Military Review

When replacing means a radical change. Overview of light armored vehicles. (Part of 1) USA

37



When the venerable Jeep (or rather the Ford Mutt evolutionary model) needed a replacement in the middle of the 80s of the last century, the American army chose AM General (High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle), a highly mobile multi-purpose wheeled vehicle. And although it was larger, more functional and more powerful, however, it remained just a four-wheel drive general purpose vehicle. However, then came the Yugoslav war with its mines and snipers, and the question arose about strengthening all types of protection, while especially systems from the company O'Gara-Hess and Eisenhardt. Then came the second Iraqi conflict and the Afghan war with roadside bombs, and more armor needed to be added so that the car could perform tasks for which it was not originally intended. Almost 30 years later, something needs to be changed ...

The program for replacing the HMMWV (usually called the Hummer - Hummer or Humvee - Humvee) remains at the top of the list of programs for light armored vehicles, given the number of replaced equipment. The program is constantly evolving, and three competing teams (BAE Systems with Navistar, Lockheed Martin with BAE Systems Mobility and Protection Systems and General Tactical Vehicles formed by General Dynamics Land Systems and AM General), won the technology demonstration contracts, presented their prototypes to it in the middle of 2011 year.

USA

When the EMD (Engineering & Manufacturing Development) phase of the JLTV machine was announced and the final RFP was set for March 27, 2012 (extended from the original January 26), several companies announced their participation in competition. All this only benefited the army and the marines, who wanted to see the average price of the base vehicle 10 to 20 percent lower than the original cost, about $ 300. The cost reduction plan was only saved by the revision of their requirements by these branches of the military: based on the threat of the program closure by the Senate Appropriations Committee in September 000, the US Army and Marines relaxed their transportability requirements, which reduced the target cost per unit to 2011 - $ 220000 (with an optional B-kit booking of a maximum of $ 270000) and cut the EMD stage from 50000 months to 48 months.

As far as modernization of the HMMWV fleet is competitive against the JLTV program, time will tell, although the trend is clearly aimed at purchasing new cars


When replacing means a radical change. Overview of light armored vehicles. (Part of 1) USA
In the autumn of 2011, AM General launched its new Otokar Cobra on the basis of components developed by AM General for the American JLTV program.


The army stated that they intend there, starting from 2015, to purchase "at least" 20000 JLTV machines with an option for another number, while the Marine Corps could postpone their acquisition until the end of the 20s. The corps plans to purchase about 5500 machines, 4650 CTV (Combat Tactical Vehicle - combat vehicle) and 850 CSV (Combat Support Vehicle - combat support vehicle).

The fleet, along with the command of special operations can join the section of the pie, the Navy have a potential need for 400 - 500 CTV and 150 - 200 CSV, although the special forces have not yet decided on the number. This may affect the cost reduction process and again jeopardize the future of the JLTV program.

The JLTV competitor for a long time was a deep redesign of the Humvee fleet, although a number of studies indicated that a converted Humvee (better known as HMMWV) may be economically unprofitable. The chances that the MECV (Modernization Expanded Capability Vehicle) vehicle upgrade program - upgrading the HMMWV official language - will ever see the light is now zero after the 26 Ministry of Defense January 2012 announced its closure, as it was determined exceeds existing needs.
The main changes in the requirements were the army’s decision to have the same level of protection as the M-ATV. In addition, the cancellation of category B reduced the number of JLTV variants to two: a CTV combat vehicle carrying four passengers and 3500 pounds (1587 kg) and a combat support vehicle CSV carrying two passengers and 5100 pounds (2313 kg) of cargo. In mid-March, 2012, six bidders submitted an application: among them AM General, BAE Systems, General Tactical Vehicles, Lockheed Martin, Navistar and Oshkosh. The decision on the finalists was expected at the end of June 2012 of the year, but was postponed until 23 of August 2012. And so on this day three finalists were announced: Lockheed Martin, AM General and Oshkosh.

BRV-O from AM General during running trials. The company decided to independently go to the next stage of the JLTV program. The Blast-Resistant Vehicle-Off-road or "Bravo" explosion-proof off-road vehicle uses well-tested components developed by AM General in recent years.


The GDELS Eagle version is offered by General Dynamics for the JLTV contract, although most of the information is not disclosed.


GENERAL TACTICAL VEHICLES Group

Based on the revision of the requirements of the army in the industrial group General Tactical Vehicles (consisting of AM General and General Dynamics Land Systems), several possibilities were discussed with a view to ensuring maximum flexibility and preserving the GTV group itself; it was decided to provide each company with the opportunity to compete with an individual application, while maintaining the overall GTV offer. At AM General, they decided to go at their own peril and risk, taking as a basis the work done on upgrading the Humvee and on the JDTV EMD program for automotive components such as engine, suspension and transmission, as well as booking solutions associated with both of these programs. .

The correct combination of developed and existing components gave birth to the machine Blast-Resistant Vehicle-Off-road-abbreviated BRV-O, the colloquial pronunciation of Bravo. As with the other applicants, little is known about BRV-O. While AM ​​General reports that the prototypes made and tested one hundred percent meet the requirements of the JLTV program (which is quite natural), the only details voiced concern the power plant. This is a 3,2-liter diesel turbocharged Optimizer with an 300 horsepower, in other words, the same is on the prototypes of the previous stage of the JLTV. AM General, which bases its car on the concept of a crew's armored capsule (compartment-cockpit), collaborates with the best experts in booking, while automotive components, such as self-leveling suspension and transmission, are well-tested, mass-produced systems, which reduces risks and costs.

