me missus to do all the packing.
Still, just one thought. You say that future medium armour in the context of the 2020 force structure means that “the 5 Formation Recce regiments will become 5 multi-role ‘medium’ armoured regiments, based on FRES(SV) and related family of vehicles.”
You go to examine what you think a medium armour capability will look like in the British Army’s post-2020 force structure and conclude that it will look like a reduced buy of FRES (SV) being used in an infantry support role.
If it is a reduced buy, it almost certainly means that we shall not get many of the “family of vehicles” that you mention (probably no direct fire variant, no bridgelayer, few, if any, protected mobility vehicles, etc. etc. So we shall probably end up with a fairly small buy of the Scout/reconnaissance version and not much by way of support. Do you think this will be the case or will the variants come in and fairly quickly? Will a Scout vehicle by itself be much use in a multi-role “medium” regiment?
Just a thought: if we assume “medium” armour to be 30-40 tonnes, removing the manned turret from a CR2 and replacing with a pod gets us very close to that figure. Perhaps we should redirect our thoughts from light/medium/heavy and more towards light/medium?
I’m very much a *Medium* is a composite of light CVR(T) and Baneblades kinda guy.
For those who kept growing up past 12
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/File:Luciusbaneblade.jpg
I know really light is really dead against an AT missile or tank round, but, in all fairness, surely FRES is as well?
That said, I dont view tank on tank as a major componant, their serious tank formations will be devestated by our airpower long before we get into an armour dual.
So maybe all you need is 40mm cannon and the odd missile.
Light/medium sounds like a whizzy idea until you actually have to deal with a vaguely competent opposition and find that a radio does not stop an RPG, much less an ATGW or Fin round.
LAHAT would be a needless additional cost (as would CV90, but never mind) especially since Javelin has been integrated with AFVs. Rumour has it that a Bradley was so modified and also this:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/switzerland/wheeled_armoured/piranha_V/pictures/Piranha_5_wheeled_armoured_combat_vehicle_General_Dynamics_European_Land_Systems_Eurosatory_2010_002.jpg
and this:
http://www.army-guide.com/images/Javelin000do.jpg
We have Javelin, let’s use it some more.
If that doesn’t have enough reach and/or bang then Hellfire, Brimstone or HVM/LMM.
Well, I already wrote in length about my opinion on medium weight tank armament here
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/medium-calibre-allround-option.html
so I’ll instead express my disdain for that first “FRES Scout” graphic.
That design is overladen with add-ons and does obviously violate a central armoured vehicle design requirement for good mobility:
The tracks do not extend forward beyond anything else.
They did – once – but armour packages, some kind of metal sheets, the cage and the ramming device are now farther forward. The trench-crossing capability and the capability to negotiate other difficult terrain have obviously suffered severe reductions.
That Pandur II is of course much worse.
This is the problem with upgrading old designs well beyond their original concept; at some point it’s about time to go back to your PC, launch the CAD program and design an entirely new vehicle.
@Jed. Good article, I really enjoyed reading it.
I have been confused by the role of medium armour. My understanding (somewhat hazy) of current British Army thinking and practice is that the BATUS medium armour experimentation involved a squadron from the heavy armour regiments (Challenger 2) in CVR(T) (replicating FRES) and acting predominantly in the infantry support role. Formation Recconnaissance regiments will remain as recce.
So what does a Medium Armour capablity give the army that it does not already have? I think that it is looking for better strategic and operational mobility and the ability to fight, survive and win in demanding but nit the most demanding scenarios. So AFG, but not TELIC 1. The Balkans, but not Korea. Medium armour is not expected to go up against heavy armour except by exception. So any medium armour solution I expect would trade protection off against firepower and manoeuverability. Personally for a medium capability I think a wheeled solution very appropriate.
I am a fan of medium armour, for the following reasons.
1) The era of soft skin anything on the battlefield is over.
2) Armour must mean; proof against commonly carried infantry rifles currently 7.62 armoured peircing; and The largest deployable antitank mine, (currently I believe 7kg of TNT) This means for any realistic payload you are past 10 tons and on your way to 15. AND THAT IS A MINIMUM.
3)Current high end IFV vehicles, artillery etc are all pushing well past 30 tons when fitted with there inevitably ‘optional’ upgrades of add on armour.
4) Therefore to have a vehicle useful on ‘high end battlefield’ with 25 mm plus cannon RPG (of various types)and AT missiles etc you end up with 40 ton IFV.
