BBM Griffin II. First show and uncertain future

Since 2015, the United States has been implementing a program for developing a promising tracked armored vehicle with artillery armament MPF (Mobile Protected Firepower), one of whose participants is General Dynamics Corporation. A few days ago at the Modern Day Marine conference, she first showed the BBM Griffin II model offered to the Pentagon. This model is noticeably different from those shown earlier and has great chances to reach the series and adoption.

Model BBM Griffin II

Scale layout

Presented at Modern Day Marine, the layout demonstrates the general features of the proposed Griffin II project. Together with him, the developers showed some other materials about various design features. At the same time, some data on the promising BBM has not yet been announced.

The new Griffin II BBM is based on the older Griffin I model, which was demonstrated in the past. It was built on the basis of existing components in accordance with the technical specifications of the customer. Recall, then the chassis of the tracked infantry fighting vehicle ASCOD 2 was used, on which a lightweight tower was installed tank M1A2 with the new XM360 gun.

Subsequently, the project underwent major changes, as a result of which appeared BBM Griffin II. In the new project, some already developed solutions are used, but at the same time there are some new components and ideas.

Griffin II is based on the chassis of the front-engine layout, the middle and rear compartment of which are given to the fighting compartment. On such a chassis mounted tower of the original design with cannon-machine gun weapons.

The body of the new chassis should have protection against small-caliber shells of existing guns. The tower of the original design is distinguished by the use of modular outboard reservations. It is made in the form of a pair of blocks covering the forehead, cheekbones and sides of the tower. Other sections of the latter are not additionally closed.

The type and characteristics of the power plant were not called. The chassis includes six track rollers per side and front-wheel drive wheels.

The presented mock-up demonstrates a BBM variant with a smoothbore gun of the caliber 120 mm and a coaxial machine gun. Another machine gun mounted on the roof of the tower; smoke grenade launchers are available. The possibility of using a modern effective fire control system is noted, but its detailed composition is unknown. The layout clearly shows the panoramic sight of the commander and the fixed optical instruments of the gunner.

Depending on the configuration of the protection and other features, the BBM Griffin II may have a combat weight at the level of 35-38 t - the maximum permissible technical specification for MPF. The mobility characteristics are not specified, but according to these parameters, the new sample should not be inferior to existing ones.

Plans for the future

The MPF program started in 2015 and has now moved into the development phase. In December last year, the Pentagon signed contracts with General Dynamics and BAE Systems for the development of technical projects and the construction of experimental equipment. It took 14 months to design and start the delivery of prototypes; after another 4-5 months, the customer plans to receive all ordered prototypes - two types of 12 machines. The military department allocated 335 million dollars for the construction of the experienced Griffin II. The competing project received 376 millions.

of the latter, News it follows that General Dynamics Corporation used the first 9 months to complete the design and, possibly, to begin the construction of experimental equipment. Nevertheless, full-fledged Griffin II samples are not yet ready, and you have to show the layout at exhibitions. Finished equipment will appear no later than the beginning of 2020.

At 2020-21 Comparative tests of 24 prototypes of two models are planned. By the beginning of the 2022 financial year, a winner will be selected, after which a contract for pre-production equipment will appear. According to current plans, before 2025, 26 armored combat vehicles will be built with the possibility of ordering an additional batch of 28 units.

In 2025 f. full-scale serial production of new equipment will be launched with the goal of re-equipping the army. In total, it is planned to build 504 MPF units for the ground forces and the National Guard. In the regular infantry brigades of the army and the National Guard, new separate companies of the type Infantry Brigade Combat Team will appear. Each of them relies on 14 units of new armored vehicles.

With the help of IBCT units, it is planned to provide fire support for infantry in different conditions. The MPF will take on some of the responsibilities of tanks and self-propelled artillery. Due to their smaller size and mass, such armored combat vehicles will be distinguished by greater tactical and strategic mobility - at the required level of firepower. The first company of a new type will begin service in 2025, at the same time as the start of the supply of serial equipment.

