MARKMILES77
Active Member
I am aware STANAG Level 5 is against 25mm rounds but what is STANAG Level 6?
Proof against 30mm APFSDS-T over the frontal arc, 90 deg left/right (so turret sides also). Very tough requirement for a recon vehicle.
See the latest issue of DTR for more detail and Land 400 news:
Defence Technology Review : DTR MAR 2015, Page 1
meatshield
Active Member
An IFV also has a, as I would call it, smaller political footprint. Governments tend to be less shy to deploy IFVs compared to IFVs. Just have a look at the mich higher number of IFVs deployed to Afghanistan compared to MBTs.
Add to that their slightly smaller logistical footprint and one will often see IFVs getting deployed without their MBT partners like in a more conventional setup. In these cases having an ATGM capability is even more usefull.
Add to that their slightly smaller logistical footprint and one will often see IFVs getting deployed without their MBT partners like in a more conventional setup. In these cases having an ATGM capability is even more usefull.
@Waylander
Re: ATGMs on IFVS
I must start by saying that this comes from my experience in an armoured infantry battalion trained to operate in closed terrain, and people who come from a similar background as I do. To be clear, I'm willing to learn how other armies fight with their ATGM-equipped IFVs.
To me, closed terrain means short engagement ranges. Short, like maybe less than a kilometre? Heck, at times it feels like most of the fighting is done via dismounts. The 'short' range at which targets are generally spotted would make the ATGM redundant - if it is a serious armoured target that needs to be engaged, then MBTs are called in, or the target will be passed on to a dismounted ATGM team to engage from behind a concealed position.
Why bring up closed terrain at all? Partly because Land 400 is a development that happens as part of Plan Beersheba, which seems to require the ADF to potentially operate in a tropical nation. I can see the logic in using ATGM-armed IFVs for overwatch (but that means on less IFV and associated infantry committed to the front, doesn't it?) as well as heavier firepower for the offence and the defense, but is it fair for me to make the assumption that those vehicles will be fighting in terrain that allows further engagement ranges?
Funny, this is like a CONOPs culture-shock moment for me
Re: ATGMs on IFVS
I must start by saying that this comes from my experience in an armoured infantry battalion trained to operate in closed terrain, and people who come from a similar background as I do. To be clear, I'm willing to learn how other armies fight with their ATGM-equipped IFVs.
To me, closed terrain means short engagement ranges. Short, like maybe less than a kilometre? Heck, at times it feels like most of the fighting is done via dismounts. The 'short' range at which targets are generally spotted would make the ATGM redundant - if it is a serious armoured target that needs to be engaged, then MBTs are called in, or the target will be passed on to a dismounted ATGM team to engage from behind a concealed position.
Why bring up closed terrain at all? Partly because Land 400 is a development that happens as part of Plan Beersheba, which seems to require the ADF to potentially operate in a tropical nation. I can see the logic in using ATGM-armed IFVs for overwatch (but that means on less IFV and associated infantry committed to the front, doesn't it?) as well as heavier firepower for the offence and the defense, but is it fair for me to make the assumption that those vehicles will be fighting in terrain that allows further engagement ranges?
Funny, this is like a CONOPs culture-shock moment for me
The US were quite happy with the TOWs on their Bradleys. With it you can get a well armored vehicle with good optics forward quickly to blow up stuff that needs to be blown up.
Our Marders did the same in Afghanistan although often not in that much of a restricted terrain.
In a more conventional battle there are lots of situations where the infanty doesn't dismount at all. Going into the attack with a tank heavy company team means either having the IFVs staying a bit back doing nothing or actually providing additional long range AT firepower. The dame goes for the defense, especially delaying actions where a quick relocation is key.
A platoon of ATGM equipped IFVs holds alot more firepower than one without in several key situations.
Our Marders did the same in Afghanistan although often not in that much of a restricted terrain.
In a more conventional battle there are lots of situations where the infanty doesn't dismount at all. Going into the attack with a tank heavy company team means either having the IFVs staying a bit back doing nothing or actually providing additional long range AT firepower. The dame goes for the defense, especially delaying actions where a quick relocation is key.
A platoon of ATGM equipped IFVs holds alot more firepower than one without in several key situations.
One of the huge advantages, which doesn't really get talked about, of equipping the CFV/IFV with an ATGM is the impact it has on any potential enemy's freedom of action.
Take the CFV for instance, who's primary role is the recon/counter recon battle, providing a screen for the main body etc. If the CFV has no ATGM, an enemy knows that it can't kill a MBT at all, and can't reliably kill other armoured vehicles past about 2000m. So an enemy fighting their own recon/counter recon battle knows they have quite a lot of freedom of action - they can push tanks forward and fight for information, knowing that unless we (Australia) commit our own tanks forward of the main body (which we are not too to do because we have so few) they can accept lots of risk and be very aggressive. Even lesser armoured vehicles can be more aggressive because they know they're not going to be destroyed at 4000m.
