Easier than easy: than the US wants to complement Abrams

Easier than easy: than the US wants to complement Abrams

Competition for the contest

The US Ground Forces armored fleet, despite the considerable age of many vehicles, has good potential for modernization, which, in particular, has been shown by the recent installation of the Trophy active defense complex on Abrams and plans to equip infantry fighting vehicles with it. However, this is not enough for the Americans with their colossal (first place in the world) military budget and the broadest capabilities of the military-industrial complex. More recently, in the United States, they again started talking about the program. Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), designed to find a replacement for the M2 infantry fighting vehicle. As it turned out, the United States was forced to reconsider the requirements in the direction of more "realistic", while the idea of ​​replacing the old BMP as such was not abandoned.

No less interesting is another program - Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF), designed to find a developer for a new combat vehicle, sometimes called a "light tank", which generally conveys the essence of the issue. This is not such a large-scale program as the aforementioned OMFV: no one will seek a replacement for Abrams. At least for now. According to the bmpd blog, the goal of the program is to build 504 serial MPF machines. First of all, they should be equipped with the individual companies planned for the formation (staffing of 14 companies) in infantry brigades (Infantry Brigade Combat teams). Such a company should be introduced into each of the 33 infantry brigades of the regular army and the US National Guard with the achievement of combat readiness of the first company in fiscal year 2025.

The mass of the combat vehicle should vary in the range of 30-40 tons; for comparison: mass tank M1A2SEP Abrams - over 63 tons. Thanks to armament, consisting of 105-mm / 120-mm guns, as well as new shells, a light tank will be able to effectively deal with much heavier vehicles, including the T-72 main battle tank.

The machine created within the framework of Mobile Protected Firepower should have good mobility, however, the protection will be significantly less than that of MBT. On the other hand, the ground forces want to equip the light tank with an active defense complex, which, although it does not become a full-fledged alternative to the armor of the main battle tank, will help the MPF survive at least several attacks from anti-tank missile systems by eliminating threats from firing striking elements.

General Dynamics Project

On April 22, General Dynamics Corporation and the U.S. Ground Forces held a public demonstration of a prototype of a new light tank developed under the MPF program. The presentation was held during a visit by US Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy to the General Dynamics Ground System plant.

Strictly speaking, we could see the general concept of the project before. As part of last year's 2019 Modern Day Marine exhibition and conference held in Quantico, General Dynamics showed a model of a promising light tank, designated Griffin II. The tank is being developed on the basis of the previously shown Griffin I. The latter is a fighting vehicle based on the ASCOD 2 chassis with a modified lightweight version of the M1A2SEPv2 Abrams tank turret. It was supposed to install a new 120 mm XM360 cannon on a light tank.

Immediately you need to pay attention to one important aspect that can be misleading. Now General Dynamics is creating another Griffin - Griffin III. The infantry fighting vehicle is the one that was offered to the Ground Forces as a replacement for the M2 Bradley as part of the OMFV program mentioned above. It is noteworthy that during a visit to the General Dynamics Ground System, McCarthy showed both Griffin. It will be difficult to say whether this will affect the decision to choose a BMP from General Dynamics: recall that in the framework of an earlier stage of the OMFV competition, this vehicle simply did not have competitors for a number of reasons.

As for the presented tank, there are no special "revolutions" here. As expected, the concept of the machine is based on previously proven technical solutions. According to Army Recognition, the tank uses the M1A2 Sep V3 fire control system and Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV). The base of armament is a 105-mm gun, in addition to it, the tank carries a 12,7-mm machine gun. The engine and driver are located in front of the machine, the tower is shifted back.

Bae Systems Project

The British project for the Mobile Protected Firepower contest, unlike the General Dynamics tank, has been known for a long time. Back in 2018, BAE showed the M8 Armored Gun System (AGS), which will compete for the victory. The offer from Misty Albion is nothing more than an upgraded version of the M8 light tank - an experienced 80s airborne combat vehicle.

She has a difficult fate. Initially, the light tank was developed on an initiative by FMC. The machine had a combat weight of 19 to 25 tons, depending on the configuration, and was equipped with a 105 mm M35 gun in a remote installation with an automatic loader. Since the United States reduced funding for defense projects in the 90s, the M8 did not become a production version. At the same time, his narrow airborne specialization has stood in the way of export success. As a result, work on the car was stopped in 1996.

It is difficult to say whether the British will be able to take into account the mistakes of past developers, but some important improvements have already been made. Recall, during the AUSA Global 2019 exhibition, BAE Systems presented an updated version of the combat vehicle equipped with the Iron Fist active protection system developed by the Israeli IMI Systems. This is an advanced KAZ, first tested in 2006. The system located above the combat vehicle creates a protected hemisphere, tracking threats using radars. Interceptors are made of easily combustible materials, which minimizes the damage associated with the destruction of enemy ammunition flying up to the tank. “Our solution is based on the needs of IBCT and the emerging threats that they face,” says BAE.

