500 "light tank" for the US Army. MPF program

36
Since the mid-nineties in the US Army there are no lungs Tanks. However, new challenges and threats forced the command to introduce such equipment into the plans for the development of troops. The development of a promising light tank to strengthen infantry and airborne units is carried out as part of the Mobile Protected Firepower program. Not so long ago, she went into the construction phase of experimental batches of equipment, and next year the finished machines will be sent to the troops for testing.


General Dynamics Griffin III Light Tank




Reform and rearmament


Currently, the US Army has several dozen new-look brigades, so-called. Infantry brigade combat team. Such a connection has various weapons and equipment, its main transport are cars and armored cars. Such material part ensures sufficient combat capability of the brigade and simplifies its transfer, but leads to some problems.

Several years ago, the command considered that the IBCT brigades needed their own tank, capable of providing fire support for infantry units. The use of regular army M1 Abrams was not possible due to their large mass and insufficient mobility, which led to the start of the MPF program. Its goal was to create a medium-mass armored vehicle with cannon-machine-gun weapons, combining good fighting qualities with high mobility.

MPF received bids from several US and foreign armored vehicle manufacturers. Offered as a completely new design, and recycled samples of already known types. Last December, the Pentagon selected the two best projects. The tanks from General Dynamics and BAE Systems were considered the best.

Also in December, there were two contracts for the continuation of work with a total cost of approx. 710 million dollars. According to them, two finalists of the MPF competition must build on 12 pre-production tanks of new types. Currently, two companies are busy with this order. Works should be completed no later than the start of 2020, after which comparative tests will start.

Plans for the future


At the end of June, the press service of the US Army revealed the further fate of the MPF program. Events planned for the near future are directly related to the current construction of two dozen experienced armored vehicles.

In March of next year, new equipment will be available to one of the units of the 82-th Airborne Division of the US Army. The paratroopers will perform a comprehensive check of the new technology. In addition, they will have to compare two samples from different developers and make recommendations. For military comparative tests and analysis of their results will take a little over two years.

In the 2022 fiscal year, the Pentagon plans to make the final choice and determine the winner of the competition. The latter is to complete the finishing of its light tank and prepare mass production. According to current plans, the delivery of serial MPFs to troops will begin in 2025 FG.

The Army announces its intention to buy more 500 light tanks of the new model. This technique will serve in tank companies of fire support, 14 units each. In each brigade of the IBCT, one such company will appear. It is expected that units equipped with promising light tanks will provide infantry brigades with the required ratio of mobility and firepower. However, the full re-equipment of the brigades will take place no earlier than the beginning of the thirties.

Special requirements


MPF tank is intended for use in "light" brigades, because of which special requirements are imposed on it. This machine must provide fire support for infantry, destroying enemy emplacements, light and medium enemy armored vehicles or various structures. However, it should not impede the transfer of the brigade.

According to the specification, the combat weight of the MPF should not exceed 40 t, which will allow the Boeing C-17 military transport aircraft to carry two such vehicles. The right combination of powerful engine and tracked chassis should provide higher mobility than the M1 OBT. Armament should include 105-mm gun and a machine gun of normal caliber. Armor should provide protection against small arms. weapons and small-caliber artillery.

The command considered that a company armed with such light tanks would be able to effectively support motorized infantry on armored cars or cars. In fact, the MPF should be a variant of the “traditional” tank, redesigned to meet the special requirements of the IBCT.

Applicants for victory


The company General Dynamics passed to the final stage of the program with its project Griffin II. This model is based on the ASCOD 2 tracked chassis, already used in the British Ajax project. On such a chassis, a converted and lightweight OBT tower M1A2 SEP v.2 is mounted. The resulting sample has a combat mass of no more than 30 t and should show high mobility characteristics.


Experienced MPF tank from BAE Systems


In the recycled tank turret mounted installation with 120-mm smoothbore gun XM360 and coaxial machine gun. In terms of fire control systems, the Griffin II is partially unified with the existing armored vehicles of the US Army. It is expected that due to such weapons and MSA, the light tank will not yield firepower in the main Abrams.

Light tank from BAE Systems is a substantially revised and modernized version of the machine M8 Armored Gun Systems, created at the turn of the eighties and nineties. The architecture of the tank remained the same, but the armament, protection and instrumentation equipment underwent the most serious changes. The result of this was a modern light tank, only outwardly similar to the base machine.

BAE Systems offers a tank with modular protection up to 25 tons. The tower is equipped with an 105-mm M35 cannon with an automatic loader that provides firing speeds up to 12 shots / min. The power plant is designed as a single unit, rolling out of the hull for maintenance. As well as in the competing project, use of the most modern electronics is provided.