For its part, GDLS decided not to declare itself, but offered to participate in the competition in the GTV group by proposing, together with AM General, an Eagle car of Swiss origin, thus adding a finished military product to this program. Although slightly modified to meet American requirements, the car is based on the latest Eagle variants (they are not based on the Humvee, but on the Duro chassis - originally a Swiss project from Bucher-Guyer).

Lockheed Martin offers its JLTV solution also for the UK MRV-P program. In the USA, the LM team remained unchanged, although the car was significantly improved.


Selected for the first stage of the JLTV application, BAE Systems further refined its Valanx machine to meet the demands of the US military.


LOCKHEED MARTIN Group:

Since the end of the technology development phase, this industrial group has remained in the same composition. In addition to Lockheed Martin, its other members are BAE Systems Mobility and Protection Systems (responsible for the V-shaped hull and blast wave impact reduction devices), Alcoa Defense (aluminum components for weight reduction) and JWF Defense. As we know, the original proposal for JLTV had to be redone due to changes in requirements, but this required the accumulation of certain experience, including more than 257 000 km of running tests. Improvements compared to previous models concerned reliability, resource, and especially weight loss, that is, those characteristics that Lockheed Martin considers to be the most important.

Indeed, for JLTV, this is not just a truck, but an integrated system that includes training, modeling and maintenance during the entire life cycle. At the stage of submission of proposals, the company considers this experience as its plus. Lockheed Martin also offers its solution for the British Army MRV-P (Multi Role Vehicle - Protected, Multi Purpose Vehicle - Protected) currently at the concept stage. Although some tasks can be performed by machines already in use or ordered under urgent requirements, Lockheed Martin believes that there is still a need for more secure, universal machines. The company is convinced that the cost of the new JLTV machine may correspond to the structure of the British program, given of course the American "origin" of the JLTV.

BAE and NORTHROP GRUMMAN

BAE Systems has retained its offer from Valanx, although this machine has been upgraded to meet new requirements. Another significant development was the invitation of Northrop Grumman to the team, which initially included only Meritor Defense, the company responsible for the suspension. Northrop Grumman will be responsible for the integration of the hardware and software of operational management, computers and communications. The first significant upgrade was the propulsion system, the former six-liter diesel engine Cummins V8 with the power 340 hp. was replaced by a Ford Power Stroke 6,7-liter turbocharged diesel engine with an estimated HP 400 horsepower.
The company BAE Systems has completed complex work on the reconfiguration and weight reduction in order to meet the new requirements set by the army and marines, leaving a mass reserve for the installation of various additional tools and equipment. As for mobility, the new Valanx should retain the independent ProTec Series 30 High Mobility Suspension developed by Meritor Defense, which features dual levers and pneumatic semi-active shock absorbers providing adjustable ground clearance from 178 to 610 mm.

Navistar's JLTV program offers are mainly based on the Saratoga car, which according to the company’s statement complies with the JLTV requirements for 85 percent.


NAVISTAR: This company offered a variant of your car Saratoga. The base machine has a total weight of just under 10 tons with a load capacity exceeding JLTV requirements, as it can carry 7200 pounds (3265 kg) and a crew of 4 people plus an arrow. The car is equipped with a turbocharged engine with intercooling MaxxForce D6.0 V8 with 325 horsepower. with a six-speed automatic transmission supplemented by a two-stage transfer case. The car has a fully independent pneumatic spring suspension, which allows not only adjusting the ground clearance depending on road conditions and speed, but also reduce the overall height from the operational 2,97 meter to the 1,93 meter for transporting it through the air (the machine has a length of 10,36 m and a width of 2,59 m ).
According to sources in the company, the basic version of Saratoga is 85 percent compliant with JLTV requirements. The remaining 15 percent is achieved through minor design modifications, namely weight changes and integration of the digital architecture in order to meet the requirements of the American program.

OSHKOSH
This is one of the companies that did not receive a contract to develop JLTV in 2008. The project L-ATV (Light combat tactical All Terrain Vehicle - light combat off-road vehicle), developed at one time to meet American requirements, used the experience gained by the company in the development of the M-ATV (Mrap-All Terrain Vehicle; the car was the development of the Mrap concept, aided by concerns about its mobility). Oshkosh solution is based on a lighter car with independent suspension TAK-4. In the newest version of the L-ATV project, this solution was further developed (which makes it a sixth-generation machine) thanks to the installation of the Oshkosh TAK-4i intelligent independent suspension providing the 508 mm wheel travel and, therefore, improved off-road maneuverability.

The bottom (bottom) of the car is free of such major components as, for example, a transmission or transfer case that could become a threat in case of an explosion; New protective kits designed for M-ATV machines can be installed here to provide Mrap-level protection for the crew. Although current requirements do not include hybrid systems, Oshkosh has developed a ProPulse diesel-electric propulsion system that will allow it to produce up to 70 kW of "export capacity." L-ATV was developed in six stages, the first prototypes were used to develop promising independent suspensions and a new compartment cab, the TAK-4i was added to the second generation, and ProPulse was installed in the third-generation prototypes (they took part in the Baja 2010 year of racing). 1000 and completed them).

The fourth-generation prototype was distinguished by an advanced crew protection system and was involved in explosion proof tests. The fifth generation prototype was modular to simplify the introduction of emerging technologies and threat mitigation systems, while the sixth generation machine currently offered for the JLTV program has more than 40000 kilometers to run.