Comparison and Potential

Due to the relatively limited information about new machines, their comparison with each other, as well as with other conditional analogues, is difficult. However, shortly after the General Dynamics presentation, “strange” attempts appeared to draw far-reaching conclusions. In the West, for some reason, they again started talking about the T-14 on the basis of “Almaty”, although not one of the machines participating in the MPF competition is close to its analogue.

Even more mixed is the reaction of a number of Russian observers. “The new US light tanks could not surpass the Russian Octopus-SD,” Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the official press agency of the Russian government, titled her story.

The incorrectness of the comparison is due to the fact that Octopus (and the authors of the material themselves admit it), probably has a much lower degree of protection than the new western samples. Which does not mean that the "Octopus-SD" is an unsuccessful or unnecessary car.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    April 29 2020 18: 14
    The mass of the combat vehicle should vary in the range of 30-40 tons;
    Hmm ... "easier than easy." I think that the American company has more chances, since its project offers both a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle, which are very similar in design, which will favorably affect many issues related to supply, maintenance, operation.
    1. +2
      April 29 2020 18: 34
      Quote: svp67
      Hmm ... "easier than easy"
      The T-62 would fit in quite well. And they saved some money ... It’s a pity that all of them ...
      1. +1
        April 30 2020 00: 05
        Quote: bk0010
        The T-62 would fit in quite well. And they saved some money ...

        And what about the T-62’s mine protection? Yes, and speed, etc. indicators? Maybe then Sherman, Li3?))
      2. 0
        April 30 2020 01: 11
        Buy from ARE. laughing
    2. +2
      April 29 2020 19: 00
      Quote: svp67
      Hmm ... "easier than easy."

      "Globmaster" seems to be pulling 77 tons.

      The form factor "for Hercules" will definitely not fit
    3. +1
      April 30 2020 03: 32
      As for the Russian MBT, the striped light tank.
      I'm waiting for the striped middle "Mouse" to kick up. laughing
  2. 0
    April 29 2020 18: 14
    There is money, let them spend. In the event of a full-fledged war (with us), it will still not work to fully supply a potential theater of operations in Europe with this technique and spare parts. And behind the "puddle" our tanks have nothing to do.
    1. 0
      7 May 2020 17: 19
      Why do we need to organize a theater in Europe?
      1. 0
        8 May 2020 09: 33
        Did I really say that to us ??? It seems that we are not transporting our tanks to Mexico at our bases, but somehow quite the opposite. They are taking ... Already right across the border you can look at them. Question ... Why are they driving? Plow the land? I think not for this. If their tanks are in Pshekia, then they will not necessarily shoot. And if they shoot, then where else if not in Europe.
        1. 0
          8 May 2020 10: 15
          The Poles and the Baltic states had the experience of “joining” a large neighbor in the recent past, they do not want it to be repeated (which is encouraged by a number of our officials who reason how many days will be occupied).
          Being in NATO (with its 5 article on mutual assistance), with the presence of a certain number of US military (and security and "hostages", the killing of which will obligate the US leadership to take decisive steps), they sleep calmer.
          In any case, in the current situation, the price of capture and occupation of these countries has increased many times.
          At the same time, a small US military contingent located in Poland or the Baltic states is clearly not enough for military operations against Russia.
  3. +6
    April 29 2020 18: 47
    The mass of the combat vehicle should vary in the range of 30-40 tons
    a light tank will be able to effectively deal with much heavier vehicles, including the T-72 main battle tank

    I did not understand, the T-72 is 3 tons heavier, well, 5 in the latest version. And this much harder? The author of this passage is jap napalm)))
  4. +1
    April 29 2020 18: 52
    A light tank has a place on the battlefield. The BMP and BMD will breathe a sigh of relief, which often performed tasks that a light tank should "play".
    1. 0
      April 29 2020 19: 25
      Quote: Leader of the Redskins
      BMP and BMD will "sigh" with relief,

      BMP / d carry on / in themselves .. what will LT, without armor and cover MS .. for me a riddle .. Just do not remember about Octopus .., it is positioned as Fri, and even landing.
      1. +1
        April 29 2020 20: 26
        Quote: dvina71
        BMP / d carry on themselves / in the landing .. that will do lt, without armor and cover MS

        Why without cover?
        You will remember their states.
        The "heavy" brigades have Abrams, the Stryker has at least an MGS M1128, a direct-fire close-fire combat vehicle with a 105-mm gun.
        And the "light" brigades have nothing. Generally. And there are 33 out of 58.
        1. 0
          April 29 2020 20: 53
          Quote: Spade
          Why without cover

          It's not about the staffing list .., but a horse in a vacuum, so to speak .. BPM3 is not only armed not with a child's desk, it also has a full-fledged compartment on board ..., it loses to such a setup unconditionally.
          1. +2
            April 29 2020 22: 48
            Experience bd the landing is more often located ON the armor, and not inside the armored personnel carrier / infantry fighting vehicle. The same compartment will sit on the tank. And in terms of firepower and armor of lectures, the tank wins. But this does not mean that BMP / BTR should be discarded. At lt just have your own niche.
        2. 0
          April 30 2020 02: 06
          the "light" brigades have nothing. Generally. And there are 33 of 58.