To date, the companies participating in the project managed to build prototypes of their equipment and conduct some tests. Now they are engaged in the construction of the first batches of equipment for comparative tests based on the 82 airborne division. 24 light tank will go to the military unit in the spring of next year.

Five thousand tanks


According to the latest reports, the two types of armored vehicles will spend about two years on testing, and after that they will choose the most successful one. Which of the two current samples will receive approval is unknown. The results of the competition will be announced in 2022.

The design of the light tank Griffin III from General Dynamics may be of interest to more powerful weapons and unification with existing models. The use of the existing chassis, the upgraded production turret and the borrowed electronics give the car certain advantages.

Its competitor from BAE Systems has less powerful weapons, but is equipped with a high-performance automatic loader. In addition, this light tank is based on the M8 AGS project, well known to the US military. In the mid-nineties, the M8 tank was even officially put into service, but then the program was closed for financial reasons.

In their current form, both promising tanks have pros and cons. Each of them is superior to its competitor in some characteristics, but inferior to him in others. For this reason, the comparison of the technology will be carried out within the framework of the pilot military operation in one of the combatant units. Thanks to this, the Pentagon will be able to compare not only the table data of two samples, but also the real features of their operation.

With the successful completion of the current MPF program, the "light" brigades of the army will be able to get modern equipment that fully meets the new requirements of command. Nevertheless, the real results of current work will appear only in the distant future - in the second half of the twenties.
36 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    5 July 2019 05: 36
    it seems to me that the Americans are tired of dragging Abrams to Europe ... either the roads do not allow you to move, then the bridges ... how to live? so we decided to make tanks "for bridges", not to rebuild all of Europe for tanks ...
  2. -7
    5 July 2019 05: 43
    In case of war, these light tanks, if they go in the forefront, will be very quickly and easily destroyed! 25-30 tons, this is the lack of good armor! This is the same as our BMP2, only with a more powerful gun, and packed with microelectronics, but otherwise the same problem is the lack of reliable crew armor.
    1. +11
      5 July 2019 06: 36
      A tank for paratroopers ... From the time of WWII there is an opinion that any tank is good ... if you have one ...
    2. The comment was deleted.
  3. +3
    5 July 2019 05: 47
    40 tons ... a very light tank.
    a campaign that the Americans won’t do, it’s going to be abrams.
    1. The comment was deleted.
  4. -3
    5 July 2019 06: 33
    Our light tank will be haunting.
    The new light amphibious tank will be built on the basis of the Sprut-SDM1 self-propelled airborne anti-tank gun. The new car will receive enhanced protection.
    Sergei Abdulov, chief designer of the Special Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering, told TASS at the Army-2019 International Military-Technical Forum. He noted that it will be a non-airborne, but amphibious tank. The car will also have a different chassis - a torsion bar suspension from the BMP-3, as opposed to the hydropneumatic suspension of the Sprut. The first is more reliable and less whimsical, the chief designer believes.
    https://rg.ru/2019/06/27/na-baze-samohodnoj-pushki-sprut-razrabotaiut-novyj-plavaiushchij-tank.html
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. +8
      5 July 2019 14: 12
      Quote: riwas
      Our light tank will be haunting.

      On the one hand, yes, and on the other, Sprut with his aluminum armor anything, but not a tank (you did not say the opposite, I simply state the fact). And it is doubtful that in the indicated TTX the protection will be improved as much as
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 19: 41
        Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
        And it is doubtful that in the specified performance characteristics the protection will be improved somewhat radically

        You can put the screens and KAZ or KOEP. True, a maximum of 14,5 mm and ATGMs will protect, but not from autocannons.
  5. +4
    5 July 2019 06: 52
    The main thing here is who will have KAZ! And restarting the program, apparently, getting results on KAZ systems.
    1. +2
      5 July 2019 08: 18
      I agree that KAZ, with a general decrease in the fleet and the army as a whole, an increase in the necessary qualifications of crews, is a necessary thing. But there are doubts about the need for a large caliber. Maybe enough Kurgan with ATGMs? Only 57mm gun. An extra landing compartment will not hinder the landing, at least under an additional ammunition
      1. 0
        5 July 2019 08: 27
        These are already concepts .... Markava or Abrams ?! Mi24 or Cobra + Iroquois ?!
  6. +1
    5 July 2019 07: 00
    The T-64 and T-72 of the first releases fit perfectly into the requirements (OMS, communications are naturally modern)
    1. +1
      5 July 2019 08: 24
      If you look from a different angle - this suggests that the Americans are going to fight in territories with former Soviet infrastructure, and bridges in this case are limited (Poland, the Baltic states have shown this), they soon swim and BMP. So the new Drang Nah Osten is getting ready - to be a brawl!
    2. 0
      5 July 2019 21: 24
      Better T-62: may come out cheaper than modern ATGM. Imagine: each compartment has its own T-62.
  7. 0
    5 July 2019 09: 21
    It is strange in general that a high-ballistic gun is put. A 120 mm nona type mortar would be preferable.