5) In addition as so well pointed out above, any IFV vehicle should able to provide destructive fire support for its payload of infantry and any other infantry. So I would suggest that we should be fitting them with guns big enough for the job – with one eye on tyhe Isriali missile system, why not the 105 light gun?
For all the above reasons if we are going to play on the armoured battlefield then we end up with a big heavy chasis which can ponly by modern terms be called ‘medium’.
I am not sure one gets the chance to pick ones enemies or targets on a fast moving srmoured battlefield and frankly if we have 40+ ton of armour movinmg arround with 8-10 precious infantry men it, is in not essential it should be able to handle any tanks it comes up against as well as mud brick wall bunkers etc.
This is where I possibly part company with Jed.
If we have a 40+ ton chassisand we can put the best tank gun available on a version of it, is it worth running a sepperate chassis for a tank?
In short what does the extra 20 tons of Challanger buy in terms of protection and is it worth it? when commonality would suggest otherwise.
This is a bit hypothetical cos we’ve got challanger and warrior and that’s all we’re going to get.
So I am playing fantasy fleet a bit.
Dear all
Having just read through on the train on the way home I do apologize for the spelling mistakes and other errors !
As to some of the comments, I believe the threat matrix means light is dead, except for special conops like Weasel in German air mobile role.
As I said, I had not found any actual in use integrations of Javelin onto turrets or RWS, don’t mean the don’t exist !
Hellfire and Brimstone – too big surely ?
I am sure 5 medium armor regts is enough to buy specialist variants ???
good post jed, and flicking through the comments too i am looking foward to reading it all in greater detail later.
Nice article, Jed. Bravo.
I am bemused by FRES SV. It seems to be nothing more than a more modern Warrior with a 40 mm CTA cannon. What can it do that an upgraded Warrior could not? Please, someone tell me.
If we are simply buying a more modern Warrior and using it for Recce, why didn’t we look at the KMW Puma? Great bit of kit, same engine as FRES SV, but better protection.
Monty
Perhaps I have caused confusion, by SV I meant “Scout” ( not Support Vehicle) so FRES Scout is supposed to be shorter and only carry 3 crew, so it is NOT the exact same hull as the Ascod IFV and cant carry an infantry squad – so they’re not quite the same beast
Jed
by the time FRES actually goes into build you can bet that lost wheel will have magically re-appeared.
I for one would rather see CVR(T) replaced by Warthogs fitted with CROWS II fore and aft (1 .50cal and 1 40mm gmg) both with the Javelin pintle mount, that would be enough to take on almost anything, at least for long enough to retreat and bring in support. Also the additional internal space allows the flexability to transport troops in times of need, or additional stores for extended patrols.
@Grey: would the Warthog be to replace CVR(T) in the recce role or as Medium Armour? I can certainly see it in the former role, and on use with onfantry fire support groups, but not in the latter.
Great article Jed, i agree with pretty much all of what you say. I just want to throw in a few suggestions of mine
I’m not sure about the british-army warrior, admittedly, but the Desert Warrior turret can mount a couple of TOW missiles on the sides, this i remember.
Javelin is admittedly not often seen on vehicles, but it is perfectly integrable, and actually it is likely easier to use than Spike or others.
The Piranha V (which was to be FRES UV, as we all know) has been shown at least once in “IFV” mode with a remote turret with 30 mm gun, a RWS on top, LEDS Active Protection system and Javelin integrated on the side of the turret: http://www.deagel.com/library/Piranha-V-armored-vehicle_m02010121200017.aspx
Kind of excessive even for me that i’d gladly fit anything over each vehicle!
With the Toutatis 1.5 tons remote turret with the CTA 40 mm gun, though, it would be perfect as wheeled part of the Medium Armour segment, which is FRES UV.
“In other words a Warrior has to stop for a Javelin team to debus and take cover”
Well, this is not even the worst part. The fact is that until the new turret isn’t fitted, the Warrior lacks the stabilization for firing on the move effectively at all, which is kind of a big problem. It is like being back in Shermans all over again! XD
In terms of medium armor gun, i’d still go for the 120 mm smoothbore, especially if the Chally goes smoothbore as well.
One single stock of ammo. 105 might suffice most of the time, and even bringing back the 90 would perhaps do, but it’ll add a new logistic page to the manual, and the lower cost of the gun and ammo might not be enough to make it attractive. You know, it might make more sense to spend some more early in the programme if the long-term life cycle costs are lower and balance the books better. Of course, this has to be judged by who’s got all the data, though. I make hypothesis.