The problem of choice

In the final part of the MPF program came two projects of armored vehicles. The future results of such a contest are unknown, but it is still difficult to predict them. The proposed BBMs from two developers have similar characteristics and capabilities, as well as various characteristic features and differences. Which of these factors will be decisive and determine the Pentagon’s choice is a big question.

Tower and its additional protection

BBM Griffin II competes with the M8 Armored Gun System from BAE Systems. It is an option of deep modernization of the eponymous light landing tank, created in the mid-nineties. The BBM is built according to the traditional tank design, it carries an 105-mm cannon with an automatic loader and can be equipped with mounted protection modules of various types. Combat weight - no more than 25-27 tons.

Available data show that General Dynamics Griffin II may have some advantages over M8 AGS. Thus, the availability of modular reservations and front-wheel chassis layout significantly increase the overall level of protection and survivability of the machine on the battlefield. A triple manned turret is used with an 120-mm gun superior to the 105-mm cannon of the light tank M8.

At the same time, Griffin II is slightly larger and noticeably heavier than its competitor, although it fits into the limitations of the technical specifications. In addition, the excessive novelty of the design can be considered a disadvantage. The current M8 AGS project is based on an older model of armored vehicles. In the past, he went through all stages of testing and received a recommendation for adoption. General Dynamics still has to go through the tests and prove its potential.

BAE Systems has already built an updated M8 prototype tank for the MPF program. Its competitors from General Dynamics are not yet ready to present a full-fledged prototype of its Griffin II. Nevertheless, the first samples of armored vehicles of the two models will have to go to tests in a few months - not later than the beginning of 2020.

Upbeat plans

The Mobile Protected Firepower program started a few years ago and so far has shown modest success. Over the past four years, several participating companies have submitted their projects, and two of them have reached the final stage of the program. Next year they will give real equipment for testing.

Despite the considerable duration of development work, the MPF program is in accordance with the established schedule. However, its outcome remains unknown. The final choice of a promising model for the army and the National Guard will be made only in a few years. In the meantime, it remains only to study the presented layout and wait for the display of full-fledged equipment.

Comments

[Operator]

The 120mm XM360 gun has a 44-caliber barrel compared to the 55-caliber barrel of the 120mm gun of the M1 Abrams tank.

Well, the fig was a fence?

[Kars]

I don’t remember the abbreviation with L55, I remember the leopard 2-5, but I don’t have an American. What kind of modernization is this?

[Operator]

"M1A2 SEP v3 is armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun with a barrel length of 55 calibers"
http://tanki-tut.ru/armata-protiv-abrams-i-type-10/

[Amateur]

Polish tank PL-1 is much more glamorous.

[Red_Baron]

And if you remove the covers and stylish reservations from it?

[Sanichsan]

if you peel the foam, it turns out that this is Strf 90

[Red_Baron]

This is what I had in mind; therefore, in spite of its futuristic forms, his reservation is very doubtful.

[Sanichsan]

By the way, you are aware that Polish "experts", and, by a strange coincidence, maskophiles, assured me that this miracle will go into series in 2018. project for believers

[Red_Baron]

I remember those times. But maybe in vain we are mischievous? The tank is really beautiful. And it does not matter to the tank itself that there is no possibility of production, serial orders, and everything else to appreciate it.
And I really did not like spitting at the time, like who needs your Armata, you don’t know how to make tanks at all, so look what white people can do. And all with this form.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: Red_Baron

The tank is really beautiful.

I would argue. after all, this is not a tank, but a concept. model glued with foam. a beautiful Tiger tank, a beautiful IS-2 tank, a beautiful T-72 tank, all these are tanks and they give aesthetic pleasure, and PL-01 never became a tank.

Quote: Red_Baron

And I really did not like spitting at the time, like who needs your Armata, you don’t know how to make tanks at all, so look what white people can do.