    In an open battle against even the old T-72, this "light" tank can still work only from an ambush or a missile. And for all other purposes, a mortar is preferable.
  8. +2
    5 July 2019 10: 06
    "Light tanks" are only suitable for fighting against the "Papuans". It is useless to use them against an equal opponent. The modern battlefield is oversaturated with anti-tank weapons. No one is now shooting at an armored vehicle from a machine gun / cannon of an BMP, for this there are ATGMs of various bases and mines / land mines. It's just that the West has long since switched to the concept of a super-expensive super tank, and this concept has failed for various reasons. First of all, technological and economic. If something happens, it is impossible to quickly rivet many tanks, and the existing ones will not last long in a high-intensity conflict. The full production cycle of the T-72, the most technologically advanced and cheapest of the existing MBTs (I don't consider the Chinese ones - there is very little information on them) is 9 months (I don't remember - peacetime or wartime). Despite the fact that it is also a conveyor tank, in contrast to the western slipways. In the West, they lost the ability to produce new MBTs in the required quantity even for peacetime, only the modernization of existing ones remained. "Light tanks" are being developed out of despair. I apologize for the many letters belay
    1. +3
      5 July 2019 21: 33
      You look from the wrong side: this is full of anti-tank weapons from NATO, they don’t need to worry about it. With ours, the situation is worse. From Iranian or Syrian - it’s very sad: grenade launchers and a little ATGM of 1-2 generations. Considering that this tarantayka can support the infantry no worse than Abrams, and is only affected by specialized anti-tank weapons (40 tons is 40 tons), it turns out that they exchange opportunities in a tank duel (not too important an opportunity for them: they put the fight against tanks on helicopters) that the tank will be where it is needed and in large quantities (2 pieces on the S-17 after 1 Abrams on the S-5 is a great achievement).
  9. -3
    5 July 2019 10: 11
    Light tanks suck!
    If light armor is justified for infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled guns, then for a tank, which should be the point of concentration of both defense and offensive, this is a huge drawback, because it does not provide its combat stability. This was shown even by the WWII on the territory of the USSR, when the fascists collided with our KV and T-34, and our "BT-shki" and T-26 with their "fighters" and "firs".
    Well, let them play and throw out the evergreen candy wrappers, they will print them, and I don't even mind their soldiers, even those ghouls, how many "peace people" have already been destroyed on the planet, millions !!!
  10. +1
    5 July 2019 10: 41
    I wait, I hope I will wait for the look of our future light melt tank)
    Floating means up to 25 tons, if we take into account the weight of the BMP3 dragoons, then this is 22 tons, respectively, if the dimensions of the tank are reduced to about BMD 4 and weighing 22-25 tons, then on the whole it will be possible to defend less.

    Floating is how? 5 mph, 10 mph?
    I read somewhere that at the time of import substitution of water-jet engines, our kulibins tried to make the YaMZ engine modified to be a water-jet. Maybe they did and have the opportunity to implement?
    It is thought that ideally it is necessary to do with a water cannon and a speed of movement on water of 25-30 km / h, it will be perfect for marine corps and land.

    Taking into account more or less decent armor, it can be used in many situations, because modularity, in principle, at a decent level excellent modules with 30 mm, 57 mm, 120 mm mortar, there is 125 mm from the "octopus", but I think the main caliber needs to be made 100 mm, with such as ship, rapid-fire and preferably with new ammunition that I think is being developed and work is underway on them ...
    1. 0
      5 July 2019 19: 43
      Quote: Warrior StillTot
      I wait, I hope I will wait for the look of our future light melt tank)

      Look at the BMP-3M "Dragoon" with a 125 mm combat module. What is not an appearance? :)
    2. 0
      9 July 2019 23: 37
      KMK, the Yankees went the wrong way.