If we do accept another gun and ammo, might i point out the Draco as an option too? 5.5 tons turret with an automatic 76 mm gun derived from the universal naval Oto Melara 76 used by 50 navies in the world. The turret can be fitted to any 8×8 or tracked vehicle of 15 tons or more.
It fires an anti-aircraft, C-RAM radar-beam guided round, armor-piercing rounds, high-explosives, and can fire ballistically as an AS90, delivering an HE round with terminal SAL laser guidance to around 22 km. (the last one is in development)
In one stroke, you have Artillery, Air Defence and Direct Fire Support inside your Medium Armor Battalion. 12 rounds ready to fire, over 24 stowed, rate of fire of up to 80 rounds per minute (naval gun arrives to 120), already won export order by UAE. http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4507.html
FRES Scout won’t be missile armed by default, but it should have the possibility to be, as the turret chosen is the Rheinmetal Lance (manned), the 2-men variant of the KMW Puma’s unmanned one, which can mount Spike on the left.
The Uk could, was it ever needed, install Javelin.
“Hellfire and Brimstone – too big surely ?”
Too expensive, perhaps, but not necessarily too big. Brimstone is ground-launcheable alright, and the americans are integrating Hellfire on the Avenger humvee, which used to go around with Stingers…! http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/first-ever-avenger-hellfire-missile-launch.html
At some point they will also have to replace the Stryker Under Armor TOW anti-tank missile launcher, as the TOW begins to really show its age…
A missile-launcher vehicle in the FRES family would make for a perfect replacement for the old Striker and its Swingfire missiles.
However, i’d eventually want to put on it, say… a twin Brimstone rail on one side and a 7-missiles cluster of LMM for the (much more numerous) lightly armored/small targets, as Brimstone would be overkill in terms of cost to effect. Make it a multipurpose Fire Support missile launcher, more than a long range tank killer, so it can be more relevant in all situations.
“by the time FRES actually goes into build you can bet that lost wheel will have magically re-appeared.”
Indeed, i’d want the back space on the Scout for carrying some stuff. A T-Hawk mini drone and operator, or Unattended Ground Sensors if the british army will ever pursue something on those lines, stuff like this.
Ok, for now i can’t think of anything else to throw in the cauldron. Again, congrats on a job well done Jed.
Great article Jed. Gabriele, that 76 sounds the business. I have been thinking of something along the same lines. The days of the specialist vehicle are over….they only get used once in a blue moon so their worth is perceived as less and then they get the axe.
We need to field medium weight vehicles that are multi roled jack of all trades, where their flexability is a major bonus. Which ever weapon system is chosen there will always be situations where it is unsuitable.
Would we be having this discussion is the Gov’t and MOD were more willing to deploy and use CR2? If we had our inf backued up by a SQN of CR2 would we still have a need for a medium weight infantry support vehicle? I don’t think so. We used CR2 in Iraq but their abscense in Afganistan has has made us think that there is a capability gap…but is there?
Interesting stuff guys!
It appears that the general consensus is that medium armour equates to either a heavy hull with a lighter, multi role turret/weapons and sensor fit; or a lighter hull with a variety of turrets of varying weights and purposes.
It is therefore a compromise. Does the army want a vehicle or a family of vehicles that are compromises?
ALAN
Armed forcers may not want compromises, but compromises is what they get.
I if its got any sense it wants something with the hitting power and protection of Cr2 with the opperating costs mobility, and weight of a CVRT.
And the purchase costs of a packet of crisps.
However the laws of Physics / state of the art of material science get in the way.
Challanger is a compromise, cvrt is compromise. it’s all about balancing compromises of against one another. Would the increase vulnerability V APFSD of a 40 ton 120 mm tank be balanced by (somwhat) improved mobility reliabilty and reduced fuel consumption, coupled with higher numbers deployed?
I am not qualified to comment but it’s a thought.
@ Alan
That is it in a nut shell.
It is always a question of firepower v protection v mobility.
Was the medium weight vehicle not supposed to be easily air portable as one of the benefits. If we end up at the 30-40tn range then we aint going to be air transport many of them which means they go by sea which kind means we may as well go for better protection and stay heavy.