Oshkosh L-ATV is unloaded from the C130 Hercules aircraft. The machine was developed in several stages and now has passed over 40000 km


Oshkosh was not selected for the first stage of the JLTV application, but is currently taking part in a new competition with its L-ATV car.


At the Eurosatory 2012, the Crab was shown on the red carpet, which has a number of specific characteristics. In addition to its 25 mm CTI tower, which turns it into one of the heavily armed light armored vehicles, it can move sideways like a crab
Originator:
Armada Compendium October 2012
Articles from this series:
When replacing means a radical change. Overview of light armored vehicles. (Part of 1) USA
When replacing means a radical change. Overview of light armored vehicles. (Part of 2) France
When replacing means a radical change. Overview of light armored vehicles. (Part of 3)
When replacing means a radical change. Overview of light armored vehicles. (Part of 4)
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bask
    bask 31 May 2013 09: 29 New
    +4
    JLTV is a new generation of armored vehicles, classified: as a modular, light tactical multi-purpose vehicle, with enhanced mine protection (IEDs, mines and other threats))) with a large payload (in relation to its own weight)). Machines are designed from scratch, the main efforts, when designing, to increase the level of protection of the bottom, equivalent to machines of class MRAP. But more mobile and energy-equipped. Compared to Humvee, the JLTV is designed with a much more powerful engine, from 250 to 360 horsepower, as well as with a 570-amp generator. All JLTV armored cars will have a modular reservation.
    The Army plans to purchase about 49 JLTVs and Marines in 5500 in early 2015 at a cost of about $ 250 per vehicle ... since last August, when three industry teams led by AM General, Lockheed Martin and Oshkosh Defense all won engineering and manufacturing development contracts. Each team is preparing to deliver 000 prototypes to the army for testing this August "" "[media = http: //www.defensenews.com/article/22/DEF
    REG02 / 305090012 / US-Army-May-Push-Back-JLTV-Rethink-Armed-Aerial-Scout-Progr]
    1. mogus
      mogus 31 May 2013 10: 16 New
      +2
      570 amperes and if 12 volts, then it is 6,84 kW. (And if 24 volts, then kW is twice as much.) Where is this power?
      1. laurbalaur
        laurbalaur 31 May 2013 12: 28 New
        +3
        The article indicates "export capacity". I think it can be used to power a field hospital.
        1. mogus
          mogus 1 June 2013 03: 02 New
          +2
          armored, self-propelled, armed generator? maybe to power the remote control drives, but still redundant with interest. for a medium-power radar, but it’s hardly possible to place it on a car.
    2. Apostle
      Apostle 31 May 2013 11: 29 New
      +5
      "At Eurosatory 2012, the Crab was shown on the red carpet, which has a number of specific characteristics. In addition to its 25 mm CTI turret, which turns it into one of the most heavily armed light armored vehicles, it can move sideways like a crab" ... Cool. ..
  2. avt
    avt 31 May 2013 09: 33 New
    +3
    And here again, it is interesting - despite all the super achievements in electronics, they make a bunch of armored windows for visual viewing and turret towers are fenced off for shooters with the same windows again and do not bother with remote turrets! What is this request ? They are stupid according to Zadornov laughing or real combat experience!?
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 31 May 2013 09: 58 New
      +4
      Perhaps due to the fact that in the event of an electrician explosion, the machine may fail and the crew will then be blind. And armored glass is not much heavier than ordinary armor.
    2. Pimply
      Pimply 31 May 2013 13: 13 New
      +7
      Machines are designed to work in the residential sector. The machine gunner at the top is not only a machine gunner, but also a sentinel with a wider viewing angle than the camera, and a patrol officer who can issue a civil order.
      1. avt
        avt 31 May 2013 18: 29 New
        +2
        Quote: Pimply
        Machines are designed to work in the residential sector.

        Yeah, especially if you consider that here on the site recently a new modification of "Abrams" was shown exactly with such a glass booth. Looks like they were going to patrol on tanks and give civilian orders. laughing Or maybe everything is much more prosaic? Maybe there is simply no reliable remote control system, and if there is, it is not convenient to use it in real and not "discoverable" conditions? It turns out that it is not the generals who are fighting at the exhibition with super technology. laughing
        1. Pimply
          Pimply 31 May 2013 19: 23 New
          +1
          Have you seen the tank patrol? Oh well
  3. malkor
    malkor 31 May 2013 09: 47 New
    +2
    Strong competition in this niche, probably the cake is very big, since so many companies are trying to share it
    1. Apostle
      Apostle 31 May 2013 11: 27 New
      +3
      Surely big: "buy" at least "20000 cars" at a price of $ 220000 ... no problem with math?
  4. Nayhas
    Nayhas 31 May 2013 09: 59 New
    +2
    I'm running cold for Oshkosh! Or is it wrong?
  5. Roll
    Roll 31 May 2013 10: 31 New
    -1
    wassat This is the right direction, if the BMP is a dead end branch, although 20 percent of the armored fleet should be given to it, then the armored cars are a real prospect. A soldier on a turret constantly inspects the terrain, But on a remote turret, a soldier sniffs. The BMP on the armor of which the soldiers are sitting is better than the armored car, where the soldiers are in a comfortable condition and arrive on the battlefield fresh and not tired. It’s easier to leave an armored car in case of an attack, it’s one thing to drop an armored infantry fighting vehicle in full outfit from a meter high and onto a rocky road, and another thing to get out through an armored door. And then psychologically, a soldier in an infantry fighting vehicle is ready to fire at first far away from an infantry fighting vehicle and only then take the battle, and immediately return fire on the armored car.
    1. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 31 May 2013 19: 03 New
      +4
      The first time I meet the opinion that the BMP is a dead end. Given current trends in increasing armor and weapons, your opinion is somewhat unreasonable.