So who looked and what can

[PROVINCIAL]

Attempts to create an analogue of "Sprut" which is produced for the RF Airborne Forces

[Lopatov]

Quote: PROVINCIAL

Attempts to create an analogue of "Sprut" which is produced for the RF Airborne Forces

And "Octopus" - an attempt to create "Sheridan"?

In fact, the machines are completely different and when they were created, they started / come from different settings.
"Octopus" is an anti-tank SPG.
"Griffin" - direct fire support vehicle

[5-9]

And not vice versa?
What shells will Griffin support? Cumulative-fragmentation? Or will they buy OFS from Germans? In principle, that with him, that without him - a mass grave.

[PROVINCIAL]

Colleague. With all due respect to you, learn the mat.chast or at least study the performance characteristics

[Blackgrifon]

Quote: PROVINCIAL

Attempts to create an analogue of "Sprut" which is produced for the RF Airborne Forces

You are not right.
1. An octopus is a tank destroyer / light tank (classify it as most people like it) with bulletproof / anti-shatter armor. And in the case of the beginning of the b / d, it will be used from ambushes or support infantry from a very long distance. If you simplify it completely, then the Octopus is a self-propelled rapier, adjusted for light armor and powerful weapons.
2. Griffin is a light (medium) tank. What does it mean that a full-fledged light tank, which is protected from 30 mm shells and is capable of supporting infantry in modern combat, including and in the city. It is more versatile.

[Red_Baron]

A wonderful program, under which two such quite different individuals fall. It looks like this, well, it should be a light tank with such characteristics, and then we’ll figure out what to do with it.
The M8 is lighter, agile with good pickup angles, not expensive. Suitable for combating barmaley well. I have exhausted the possibilities of modernization yesterday. Once a minimum of 2 took part in weapons programs and flew.
And against him there is something modern, but according to meager data there is nothing interesting against the background of many modern BBMs of this type. More armored, heavier, with the rear location of the tower, which on the one hand carries some restrictions, on the other, allows you to have a thick reservation on the forehead.
It has a hefty, heavy tower, from a full tank.
As far as I understand, by its most affected part, it can hold a serious blow. But judging by the layout does not have the ability to install additional booking boards. It looks like - I'm certainly armored not for nothing that I carry such a fool from above, but shoot only in front and only at the tower. I personally do not see another option. Since the landing vehicle does not carry all the nodes will fit in the hull, and the tower of such dimensions is only for protection.
Even from anti-tank grenades, which are the direct enemies of such a machine, it seems that all protection is entrusted to KAZ.
Griffin's ancestor 2 - Ajax just flaunts a powerful onboard mounted armor.

[sen]

Want a tank lighter than the M1 Abrams? What to reinvent the wheel? They would take our T-90 as a basis and “pump” it.

[Red_Baron]

Are you alright? Is there at least one reason to take a potential enemy’s tank? I’m not talking about my own developments, production, jobs, the movement of the economy and so on, I understand this is too complicated. But at least the fact that the tank will need spare parts, trained repair crews and more.
By the way, despite the large tower, the Griffin 2 is lighter than the T-90 and decent. And even if they decide to put additional mounted armor and some other equipment will still be easier.

[sen]

I said to take as a basis, not copy. Our weapon is one of the best in the world. America already copies our machine guns, machine guns, and grenade launchers. And I don’t talk about China at all.

[Red_Baron]

American is also one of the best in the world and everyone is copying it too, so what?

Quote: sen

I said take as a basis

Once again - why?

[sen]

The problem with the Abrams tank is that it is too heavy for the infrastructure of the European theater of operations, unlike our T-90. On the other hand, making a tank lighter than the T-90 means making it more vulnerable. We are now adopting combat vehicles with a 57 mm cannon, which pierce the side of the Abrams, and it is quite possible that a burst from such a cannon will pierce the 38 t frontal armor of the Griffin II tank.

[5-9]

Well, why do we need an Octopus - of course, it is small, light and swims.
And why this nedotank, and even without the OFS sensible, amers? Babala Nem to operate Abrash?