South African Rooikat. A 28 ton , hi velocity 76mm armed, 8 wheel IED resistant armoured car. 240 were built & some are surplus. We could have bought the surplus cheaply & had them in service in Afghanistan three years ago. Would have given the Taliban a shock.
Mark
Indeed, in the long run, 40t is no more mobile than 60t
You speak like it was possible for the UK to airlift many vehicles if they weighted 20 tons.
Due to the A400 payload, the difference between the numbers of FRES SV that could be airlifted and the number of hypotethical 20 tons vehicles that could be carried are almost the same.
Can we please dispense with the myth of moving armored forces in theatre by air?
Quantities that can be moved in are and will stay for much longer very limited either way.
Better to have protection and survivability at that point.
Agreed gabby, all this stuff about airlifting FRES into war zones is day dreaming stuff.
90% of vehicles and stores came by sea in GW1. I don’t see that number (roughly) changing for along time. Far better to have the vehicle you want and can complete the task than day dream about dropping av in to war zone.
Question (I genuinely don’t know): How did all those British Vehicles get into Afghanistan.
CVR(T) was airlifted into at least combat zone.
It was designed with the oldf RAF armoured car concept in mind.
Gabby
Surely a plane that can shift 1 40t vehicle can shift 2x20t vehicles.
Chris B
Some were flown, mkost were driven, either under their power, or on the back of trucks, and yes, we paid phenominal bribes to get them through unmolested.
@Chris B. re-Afghan effort
At least 70% of the stuff for the Afghanistan mission came and comes (and it includes fuel, spares, supplies and food) by sea via Karachi, in Pakistan, and is then driven into Afghanistan on road by contractors under a NATO deal. The US have another supply route from North, through Kirgikhistan, which they are expanding as disorders, strikes, and attacks on the truck convoys in Pakistan have been getting more and more worrisome for the development of the mission.
Armoured vehicles for the british forces are often carried by contracted Antonov An-124 from Ukraine civilian companies, at least out to Oman. From Oman they continue by C17 or by sea, and there have been often delays. I remember reports of new Ridgbacks stranded in Oman by lack of air transports, for example.
Indeed, the British Army is awakening very slowly to the risks of the Pakistani route as well according to this report i stumbled upon just earlier today: http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2011/06/increasingly-challenging-route-via-pakistan-for-afghan-supplies/
FRES UV projected weight was around 28 tons, and FRES SV will be over 30, possibly up to 38, with growth margin to 45 in the design.
A400 carries 37 tons. FRES SV will be portable when it comes into service, in future it might not be anymore, and i fear that 2×20 tons vehicles still would take a C17.
Airportability was recognized as a myth as far back as when the C130-compatibility requirement was deleted. It would have been a compromise too far. Too little margin for payload and protection on a vehicle with such constraints in sizes and design.
Exactly gabby if it is not going to speed the deployment to theatre then what is point of the medium weight vehicle.
Rapid deployment by air go light sea deployed go heavy better protection. Medium the preserve of the nations with a large air lifter force eg US.
Well now, Mark, come on! Of course it is a more deployable assets if it weights less! And not just because it can better be moved by air, but because it is easier to move with trains and ships as well.
We are also mistaking FRES SV for the “medium armor” element. It is not. The Army’s medium armour target is FRES UV, wheeled and 30 tons worth.
FRES SV is a specialized tracked vehicle for replacing all the CVR(T) and FV43- in the tracked formations. We can certainly say it is “Heavy”, as it beats Warrior in weight. Until we do not clear this baseline misunderstanding, the whole subject struggles to make sense.
FRES SV is “medium” only if you want to consider it as a Challenger II (or generally MBT) surrogate, but this is not the Army’s target, otherwise they would have ordered a prototype of the so-far only on paper Direct Fire variant, with the 105 or 120 mm gun.
That is not what the army needs most urgently.
And while i’m the first who says that Scimitar, light and ultra-deployable, is awesome light armor and great capability, it has proved too little protected. I hear “many” have been scrapped after meeting IEDs on their road, as it has been mentioned on here too the MOD had to order a limited production-restart, building a number of new “Scimitars” with Scimitar turrets and Spartan hulls, reportedly because Spartan hulls give better hopes of surviving a mine or IED hit as the driver is higher above the ground (and thus further away from the blast).
ref medium vs heavy, not a big point but you don’t need a HET and trailer for 20-40t you do for 60. Anyone remember all the tac signs on the bridges in germany, bit of a bummer if you have to divert to a bridge that supports your vehicles’ weight. Small points i know
Gabby
I dont agree. The UK with the withdrawal from germany has little requirement to move things by train. Our sea lift assets that moved 7 armoured to Kuwait for GW2 wouldnt have moved a 10-20tn lighter vehicle there any quicker.