      None of the armored vehicles in the article can cope with the tasks that confront the BMP - fire support for advancing infantry and tanks.
      BMP wins in defense, armament, and the number of troops. And armored SUVs are actually light armored personnel carriers.

      "And then, psychologically, a soldier on an infantry fighting vehicle, when fired upon, is ready to first leap away from the infantry fighting vehicle and only then take battle, and immediately open return fire on the armored car." - if our troops have such a tradition of riding on armor, this does not mean that everyone has the same. And then, this tradition is not from a good life ...
      1. Roll
        Roll 31 May 2013 19: 22 New
        +3
        fellow And why, for example, a crab, which in the picture below cannot support the infantry. And then the dead end means 20 percent they need to have for specific tasks, the rest of the armored cars will cope better, the fact is that transporting infantry to the trenches is a rare task now, and it is better to support the infantry with classic tanks, wheeled, self-propelled guns, terminators that are specifically for this intended, and in the BMP after the landing, a very truncated version of the support of infantry.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 02: 30 New
          +4
          BMPs do not bring infantry to the trenches - this is the task of armored personnel carriers. What can a company of light armored cars do if it encounters a company equipped with infantry fighting vehicles? The answer is simple - to die heroically. Light equipment can facilitate troop transportation, patrolling, patrol, but a full battle for her is a death sentence.
          1. Roll
            Roll 1 June 2013 09: 41 New
            +2
            angry The task of both infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is the same: to bring infantry to the trenches, And two companies on armored cars, against a company on bmp, the result depends on the situation, maybe the company bmp will be destroyed, especially if the armored car will include armored vehicles with petitions. Or is there a crab armored car with a 23 mm gun in the photo, why should he lose a BMP ???
            1. Blackgrifon
              Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 10: 49 New
              +2
              BMP - this is not only the transportation of fighters, but unlike the BTR BMP is designed to conduct a full-fledged battle. If you want - BMP is an infantry transport on the battlefield. An armored personnel carrier is an infantry transport BEFORE the battlefield. Armament for armored personnel carriers is a means of self-defense.
              3 sources distinguish 2 classes of BMPs: heavy, medium (BMP-3, BMP-82, Bradley), light (BTR-2). But in Russia, the classification is divided only into BMP (3, XNUMX, Bradley, etc.) and heavy BMP (BMO, BMP-T, etc.). The classification is related to the degree of reservation and armament.
              Now about the armored personnel carrier. By virtue of their mission, they are equipped with light armor and light weapons. All that was presented in the article is actually light armored personnel carriers. The exception is Crab - it is positioned by developers as the BRDM. And just how BRDM is a good BM.

              "It is possible that the BMP company will be destroyed, especially if the armored car will include an armored car with anti-tank guns." - a company with an infantry fighting vehicle is capable of repelling an attack for the following reasons: all domestic infantry fighting vehicles are equipped with ATGMs and 30-mm cannons, while light armored personnel carriers are mainly equipped with machine guns. The bet on ATGMs is not the most successful: the BMP has a layout with a front-mounted power plant (an exception is the BMP-3, but its 100 mm cannon will not allow you to reach the required distance to defeat) and carries a lot of armor. But the main thing is that the BMP can be equipped with means of both remote sensing and active protection.
              The next point that you do not take into account is the landing. BMP and armored personnel carriers - these are BMs carrying assault forces. In terms of firepower, our motorized riflemen and our allies are approximately equal. Therefore, in a hypothetical collision, the decisive role will be played by amplification means, the tactical situation. Suppose the colliding people have no means of amplification, and the battle is in open areas - therefore, firepower will play a large role. And now we return to the armament and defense of the BMP and the APC and draw conclusions.

              PS: I do not think that light BMs should not be - as a means of delivery of infantry, they are better than conventional trucks that are used in many armies, including and ours, but understand that situations are different in battle and it will be much easier for you to fight, knowing that you are protected by 1-2 cm of armor, but 5-10 cm. Or that you are covered by the fire of more than one machine gun, the carrier of which can be destroyed well-marked machine gunner, and 30 or better 100 mm well-protected gun.

              I repeat - light wheeled BMs have the right to life, but only in a certain niche, and not as a panacea and the best tool. Their niche is delivery and transportation of troops, patrols, escorts, reconnaissance.
  6. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 31 May 2013 11: 23 New
    0
    Quote: Rolm
    arrive on the battlefield fresh and not tired

    If with a donkey ... bami then a ride. Such equipment as light brigades can only fight in low-end conflicts. Battles are won only by combined-arms formations, there is nothing for the lungs to do on the battlefield, as in closed theater (despite statements about their effectiveness within them), where a compact but powerful armored nucleus is also needed.
    1. Roll
      Roll 31 May 2013 11: 58 New
      +1
      Battles are won only by combined arms, there is nothing easy for the lungs to do on the battlefield.This topic is controversial, at least. Easy mobile connections on armored vehicles, with javelins or other anti-tank weapons will burn all combined connections. High-precision systems, multiple launch rocket systems are able to quickly eliminate combined-arms connections that need a front, trenches, and if they do not exist. The experience of the Iraqi wars, where equal armies met with a stretch, shows this.
      1. abc_alex
        abc_alex 31 May 2013 16: 31 New
        +3
        In my opinion you have confused something.