Equip the CFV with an ATGM with a 4000m range, and you have given the enemy a significant dilemma. The enemy knows our screen can destroy tanks in a mobile battle, and can destroy his other armoured vehicles at long range, and will therefore be far more cautious and not accept as much risk with his own screen. In effect, we have significantly reduced the enemy's freedom of action and overall effectiveness without even firing a shot. Which, to a large extent, is the essence of manoeuvre.
Equipping the IFV with an ATGM has the same advantage, as it will constrain the enemy's manoeuvre in the same way.
Take the CFV for instance, who's primary role is the recon/counter recon battle, providing a screen for the main body etc. If the CFV has no ATGM, an enemy knows that it can't kill a MBT at all, and can't reliably kill other armoured vehicles past about 2000m. So an enemy fighting their own recon/counter recon battle knows they have quite a lot of freedom of action - they can push tanks forward and fight for information, knowing that unless we (Australia) commit our own tanks forward of the main body (which we are not too to do because we have so few) they can accept lots of risk and be very aggressive. Even lesser armoured vehicles can be more aggressive because they know they're not going to be destroyed at 4000m.
Equip the CFV with an ATGM with a 4000m range, and you have given the enemy a significant dilemma. The enemy knows our screen can destroy tanks in a mobile battle, and can destroy his other armoured vehicles at long range, and will therefore be far more cautious and not accept as much risk with his own screen. In effect, we have significantly reduced the enemy's freedom of action and overall effectiveness without even firing a shot. Which, to a large extent, is the essence of manoeuvre.
Equipping the IFV with an ATGM has the same advantage, as it will constrain the enemy's manoeuvre in the same way.
shanes_world_05
Member
Apologies if this is so basic a question as to be a stupid one. But. Could you see the CRV7 equiped with the BAE laser guidance kit be an acceptable vehicle launched ATGM? I believe it is only intended for light anti armour use, is that correct? If so would mounting this with 19 round launcher be a suitable solution or more something for a kids cartoon?
meatshield
Active Member
If Australia does put a AT missile on the new IFV what do think would be the front runner? I've read the Spiker has a very long range, but they are testing the
javelin-er also?
I dare say the front runner will be whatever missile is offered on the winning bid. I can't see anyone getting too upset no matter what missile we get, as long as it works
@Waylander, Raven22
Thanks for sharing. Essentially the ATGM gives the IFV commander more options, especially at engaging various target types at a distance. The type of ops that I have been exposed to employ the AGTM systems under heavy concealment, away from their APCs, as a means of increasing the survivability of the ATGM teams.
Could I assume that in conventional ops, the Heer (and, looking at how Land400 is shaping up, the ADF too) operate their armoured brigades on a wide front (seems like it's much wider than what I'm used to anyway), wide enough to require the equipping of IFVs with ATGMs such that in the event that organic battalion, brigade, maybe even division level support may not respond in time, the IFV commander still has the option of maintaining the offensive?
Thanks for sharing. Essentially the ATGM gives the IFV commander more options, especially at engaging various target types at a distance. The type of ops that I have been exposed to employ the AGTM systems under heavy concealment, away from their APCs, as a means of increasing the survivability of the ATGM teams.
Could I assume that in conventional ops, the Heer (and, looking at how Land400 is shaping up, the ADF too) operate their armoured brigades on a wide front (seems like it's much wider than what I'm used to anyway), wide enough to require the equipping of IFVs with ATGMs such that in the event that organic battalion, brigade, maybe even division level support may not respond in time, the IFV commander still has the option of maintaining the offensive?
ATGMs are not an offensive weapon par excellence. Too slow and not enoigh reloads.
You won't fight a meeting engagement with IFVs against anything heavier than other IFVs if you can help it. But the otherwise unoccupied MechInf can lend a hand to the tanks doing the offensive maneuvering.
As you understood very well the frontline of a heavy brigade is much wider in open conventional battle than in constricted environments.
You hunch togethef in a town to achieve critical mass to reach your objecktve or to cover possible aproaches. Huddling together on a more or less open field is different and will probably get you killed by arty or airstrikes.
You won't fight a meeting engagement with IFVs against anything heavier than other IFVs if you can help it. But the otherwise unoccupied MechInf can lend a hand to the tanks doing the offensive maneuvering.
As you understood very well the frontline of a heavy brigade is much wider in open conventional battle than in constricted environments.
You hunch togethef in a town to achieve critical mass to reach your objecktve or to cover possible aproaches. Huddling together on a more or less open field is different and will probably get you killed by arty or airstrikes.
In that sense, a last ditch weapon that happens to have long range and high chance to score a 'kill'?