[Red_Baron]

As your teacher said there - well, Americans, well, tuppyyyyyy!
Come up with why you need a light tank - a million options. What the Americans see. But the idea itself is great. The thunderstorm of any light equipment on the battlefield is very versatile. And even modern tanks can do a lot, preferably from closed positions.

[5-9]

Well, somehow the massive presence of Striker in a heap from behind fully confirms Zadornov’s opinion about the Americans, at least in the field of BBM.
A "great" idea ... like any parafinish idea becomes great in 50 years (I'm talking about the collapse of the idea of ​​light tanks during the Arab-Israeli wars)?
Why is it more formidable than an infantry fighting vehicle with an ATGM? What is the versatility of a "tank" without an OFS?

In addition to the desire to save money using this instead of MBT, I see no reason (the desire to cut the money at least in development is obviously not worth mentioning).

[Red_Baron]

Quote: 5-9

Well, somehow the massive presence of Striker in a heap from behind fully confirms Zadornov’s opinion about the Americans, at least in the field of BBM.

In the bbm area? So it can be said in the field of devices with wheels.
Why is a striker worse than other armored personnel carriers of its class? A bunch of imposts? and good incarnations by the way, especially considering the areas of their action. Far from the best, of course, but it would be strange to expect just the perfect from a non-specially designed machine.

Quote: 5-9

A "great" idea ... like any parafinish idea becomes great in 50 years (I'm talking about the collapse of the idea of ​​light tanks during the Arab-Israeli wars)?

I don’t know how it is in your head. But where does the light tanks come from in the Arab-Israeli war? Replace the OBT with them does not work.

Quote: 5-9

In addition to the desire to save money using this instead of MBT, I see no reason (the desire to cut the money at least in development is obviously not worth mentioning).

Yes, all these stories about dough cut it already indicates that the head is not too healthy. If you want to talk about how someone steals where, then this is in other sections, there you will find great support. I personally, like many others, are interested in several other things.
This is approximately as you wrote above in the field of BBM. So here, if we take exaggeration so much, then we can say that any development in the field of technology is a desire to save money. Generally any. More productivity - more work for the same money, more armor - more likely that the money will not be lost and you will have to spend less new ones, better weapons - more chances to defeat the enemy and, therefore, again save and save money.
There are many reasons for using light tanks, for example not to use a microscope to chop nuts. At times, the mass of delivery is reduced while maintaining a large number of possibilities.

Quote: 5-9

Why is he more menacing than a BMP with ATGM?

At least by the fact that he can use the entire arsenal of artillery weapons, which is much cheaper and sometimes more functional than a gun. That can withstand a blow to the upper part of the hull from the same tanks

[5-9]

The Stryker is not an APC. Its appearance, in principle, was due to "I want to carry the box on Hercules, so that the vzhik - and quickly to any end by air, and so that on this base there was everything, everything for the war with the Papuans" ... in the end it turned out to be a freak with a bunch of flaws , which ... does not climb into Hercules ... well, stupid!

Drank you do not like? Yes, I’ll erase my fingers, write the names of American projects and the billions spent on them, which ended with mock-ups and even renderings ....

The third time I ask - is there an OFS for him?
Blow to the top of the hull ... from the tank ???? In VLD chtol? I did not see this in the article - only from small things. A lightweight M1 tower in the forehead, except from a 100-mm T-55, will save .... well, if it falls into the cheekbones.

In general, against any Papuans, the T-55 is many times more likely than this ...

[Red_Baron]

Quote: 5-9

Stryker - not an armored personnel carrier.

Of course an armored personnel carrier.

Quote: 5-9

Its appearance, in principle, was due to "I want to carry the box on Hercules, so that the vzhik - and quickly to any end by air, and so that on this base there was everything, everything for the war with the Papuans" ... in the end it turned out to be a freak with a bunch of flaws , which ... does not climb into Hercules ... well, stupid!

No, of course. It turned out, of course, not the most successful model, but completely. Which is perfectly delivered by landing transport, carries people and to some extent covers them. For everything else, there is Bradley.