        The experience of Iraq has shown just the opposite. Only overwhelming firepower can win the war. You give statistics of bombing attacks on Iraq by the coalition in the first week?

        I read about how US airmobile units were used in Iraq. So I dare to assure you, there is no "burn everything" at all. Light units generally avoided engaging in fire contact and were used as groups of aircraft controllers.

        In conditions of contact with a normally deployed combined-arms structure, with reconnaissance, and standard firepower, light units have no chances. Calculated on the approaches and destroyed by over-the-horizon heavy artillery fire. Don't forget, no Jewelin will shoot where the gunner can't see. And the horizon on the plain is 5 kilometers.

        In Iraq, the United States deployed a lot of tanks, and just the armada of aviation. This is an experience.
        1. cdrt
          cdrt 5 June 2013 08: 33 New
          0
          There is an almost documentary series Generation kill. Heroes are marines reconnaissance at Humvee. Having seen it is clear why after the war the amers thought that there should be BRMs and tanks in reconnaissance, and not just humvees
      2. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 31 May 2013 19: 08 New
        +3
        "Only combined arms formations win battles, light on the battlefield have nothing to do. This topic is controversial, at least. Light mobile connections on armored cars, with javelins or other anti-tank weapons will burn all combined arms connections. High-precision systems, multiple launch rocket systems are able to quickly eliminate combined arms connections which you need a front, trenches, and if they are not there. The experience of the Iraqi wars, where equal armies met with a stretch, shows this. " - in Iraq, the allies massively used tanks, BMPs with TOTAL air supremacy. A prime example of what will happen to "light mobile connections" in the city of Mogadishu in 1993.

        Tank and BMP now can not be replaced with anything - there is simply no replacement. These are the only BMs that can act both in the mountains, in the plain, and in the city.
        Regarding the latter, I’ll immediately note that a tank in the city is able to operate effectively. The failure of the storming of Grozny during 1QV is an example of improper command and control, and not proof of the low effectiveness of heavy bm in urban conditions.
        1. Roll
          Roll 31 May 2013 19: 25 New
          +2
          crying The failure of the storming of Grozny during 1HV is an example of improper command and control, and not proof of the low effectiveness of heavy bm in urban conditions. I agree, but this is just an example that more than 3 independent grenade launchers will get a tank, if it has them.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 02: 34 New
            +1
            Read a number of articles on this site regarding the use of tanks in battles in the S. Caucasus. 8-9 hits, and BM continued the fight.
            In addition, no one sends a tank alone - the well-known herringbone technique, when one tank covers another.

            "I agree, only this is another example that more likely 3 independent grenade launchers will get a tank, if he has theirs." - in this case, the losses of our troops in equipment in the North Caucasus should amount to hundreds of tanks, but this contradicts the statistics and reports of losses.
            1. Roll
              Roll 1 June 2013 09: 34 New
              0
              wassat And if tanks are such an invulnerable amount of grenade launchers destroyed by them should be measured in tens of thousands, and this also contradicts the summary of losses.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 16: 32 New
                0
                "And if the tanks are so invulnerable, the number of grenade launchers destroyed by them should be measured in tens of thousands, and this also contradicts the loss summary." - isn’t it almost so? An infantryman with a group weapon (grenade launcher, sniper, machine gunner) is a suicide bomber - fire is always concentrated on him when detected. And after a shot from a 105-125 mm gun, no one bothers anymore - who the enemy was and what was his weapon.
      3. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 10: 58 New
        +1
        "Battles are won only by combined arms, light on the battlefield have nothing to do. This topic is controversial, at least. Light mobile connections on armored cars, with javelins or other anti-tank weapons will burn all combined arms. High-precision systems, multiple launch rocket systems are able to quickly eliminate combined arms connections which you need a front, trenches, and if they are not there. The experience of the Iraqi wars, where equal armies met with a stretch, shows this. " - just the same experience shows that no. Precision weapons are most effective only when there is little opposition from electronic warfare systems. Multiple launch rocket systems are not vulnerable. And why do you think that "combined arms formations" are clumsy? Division - brigade (from the Yankees) and regiment (as we had) - battalion - company platoon - squad - all are capable of acting independently and autonomously. A division has more fire support equipment than a brigade and, accordingly, fighters can count on more help.

        "Light mobile connections on armored cars, with javelins or other anti-tank weapons will burn all combined arms connections." - I repeat, the battle is not the only tactical situation - infantry fighting vehicles and tanks simply will not allow an easy connection to reach targets at a distance - they will suppress them at a distance.