Now the difference when we get there is more to do with the medium vehicles currently in use being mainly wheeled thereby allowing better road movement but thats a different issue. The wheeled variants are also more suited to policing operations as there seen as less warlike again a different issue.
As for the IEDs I just get how were falling into this trap off assuming the way to counter IEDs is use greater and greater amounts of armour I fear were treating the symptom not the disease. If you follow that to its conclusion then everyone drives around in MBT as IEDs become more and more sophisticated. Its not how we dealt with them in NI or example (intel and helicopters amd fewer resupplies). Better protected vehicles ok but it cant be at the expense of freedom of movement (warthog,foxhound fit the bill).
i would also add that there is probably a bigger outcry in the media/country about casualties in afghan caused by IEDS because very few in the population believe in the mission in afghan as opposed to somewhere like falklands were the casualty rate was significantly higher but considered “tolerable” because it was almost universally backed.
@ DomJ re airlifting stuff
It all depends on volume. If your 20 tons vehicles are less than half the length of your 40ton vehicle then you are OK. But stuff does always come in convenient packages. Challenger 2 is 27ft long and 11ft wide. Scimitar is 17ft long and 7ft wide. The former weighs 60 odd tons the latter 8 tons. Daft example I know.
@ Paul G
I am now going off to see if a HET will fit into a C17…..
@Jed, good post as ever,Phil, will do yours soon. Am warming to the 120mm mortar thing!
@Sven, its an interesting evolution, the distance between the foremost point on the hull and the foremost point on the tracks. If you look at an old picture of an FV430 series and then compare that with the latest Bulldog variant it highlights exactly what you say. The thing is though, protection against RPG’s is more important than gap crossing and climbing, an evolution of design in response to requirements. On the image of FRES Scout the RPG bar armour, this will be optional so I guess when you need gap crossing and mobility you sacrifice the additional protection. Also on the same graphic, that vertical tubular thing is an anti IED signal emitter
On the moving armour by air thing, it certainly is not a fantasy. Just because we cannot lift a full brigade by air does not all of a sudden make air portability a superfluous requirement, it provides us with options and the ability to swiftly move a modest force by air, equipped with a range of vehicles (including armour) is something we should aspire to. The heavier we go the more predictable we become.
When moving thing by sea the weight is largely irrelevant, it’s the dimensions, especially the length that is the main factor.
Also, SV stands for Specialist Vehicle, a collection of vehicles including the scout variant. UV is designed to replace a range of vehicles including Saxon, some CVR(T) and some FV430 series so its not just a case of tracks replacing tracks and wheels replacing wheels, if only it were that simple!
“that vertical tubular thing is an anti IED signal emitter”
The last generation of MBTs had some examples of forward magnetic field projector installed in order to defeat magnetic AT mine fuses. Those subsystems didn’t seem to require visible external components.
IED radio command control has been defeated with normal antennas.
Ground penetrating, anti-mine radars tend to have horizontal antennas and to be quite close to earth.
I wonder which principle requires a vertical tube (or at least fits into it). No other AFV seems to use such a thing.
Sven have a look at a few pictures of the mine rollers currently being used in Afghanistan or the SOUVIM vehicle that France is deploying
Pearson Engineering make them
http://www.pearson-eng.com/products/viewProduct.aspx?id=4&type=m
Abrams has the same functionality without any external component.
Well, then that FRES better NOT bump into ANYTHING, not even a tree or big fence.
It certainly lacks the bang to blow up a barricade as well.
Hello all
Thanks for participating in the debate
So I want to poke the hornets nest some more…..
Taking the Iron Triangle of Protection, Firepower and Mobility as a given, which we all understand, I would like to explore a few issues and get you to answer these questions:
In a hypothetical scenario where ‘heavy’(Chally 2) armour is given to a well funded and appropriately structured TA, and the 5 Formation Recce Regts become the 5 “Medium Armoured” Regts for 5 MRB’s – and given that you can decide whether to go tracked (GD Ascod family, CV90 family etc) or Wheeled (Boxer, Patria, etc) do you think:
1. We should have an IFV, a vehicle that can carry a dismount infantry section (of 8) plus carry a 40mm CTA (minimum) and also a pair of Javelin
OR
Would you save the CTA / ATGW for special Recce and anti-tank elements, and make the infantry section vehicle “simpler” with an RWS ?