      If this is an infantry support tank, then you need not an ordinary light tank with all its disadvantages of survivability in the "manned" version, but much smaller in size and with optimal armor, but an unmanned vehicle. Such a machine will be less than one and a half times, it will be lighter, only vital units will be better armored. And in order to cover the "hotbed of resistance" with its weapons, which is too tough for light infantry, remote control is enough without any "network-centric newfangled nonsense and artificial intelligence."

      hi
  11. +3
    5 July 2019 11: 07
    According to the terms of reference, the combat weight of the MPF should not exceed 40 tons

    Hrenase, this is almost our main tank. Now I know what an American "light tank" is ...
  12. +1
    5 July 2019 12: 13
    Why wouldn't they return the Sheridans?
  13. +4
    5 July 2019 19: 37
    Judging by the tank hung with camouflage in the photo, the emphasis is on KAZ and DZ of the last generations. That allows you to significantly reduce weight at the cost of knocking out armor. Yes, in a city such a tank will be shot from an RPG, having knocked out its defense, but with fast offensive operations during the first hours (days) of battles, such a tank will not yield to the traditional one. As I understand it, the doctrine of the Americans is complete domination in a few days. A light tank with KAZ fits perfectly into it.
    1. 0
      7 July 2019 14: 38
      Tank for quick reaction troops. Airborne in our opinion. They just do not conduct protracted battles, a quick offensive with an exit to the rear or vice versa, from the rear to their own side, counterguerrilla operations, for them a great machine, given the specificity of the KT M1128 as a tank.
  14. -2
    6 July 2019 11: 46
    The main thing in all these projects is the 105 mm gun.
    Those. the inability of this "tank" to fight modern, not to mention promising, MBTs is laid down in advance.
    This is a drink.
    1. 0
      6 July 2019 19: 59
      C'mon, this is not their priority (they have helicopters and cluster munitions as the US anti-tank missile), the ATGMs from Bradley will be screwed on top - and that's fine.
      1. 0
        6 July 2019 23: 43
        Great! Then what goals should a high-ballistic gun with high trajectory persistence hit?
        1. 0
          7 July 2019 10: 10
          Quote: Private-K
          Great! Then what goals should a high-ballistic gun with high trajectory persistence hit?

          Promising "light" tanks, armored vehicles, promising infantry fighting vehicles (cougar, kurganets, etc.), and other armored vehicles (not tanks) of probable Papuans. America seeks democracy, but there aren’t enough abrams at all wink
          1. 0
            7 July 2019 15: 44
            What you described (infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, etc.) must be reliably affected by their BMPs and ATGMs - on BMs and portable ones. What you wrote posting above. ;))))) Well, so how? ;)))
            1. 0
              7 July 2019 17: 58
              Quote: Private-K
              What you described (infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers, etc.) must be reliably affected by their BMPs and ATGMs - on BMs and portable ones. What you wrote posting above. ;))))) Well, so how? ;)))

              Hmmm
              Where is my text above?

              Modern BMPs, for example, take Bradley, cannot be hit by promising BMPs with their standard cannon weapons; the Bushmaster will not take BMP-3s in the forehead. And ATGMs are all well, but they have flow characteristics, 4 TOU's ravings remain after using them either to dream of a full-fledged tank or to remember where the supply truck is))))
              And attached to the unit its light tank with an ammunition of 25-35 pieces to its
              high ballistic gun with high trajectory
              can at the same time and work on the infantry that has sunk in shelters, and destroy all sorts of houses))) in the presence of high-explosive fragmentation shells, of course))
              1. 0
                9 October 2019 10: 06
                That is, you propose, instead of a fairly universal combat vehicle, to make a highly specialized fighter of light and medium armored armored vehicles? Which MBT cannot be taken by definition ... Or maybe it is better to give such an LT 120mm full-fledged tank and anti-tank gun, albeit with restrictions on the horizontal angles of fire?
                And the protection of medium-weight vehicles from anti-tank systems can only be fully achieved through a combination of DZ and AZ. But the AZ costs more than 1 million per set. Those. few can afford to equip BBM with such. ;)
            2. 0
              6 October 2019 19: 43
              The modern development of active and passive means of protection of armored objects again displays artillery in place of the most necessary means of destruction. Plus, the greater versatility of tasks and a larger and CHEAPER ammunition. We and Europe have already understood this, ours would not be behind ....
        2. +1
          7 July 2019 18: 16
          There used to be cannon-regiments (76 mm caliber, the infantry rolled them themselves), this is its modern edition. What the infantry asks for, they will amaze. Home, shaitan mobile, etc. It’s hard to get out of a howitzer by order, you need to shoot, a moving target is generally a disaster, but here it’s direct fire. In short, it will perform the tasks of a normal tank (Abrams is actually made as an anti-tank self-propelled gun with a rotating turret and they are not enough).
    2. 0
      6 October 2019 19: 48
      And it depends on what she will shoot! The same NATO 105mm gun (L-20 if memory serves), was the main weapon of their MBT during the 70-80s. And managed to fight in a heap of local conflicts, which proved its performance ...
  15. 0
    9 July 2019 23: 22
    And all because the Yankees BMP-3 do not.

    laughing
  16. 0
    20 July 2019 07: 30
    they apparently have a complex which all the tanks are large that the main that the light