        "who need a front, trenches" - ANY infantry needs trenches - this is a means of protecting personnel. An open BM or an infantryman is vulnerable. Body armor does not provide high protection against weapons. Now, if the infantry had heavy exoskeletons (which allowed them to carry more armor and weapons) - then yes, the trenches might not be needed.
  7. Roll
    Roll 31 May 2013 12: 07 New
    0
    belay In general, over the past 20 years there has not been a clash, two more or less equal armies, but the trend that has been outlined in local conflicts shows that the value of combined arms connections is decreasing, and the importance of mobile, well-armed brigades is increasing. The future big war is a guerrilla war. Large combined arms connections are also highly vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction. The biggest problem so far with mobile connections is the poor online manual. But the progress in this is enormous, as soon as it reaches a certain border, the combined arms connections will have to be rebuilt in the format of mobile brigades.
    1. Mr. Truth
      Mr. Truth 31 May 2013 12: 32 New
      +3
      Did he leave or what? Do you think the combined arms formations, which due to tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, are tactically mobile and protected, and the echelons from above will simply stand still and let themselves be shot like in a shooting range? They do not have MLRS, self-propelled guns and armored vehicles, which is not in light formations, there are more of them in the regular schedules, they (heavy brigades) see further and shoot further and more. In your opinion, over the past 20 years, there has been at least one modern major conflict that has shown the advantage of easy connections? No, a light formation is easily stopped by the enemy, they cannot conduct an offensive, raids, stop large masses of troops, conduct a maneuverable defense, it really cannot control the terrain, because the cross-country profile is only 40 percent of a tank and an infantry fighting vehicle. There is no "absolute situational awareness", the fighting in Iraq showed that tank and mechanized formations are just the most suitable for modern warfare. For example, the Marines, also light and lethal, were reinforced with all the tank and LAR battalions they had, and that wasn't enough. Army paratroopers, who also have no armor, were reinforced by the armor of army heavy units.
      The modern love for such thin-skinned vehicles and light brigades in the US Army is the machinations of their powerful automobile mafia.
      1. Roll
        Roll 31 May 2013 12: 56 New
        +1
        request The question is not so that it is necessary to abandon heavy connections completely, the question is what ratio is optimal. In our concept, 50 to 50. I think it’s optimal in the future 40 to 60. So, approximately in the French army, an armored car is cheaper compared to an infantry fighting vehicle and therefore it is necessary to compare one infantry fighting vehicle and 3 armored cars. Then why shouldn't the light brigade be guarded by Air Defense Systems, not have a self-propelled gun and not see far. The fact is that modern conditions allow us to make a formidable force out of an armored car. The crew may include a sniper, a grenade launcher, and an anti-aircraft gunner with a permissible Igloo M. The centric control system allows you to create both grouping and dispersion in the shortest possible time. In Iraq, the Americans acted very efficiently.
        1. bask
          bask 31 May 2013 15: 16 New
          0
          Quote: Rolm
          allow an armored car to make a formidable force. The crew can include a sniper, a grenade launcher and an anti-aircraft gun with a permissible Igloo M. The centric control system allows you to create in the shortest time both grouping and

          I agree + these JLTV cars are a great vehicle for special forces.
          As in your post ((the group includes a sniper, grenade launcher, flamethrower, machine gunner, commander gr., Orderly, radio operator.)))
          If there is also a hybrid engine, you can drive silently to the object.
          It is only a pity that in Russia there is nothing of the kind that is not being developed.
    2. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 31 May 2013 19: 11 New
      0
      "In general, over the past 20 years there has been no clash, two more or less equal armies, but the trend that has emerged in local conflicts shows that the value of combined arms connections is decreasing, and the importance of mobile, well-armed brigades is increasing. The future big war is a guerrilla war. Large combined arms Connectivity is also highly vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction. The biggest problem with mobile connectivity so far is poor online leadership. But the progress in this is enormous, once it reaches a certain border, combined arms connections will have to be rebuilt into mobile brigades. " - the reformers have already rebuilt the entire army into brigades - the result is known. The brigade is NOT an autonomous unit. It is limited in its means of combat. A division is capable of solving substantially more tasks and with greater efficiency than a brigade. I am not saying brigades are useless - but in a real conflict they are less effective.
      1. Roll
        Roll 31 May 2013 19: 28 New
        +1
        tongue The division still needs to be concentrated in its entirety, and this is a problem in the conditions of the modern war, although there is no doubt that it is better to carry out some tasks by the division, and some by brigade. And now shy away from one form to another, so we have such a fate.
        1. Mr. Truth
          Mr. Truth 31 May 2013 19: 58 New
          0
          it’s best to complete tasks with an intermediate force, this is a battle group. The reinforced brigade is 5000-6000 thousand people.
        2. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 02: 35 New
          0
          "And now that we are shying away from one form to another, this is our fate." - rather, our Ministry of Defense is like that ...
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 16: 34 New
            0
            "The division still needs to be concentrated in full strength, and this is a problem in the conditions of modern warfare, although there is no doubt that some tasks are better performed by a division, and some by a brigade. And now we are shying from one form to another, so we have such a fate." - the American army relies on divisions: regiments and brigades are included in it. In 2008, Russian divisions and Georgian brigades, etc. fought in South Ossetia. - what does "need to focus" on? The brigade can also be scattered across the country, region, city.
  8. Roll
    Roll 31 May 2013 13: 11 New
    +1
    fellow Then it makes no sense to discuss the possibilities of opening a fortified defense, this is undoubtedly the task of heavy brigades, but access to the operational space, urban battles, the capture of key points, these are the tasks of mobile connections. Here are the amers from 3-5 Hamers, rushing through the desert, shooting discovered Iraqi compounds, very effective. Where strongly fortified positions are not associated with that, they leave to other connections. And for the enemy grenade launcher, that BMP, that the armored car is not much difference. But the soldiers are more comfortable in the armored car.
  9. USNik
    USNik 31 May 2013 15: 15 New
    0
    Crab machine ... it can move sideways like a crab