2. If the answer to above is that all vehicles get both CTA / ATGW, then do you think we need a 90mm/105mm/120mm gun variant for both anti-tank / fire support
OR
Do you think a 120mm smoothbore mortar would be better for both indirect and occasionally direct fire support (and very occasionally self protection against enemy army with something like LAHAT).
OK, gentlemen, carry on…..
1. Definately the simple APC plus RWS
Supported by a single vehicle type with a range of armament options, some big gun, some little gun, some missile. As I said in a previous post, one job, one tool
I’m with the put 120 mm on everything.
Ixion
120 high velocity canon or breach loading mortar?
How about half and half.
More practical would be the morter- look at latest BMP3 armament combo- perhaps over complicated, I would go with morter and 50 cal.
@Callum Lane: Warthogs would replace the CVR(T), ASCOD II would replace FV4XX and eventually Warrior, though I’m sure their would be some crossover.
Grey
Your last is interesting. I can actually see Warthog as the vehicle of greater modular utility replacing the FV4xx series.
If we had the money it would make sense for GD Ascod II family to take medium armour and Warrior replacement IFV roles; with full family of command, REME, repair and recovery, ambulance etc (although for many reasons we have done to death before my personal preference would be for CV90 famiy)
This would leave a lighter, cheaper (?) Wheeled capability for the general purpose (motorised) infantry battalions intead of soft skinned vehicles – RG35? ??
Re moving armour by air.
Our beloved coalition government has decided to ignore public opinion & carry on giving hundreds of million of pounds to India. India has just ordered 10 C-17 transports for its airforce. Our RAF can only afford 7 C-17!
@ john h, 7 in instalments!!! in fact leased the first 4, then bought, then another 2 and after a search down the back of the sofa, managed to get the 7th, what a joke.
Anyone else laughing watching the news today, massive surge of forces volunteering for redundancy, including officer and SNCO’s already selected for promotion, where’s my stable belt my sides are about to split!!
TD said “it certainly is not a fantasy”
Nobody disputes that stuff can be moved by air. Come on TD you know that an armoured infantry battalion has upwards of 70 heavy vehicles to move alone. How much is a modest force? A company? A platoon? If somebody else had said that you would have been banging on about the logistics train. Air mobility of armour shouldn’t be a driver for either vehicle or the airframe. Have you been watching “Raid on Entebee” again?
Perhaps it is worth stating for those who pass through here that even if a C17 can lift a M1Ax it doesn’t mean it is a good idea. The tank can’t be landed tactically; it requires a really good length of runway. It puts the airframe under tremendous strain meaning that once the ‘plane is back home it will probably spend the week in the hanger being looked over for micro-fractures in its frame.
@Monty
“If we are simply buying a more modern Warrior and using it for Recce, why didn’t we look at the KMW Puma? Great bit of kit, same engine as FRES SV, but better protection.”
Monty the Puma would have been my choice. However, just like it’s pre-desessor the Marder it only carry’s a 6 man section, so would need to be enlarged to accept an 8 man section. It is being adopted by SAIC for the new US programme to replace thd Bradley!!!
One minor point the Puma has the MTU 890 series V10 not the 883 series V8 , which has been selected for FRES SV and is also in the Boxer (albeit the
reduced power 530kw/720hp version). I agree, though, the ASCOD SV should have the 1100hp Puma engine.
X
Airlifting proper tanks is probably a bad idea.
But light armour is awesome when used unexpectadly.
The CVR(T)s in the Falklands happily destroyed bunker afterbunker, because the Argentines didnt pack any anti tank weapons.
During one of the Indo-Pak wars, India blocked and routed one of the three pakistani thrusts with half a dozen WW2 era light tanks (stuarts I think).
Again, no one thought to drag anti tank weapons up a mountain, thinking tanks couldnt get up either.
The RAF regiment was founded on armoured cars, which again, were simply impervious to anything to light cavalry raiders carried.
Lets just the Falklands are invaded, by several thousand light infantry, and we have a window to land one C17. A company of infantry, or 4 light tanks.
I know what I’d send.
You would struggle to maintain a mobile armoured force by air. But think of them as the armoured version of paratroopers.
Turn up where they’re not expected and are victorious or reinforced before the other side has time to react.