          In USA (M) F - there is generally no such number of ground combat brigades. Neither 58 nor even 33.
          1. 0
            April 30 2020 08: 47
            Quote: Zementbomber
            In USA (M) F - there is generally no such number of ground combat brigades. Neither 58 nor even 33.

            There is. Because the National Guard is also an army
            1. -1
              April 30 2020 09: 08
              No. National Guardи and Air Guardи states - not are part of the US Army and USAF respectively.
              1. 0
                April 30 2020 09: 28
                Quote: Zementbomber
                No. National and State Air Guard - not included in the US Army and USAF respectively.

                Well, a very controversial statement ... But that is not the point

                Enter or not enter, the tenth matter.
                To prove that they do not need to be taken into account, it is necessary to confirm that the National Guard brigades There is no
                If you cannot do this, we will leave the figure "58" as the target for reductions by 2020 as part of the announced reform
              2. 0
                6 May 2020 13: 42
                Quote: Zementbomber
                No. National and State Air Guards - not part of the US Army and USAF respectively

                What difference does it make or not if they participate in the same databases as the army?
                1. +1
                  6 May 2020 15: 44
                  a light infantry battalion, an armored brigade and a group of "green berets" all participate "in the same b / d." And nevertheless - lumping them into one heap-mala is usually highly discouraged. smile
  5. 0
    April 29 2020 19: 01
    Amers need to sell BMP-3, they generally fooled from 19 t
  6. +3
    April 29 2020 19: 48
    They decided to invent t 72? Yes, for the price of their dad, it will be possible at 72 and the weight will be reduced and the KMS with KAZ will be modernized. And if you also have a 105 mm gun, you can make a doll.
  7. -2
    April 29 2020 20: 09
    M8 Armored Gun System bulletproof armor, weight 1 level 19t, 3 level (protection from 7,62x51) 25 t, 105 gun,
    Griffin bulletproof armor (30mm) + if the forehead pierces, the engine will protect the crew, 38t, 120mm gun, only it is shorter than the abrams, which penetrates the t-90 at any distance. Not a fact that is enough for the t-90 and for armata.

    So the choice is between 2 concepts. Or strengthening the BMP nonsense, but with armor that does not save from a heavy machine gun. Or a lightweight and simplified version of the abrams. Bradley already copes well, in extreme cases, you can remove the landing party and fasten a 105mm gun on it, it will withstand it. Therefore, Grifin has no competitors
    1. 0
      April 29 2020 21: 46
      you can’t drop the griffin from the parachute system and even 38 tons shaving from the platform, so it’s definitely not suitable for the airborne forces, the m8 has already passed such tests
      1. +2
        April 29 2020 21: 59
        So this is a replacement for the army, and not for the airborne, m8 paratroopers did not buy.
  8. +1
    April 29 2020 20: 28
    I believe that a light tank has a very specific task: to be where there are no enemy tanks. The United States for a long time did not face the shelling of tanks from tank guns.
  9. 0
    April 29 2020 21: 27
    The only justified solution in equipping the army with light tanks is the desire to put them inside the aircraft in order to quickly transfer thousands of kilometers. However
    how much they can compete with the enemy’s MBT is an obvious question.
    If only against obviously weak
    army, with the T-55, or without them at all.
    1. +1
      April 29 2020 23: 02
      The only justified decision in equipping the army with light tanks is the desire to put them inside the aircraft,
      Well, why, you can still play from cheapness: like each platoon has a support tank. Make a reservation so that it holds around 20 mm (so that all non-tank wearable could not penetrate), and the forehead - an automatic cannon of the enemy (we still have 20 mm, NATO has 35 mm) and a high-ballistic gun 100 mm rifled. And ATGM.
      1. 0
        April 30 2020 02: 10
        each platoon on the support tank

        Soviet BUSV Bride of What Year. smile
  10. +4
    April 29 2020 21: 33
    An octopus is still more of a self-propelled gun, absolutely nothing out of defense
    1. -1
      11 June 2020 17: 34
      Octopus for the landing !!!
      1. -2
        11 June 2020 17: 36
        The presence of an airborne assault is now no guarantee that they will be dropped somewhere) and even with equipment, in modern realities, the Airborne Forces are used as elite infantry, no more.
  11. 0
    April 30 2020 04: 32
    The griffin looks awesome inside.
  12. 0
    1 May 2020 01: 10
    The Bae option looks more modern.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned), Kirill Budanov (included to the Rosfinmonitoring list of terrorists and extremists)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev Lev; Ponomarev Ilya; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; Mikhail Kasyanov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"