    Like this? She doesn’t even have rear wheels turning, how can she ride sideways! ?? Unless, turn the tower sideways and give the line ... fellow
  10. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 31 May 2013 15: 16 New
    0
    Quote: Rolm
    fellow Then it makes no sense to discuss the possibilities of opening a fortified defense, this is undoubtedly the task of heavy brigades, but access to the operational space, urban battles, the capture of key points, these are the tasks of mobile connections.
    Here are the amers from 3-5 Hamers, rushing through the desert, shooting discovered Iraqi compounds
    very effective. Where strongly fortified positions are not associated with that, they leave to other connections. And for the enemy grenade launcher, that BMP, that the armored car is not much difference. But the soldiers are more comfortable in the armored car.

    3-5 machines is a unit, and the connection from the regiment and above. It is important.
    The given example does not reflect reality at all, this was not the case in Iraq, not separate groups are fighting, but the company and battalion groups on a tactical scale, and the operational brigade is often more active. At the brigade level, even one tank battalion and self-propelled artillery will crush these light brigades in any theater of operations.
    In the city, just tanks play the role of assault guns. and in a light armored car it is only possible to get to the point of dismount. A tank can suppress almost any firing point that can be equipped in a city with one two shots, a tank or infantry fighting vehicle can break through walls and with a bulldozer blade can move obstacles from gabions, civilian vehicles or concrete blocks, the same can be done with an infantry fighting vehicle with a tank chassis. No chariot will ever allow it. Regarding grenade launchers from an infantry fighting vehicle or tank, they can be killed before they have time to pop out of cover.
    1. Roll
      Roll 31 May 2013 17: 01 New
      0
      fellow Well, the experience of the storming of Grozny shows the opposite, and sometimes tanks, and BMP rocket launchers through pre-made breaches in the fences set fire much faster than they were calculated by the rocket launchers, the experience of using Turkish armored vehicles in Tskhinvali showed their effectiveness. Then you can’t compare a tank and an armored car, but this is not correct, but two, three armored cars and one bmp, even 3 is right. If you compare tanks with 2 wheeled versus one classic. The amount of armored vehicles is acquired by the amount of dough allocated to the military budget.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 31 May 2013 19: 17 New
        0
        The assault on Grozny in 1HV only proves that it is impossible to use troops illiterate. A tank or infantry fighting vehicle with dynamic protection with proper use is a terrible force. The fighting in Iraq, the Caucasus and South Ossetia clearly proves this.

        "If we compare the tanks, then 2 wheeled versus one classic." - wheeled tanks are a coffin on wheels. They are inferior in terms of security and armament to any classic tank.
        1. Roll
          Roll 31 May 2013 19: 39 New
          0
          request And in terms of security it’s like, for a Jevilin, it’s a classic or wheeled tank, it hits the roof, or let's say a wheeled tank shot from a 120 mm gun into the t-90 from 1 kilometer with a caliber projectile with a uranium core. Of course, the wheeled tank also does not shine in a duel with t 90 especially if t 90 starts first. And if you still dig a wheeled tank, then how? In general, it cannot be said that a classic tank will always win, it depends on the situation, although it’s undeniably t 90 stronger than any wheeled one.
          1. Blackgrifon
            Blackgrifon 1 June 2013 02: 39 New
            0
            For a 25 mm cannon there is a difference - open the armor of a wheeled tank like a tin can or scratch a classic one.

            "And in terms of security, it does not matter for Jevilin, a classic tank or a wheeled one, it hits the roof, or let's say a wheeled tank fired from a 120 millimeter cannon into the side of a T-90 from 1 kilometer with a subcaliber projectile with a uranium core." for what? And the "lattice"? You can't put a DZ on a wheeled tank - it won't pull. If it comes to that, I agree with you only on one thing - wheeled vehicles are cheap and mobile at a certain theater of operations. But equipping the entire army, as you suggest, on the 50-50 principle is a mistake.
            1. Roll
              Roll 1 June 2013 09: 31 New
              0
              lol Against the sub-caliber dynamic protection and the more so the lattice does not work, this is cumulative. and our ministry offers 50 to 50, and not I, I think 60 to 40 is better. And those horror stories that write about the weakness of wheeled vehicles, so we have neither experience nor statistics on its mass use.
              1. Blackgrifon
                Blackgrifon 2 June 2013 00: 36 New
                0
                And where does the light BT have a sub-caliber? If we are talking about wheeled tanks, then I repeat - they can NOT carry heavy armor and are doomed to battle with a full-fledged enemy.

                "And those horror stories that write about the weakness of wheeled vehicles, so we have neither experience, nor statistics of its mass use." - what should be the experience - in a couple of hundred burnt out soldiers? The Grizin Armed Forces had fairly light armored vehicles, but when they collided with the regular army, they were merged in a couple of days.
  11. Roll
    Roll 31 May 2013 17: 12 New
    0
    wassat Well, of course, an armored car, and all the more easy to compete on breaking through walls with an infantry fighting vehicle on a tank chassis, can’t compete, but lightweight concrete blocks can be moved if they are hooked with a cable. Then you take all the time supercritical battle conditions. For example, you claim that the armored car has a cross-country profile of 40 percent of the BMP. I agree in the spring thaw, but on an asphalt road or country road in normal weather there is not much difference. It is possible to break through the walls if they are flimsy in a critical situation and on an armored car, although it is better to delegate these tasks to specialized equipment. But an armored car has other advantages. But sometimes an infantry fighting vehicle can to supplement.
  12. Mr. Truth
    Mr. Truth 31 May 2013 17: 20 New
    0
    Quote: Rolm
    Well, the experience of storming Grozny