Quote: 5-9

Drank you do not like? Yes, I’ll erase my fingers, write the names of American projects and the billions spent on them, which ended with mock-ups and even renderings ....

And for me, this concerns the fact that other people's money does not give you peace. Moreover, all this will be more than half a lie. Most of these projects always have a way out in the form of technology. The predecessors of Griffin 2 are well-armed under other names.
Any project provides a solution to some issues. And even the decision to close it is all the same research studies and their fruits.
And by the way the most important joke. No one else in these laments about cuts has and will not have an estimate of spending on technology and actually drank it himself. Not to bring a product to the market does not mean not to develop it. But who cares. This digging into a sea of ​​nonsense is completely not interesting to me. Even for perfectly justified options, you and your colleagues will still insist that everything was lost and all was stolen. This has passed many times.

Quote: 5-9

The third time I ask - is there an OFS for him?

Naturally. M242.

Quote: 5-9

Blow to the top of the hull ... from the tank ???? In VLD chtol?

No, to the tower.

Quote: 5-9

A lightweight M1 tower in the forehead, except from a 100-mm T-55, will save .... well, if it falls into the cheekbones.

Can I have any data on this or fantasy again?
"You can see that on the presented Griffin II model, the turret has returned to almost" normal "dimensions for the main tank - including due to the installation of very impressive modular armor units .."

Quote: 5-9

In general, against any Papuans, the T-55 is many times more likely than this ...

No, of course. This is complete nonsense. For this, the T-55 will need quick detection of the target in different weather conditions, tracking it, including rapidly moving it. Protection against anti-tank grenade launchers. Protection against mines and landmines. Remote-controlled modules for additional weapons. Good visibility. Without all this, and he doesn’t have it, it is useful at times less. And you can deal with it with fairly simple means using simple algorithms. In my opinion, the back of the hull and turrets break through large-caliber machine guns. It is not always possible to portray the king in the field. And if the enemy also has a T-55, then I don’t even know what could happen.
You can look at the experience of Israel. Where the most modern means are used against even not very well-armed people.

[Goldmoskit]

It looks like trying to give birth to something similar to our "Acacia"

[Red_Baron]

Acacia - Sau, this is a light tank. what is there in common?

[Goldmoskit]

"... the program for the development of a promising tracked armored vehicle with artillery artillery MPF ..." where does the word TANK appear here?

[Red_Baron]

Quote: GoldMoskit

"... the program for the development of a promising tracked armored vehicle with artillery artillery MPF ..." where does the word TANK appear here?

Well, I don’t know where you got this translation, so I found such a description.
"The Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) vehicle is a new combat vehicle required to address the capability gap identified within the Armys Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). This vehicle would be incorporated in the IBCT structure as a weapon system solution to provide a protected , long range, cyber resilient, precision, direct fire capability for early / forcible entry operations. "
Precise direct fire for quick response operations. So this is definitely not a self-propelled gun.

[Goldmoskit]

And the question: - Why should a tank be created under this program?
After all, the program indicates a caterpillar armored vehicle with artillery armament of a toned tonnage, as I understand it, to fill the gap in the army, as there is a 155 mm self-propelled artillery and there are BMPs and armored personnel carriers with an automatic gun, and with an average caliber it’s empty now without considering the tanks of the series M1A2. Remember the 1st and 2nd world where the most widespread and demanded average caliber was 75 and 76 mm.
Moreover, a caliber of 120 mm will allow both fighting with fortifications and with armored vehicles.

[Red_Baron]

And the article indicates and I gave you a quote, this is not to fill something in the army, but for the troops of the National Guard and rapid reaction forces. Roughly speaking and omitting some points, we can say something like our assault forces.
I'd love to understand what customers are guided by. If this is a quick reaction force operating in the army, then there is definitely Griffin 2. M8 does not fit the word at all. In this caliber there are no shells that could destroy modern MBTs in a direct strike.
If the focus is more on some kind of expeditionary force, then the M8 as a lighter, more mobile, perhaps more rapid-fire is better suited. Yes, and probably cheaper.