    It was drained, but the necessary samples showed their great effectiveness when used correctly.
    Quote: Rolm
    I agree in the spring thaw, and on an asphalt road or country road in normal weather

    The speed of cars and armored columns differs by 10 km / h. Road attachment is the main minus of any wheeled vehicle, tracked vehicle battalions calmly raid off-road and beat the enemy where he does not expect, an example is the actions of the Airborne Forces in Abkhazia.
    1. Roll
      Roll 31 May 2013 18: 14 New
      0
      fellow As for linking wheeled vehicles to roads, well, wheeled vehicles can drive under normal conditions both in the steppe and in the field, especially if the tires are of variable pressure, but I agree with the crawler on cross-country ability that they cannot be compared, but the fact is that now is not the year 1812 of Napoleon’s time, when there were few roads. If we decide to occupy anyone, especially Europe or Kazakhstan, then there are plenty of roads along which armored cars will pass.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 31 May 2013 19: 19 New
        +1
        "If we decide to occupy anyone, especially Europe or Kazakhstan, then there are plenty of roads along which armored cars will pass." - It was the same opinion in the Red Army before the War, demanding more tracked-wheeled tanks. The result is known.
        1. Mr. Truth
          Mr. Truth 31 May 2013 20: 03 New
          +1
          [quote = Blackgrifon] "If we decide to occupy someone, especially Europe or Kazakhstan, then there are plenty of roads along which armored cars will pass." - It was the same opinion in the Red Army before the War, demanding more tracked-wheeled tanks. The result is known. [/
          [quote = Rolm]request And in terms of security it’s like, for a Jevilin, it’s a classic or wheeled tank, it hits the roof, or let's say a wheeled tank shot from a 120 mm gun into the t-90 from 1 kilometer with a caliber projectile with a uranium core. Of course, the wheeled tank also does not shine in a duel with t 90 especially if t 90 starts first. And if you still dig a wheeled tank, then how? But in general it cannot be said that a classic tank will always win, it depends on the situation, although it’s undeniably t 90 stronger than any wheeled one. [/ Quote]
          Javelin may not get where he needs to, while he turns on, and he turns on for 20 seconds, until he is guided, the more a few people get out, they’ll be spotted, because there’s more than one tank to roll, there are more tanks, more BMPs, there’s also combat guard, 2,5, XNUMX km for a tank is a direct shot. It will send to the forefathers.
          wheeled tanks will not come out later from their trench, even if they are lucky to survive.
          1. Roll
            Roll 31 May 2013 20: 53 New
            0
            laughing Well, if the task is set like this, on one light armored car, an untold horde of tanks is rolling with a javelin, and even with a hundred infantry fighting vehicles, and even people with machine guns will come out, then there’s no reason to discuss the armored car. Well, about digging in a wheeled tank, I also agree that our one-year-old soldiers can dig a tank in such a way that it will not only not go back, then they will not find it in the afternoon with fire
  13. Roll
    Roll 31 May 2013 17: 20 New
    0
    wassat And I also wanted to add, light, that is, wheeled brigades require a different tactic or even strategy. When we have a 50 to 50 ratio as planned, it will be created. So far, for hundreds of tigers and a dozen wolves, there is no great sense in creating it, and Iveco will be seized by commander’s vehicles.
  14. My doctor
    My doctor 31 May 2013 18: 51 New
    -1
    The tiger does not participate in any tenders; it is out of competition with us.
    Reading the article I recalled the epic with tigers, lynxes, wolves. I bet that the majority of members of the forum had an echo of how the choice of armored vehicles took place with us. But the most interesting thing is that no one has raised this topic right now. recourse
    Unlike the American electoral system where delegates with voting rights are appointed, everything is decided by the direct will of the people. What a shame this did not escape and the fate of our technology.
    So many copies were broken when comparing two applicants for the role of the main car Sun. It seemed that their future fate was being decided by the whole Orthodox world, where specialists from the people who were well versed in military equipment and in its application sat everywhere. It is not up to me to decide what came of this; unfortunately, I am far from special. repeat
  15. Roll
    Roll 31 May 2013 19: 01 New
    +1
    belay Why is Iveco a wonderful commander’s car for military operations, because during the operation forcing Georgia to force the army commander, I went to UAZ to give valuable instructions, I was wounded, but if Iveko were okay, I would get off with a fright . Although under our command and control system, what is the commander does not really matter, the General Staff won re-release to a new place, but all the same Gruzinov won. Honor and praise.
  16. bublic82009
    bublic82009 1 June 2013 00: 23 New
    0
    interesting new developments. but but but ... these cars are no longer light. if earlier it was possible to transport a dozen jeeps in an airplane, now it’s like 2 full-fledged armored personnel carriers and no more
  17. Landwarrior
    Landwarrior 1 June 2013 09: 32 New
    0
    Quite interesting and, in principle, correct. Since the throw of the "red tank hordes" to the English Channel is no longer planned, then heavy vehicles are unnecessary for them, enough of what is, you just need to slightly modernize. And to drive all sorts of "rebels" and "terrorists" will be enough and lighter (and therefore cheaper) cars.