[Goldmoskit]

From the last:
- Price plays a big role.
- I think the experience in Iraq and Syria played a big role here. “Daily carpet bombing and large-caliber shelling is still costly and does not significantly speed up the process of capturing fortified settlements and heights, plus the political costs of using inadequate forces to solve narrow problems.
- In reality, if you look at the events (combat) that have taken place recently, you can see the inadequate and inappropriate use of NATO forces to the task at hand due to the lack of a "workhorse".

[Red_Baron]

I do not agree. Categorically.

Quote: GoldMoskit

Large-caliber daily bombing and shelling is still expensive and does not significantly accelerate the process of taking fortified settlements and heights

On the contrary. Compared to the fact that if it were done by other means, for example, ground-based would be much more expensive and risky.
There were no carpet bombings.
I don’t understand what you are writing at all. If shelling does not accelerate capture, then what? Artillery preparation is an essential element of land operations.

Quote: GoldMoskit

- In reality, if you look at the events (combat) that have taken place recently, you can see the inadequate and inappropriate use of NATO forces to the task at hand due to the lack of a "workhorse".

What is this expressed in comparison with what and what kind of workhorse?

I don’t understand why you wrote this, and what’s their program and the light tank under discussion?

[Goldmoskit]

Well, because the program does not say a word that it should be just a light tank.

[Red_Baron]

I threw you a quote in English, it clearly says the exact fire in direct view. This is not artillery. Similarly, weight restrictions. Well, you can call a BBM with a tank gun or something else, but what would it be if not a light tank?

[Goldmoskit]

The program states that the machine must fire from long distances as self-propelled guns, fire in piyama visibility and be able to participate directly with fighters in battle (for example, when taking fortifications or in a city ...). Father-in-law, we see the requirements for self-propelled guns and tanks, plus the functionality for the survival of a machine in a primary battle with limited mass - a very difficult task.

[Red_Baron]

Quote: GoldMoskit

The program states that the machine must fire from long distances as self-propelled guns,

Can I quote for this?

Quote: GoldMoskit

Survival of a car in a primary battle with limited mass is a very difficult task.

Not really. You can see for example German Links. Hanged with powerful enough armor. Yes, even the old Vorrior claims that his ceramic armor perfectly holds shells for hand grenade launchers. And this is an IFV with airborne squads. Without them, layout and booking are much easier. This is not a panacea and they do not get the capabilities of the tank, but they protect against typical threats to these vehicles.

[Goldmoskit]

I think they want to get a Helket-type car with more advanced functionality:
- support for attacking settlements and heights with the possibility of knocking out of the fortifications plus a short surviving machine from hand-held anti-tank weapons in order to be able to realize their capabilities.

[Red_Baron]

I can not agree.

Quote: GoldMoskit

I think they want to get a Helket-type car with more advanced functionality:

Well, judging by the descriptions on this site and others, they do not want to get an anti-tank weapon, but a multifunctional one. I can be mistaken, perhaps insufficient information is available.

Quote: GoldMoskit

short machine survivability from hand-held anti-tank weapons in order to realize their capabilities.

On the contrary, as far as judging the survival rate is planned very high. The hull protects against automatic guns, and the tower, although lighter than that of Abrams, is supplemented by powerful additional blocks. Most likely, KAZ will stand the same way.

[Goldmoskit]

I agree with you

[Goldmoskit]

Interesting: "Akatsiya" was designed as a self-propelled self-propelled gun, but it is mainly used as a vehicle to support assault in local battles and is very effective, even though cardboard.

[Goldmoskit]

I think they want to get a machine like "Helket" with more advanced functionality that can be deployed anywhere in the world and used in local conflicts:
- the fight against armored vehicles (more or less)
- Direct support during the assault on settlements and fortified areas.
Then Griffen 2 is more than adequate for solving problems.

[Goldmoskit]

I'm sorry for the grammar, fingers are larger than letters :-)