Fully agree on that. That would be a classic case of an intel FUBAR if I came up against an MBT. Often in exercises, when we encountered an enemy IFV, we'd dismount the AI to either watch the vehicle's flank, or where possible even use cover/concealment to flank the enemy IFV and score a kill using the section anti-tank weapons. (I've seen a case of an OPFOR VC being so engaged in the fight with other IFVs that he didn't see dismounts sneak up and lob a dummy grenade into the turret hatch. Umpire declared it a total kill.) Basically, you don't want to lose an infantry section should the IFV get blown up - might as well dismount them to do something useful.
Yeah, the proverbial clusterf-ck. Maybe I'm fortunate in the sense that the most likely land adversary that I face would not have wide open spaces for vehicles to freely manoeuvre (feels like fighting in a maze at times), would mostly be covered in dense vegetation (that's changing, but slowly), and there SHOULD be air superiority established early in the campaign. Doesn't mean that we can slack off on armoured ops, but our playing field is literally not the same. I guess that's why I had some doubts on the usage of vehicle-mounted ATGMs, since it felt like an overkill if I compare it to what I have experienced.
Still, given increased urbanisation, could there be a new importance attached to ATGM-mounted IFVs? I know Bradleys used TOWs in OIF to demolish enemy strongpoints at fairly close ranges, and as you said Marders did that in Afghanistan too. Perhaps that's what ADF planners were thinking when they added the new requirement to Land 400, less reliance on support from other units in the battalion/brigade to handle threats, while having the flexibility to dish out destruction to a wider target set?
No, not a last ditch weapon (although that's part of the equation, too) but an enhancement to the versatility of an IFV.
Combat in urban and resitricted terrain tends to be rather slow. And with that I don't mean intensity, which can be fierce, but the distances covered.
In more open terrain a battle is much more fluid with much more maneuverig over bigger distances and more spacing between individual units. Dismounts face the problem of their severely restricted mobility and tend to become useless as the battle wanders away from them or they can't evade fast enough to not get flanked or overrun.
That's why mounted combat is much more emphasized otside of restricted terrain and an ATGM armed IFV gives you lots of additional options for these longer ranged and more mobile battles.
Take the run for Bagdad during OIF as an example. The first time the 3rd MechInf division deployed it's dismounts for something else than perimeter lager security was for holding some crucial junctions during the thunder runs. The whole battle becore that, including clearing some smaller towns and villages and hammering the Medina (?) division was fought mounted.
Combat in urban and resitricted terrain tends to be rather slow. And with that I don't mean intensity, which can be fierce, but the distances covered.
In more open terrain a battle is much more fluid with much more maneuverig over bigger distances and more spacing between individual units. Dismounts face the problem of their severely restricted mobility and tend to become useless as the battle wanders away from them or they can't evade fast enough to not get flanked or overrun.
That's why mounted combat is much more emphasized otside of restricted terrain and an ATGM armed IFV gives you lots of additional options for these longer ranged and more mobile battles.
Take the run for Bagdad during OIF as an example. The first time the 3rd MechInf division deployed it's dismounts for something else than perimeter lager security was for holding some crucial junctions during the thunder runs. The whole battle becore that, including clearing some smaller towns and villages and hammering the Medina (?) division was fought mounted.
I see, that's interesting, thanks! Yes, agree that fighting in closed terrain, at times it feels like there are hardly any gains. I guess in that sense there are similarities i.e. use infantry to secure junctions, clear high ground, open roads that have been closed to obstacles etc.
Exactly. Restricted terrain and urban environments are the places where AFVs are relegated to a supportig role. That's also where the reduced dismount numbers of MechInf units begin to tell. Light and Medium Infantry are what gives you enough boots on the ground. Flesh them out with attached MechInf and Armoured assets and you are good to go.
More open space is where heavier AFVs rule and dismounts are the supporting asset, hence it's ok to have them in smaller numbers.
Light infantry and suffers from a severe lack of offensive power. Medium formations like Stryker units fare a bit better due to additional fire support assets but their main advantage lies in them being mobile in a somewhat protected vehicle while retaining lots of boots on the ground.
The actions of 3rd Commando during OIF and their inability to break out of their beachhead due to some Iraqi T-55s and BMPs until some MBTs from the Dragoons broke the heavier Iraqi units are quite telling.
More open space is where heavier AFVs rule and dismounts are the supporting asset, hence it's ok to have them in smaller numbers.
Light infantry and suffers from a severe lack of offensive power. Medium formations like Stryker units fare a bit better due to additional fire support assets but their main advantage lies in them being mobile in a somewhat protected vehicle while retaining lots of boots on the ground.
The actions of 3rd Commando during OIF and their inability to break out of their beachhead due to some Iraqi T-55s and BMPs until some MBTs from the Dragoons broke the heavier Iraqi units are quite telling.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
Took this from the Government briefing to Industry on 11 March 2015 for LAND 400.
Would seem to eliminate a number of vehicles which could be offered.
For example just taking GDLS, Piranha V would not comply and not be accepted as a MOTS offering.
Nor even would LAV 700 (Not already established in-service with the armed forces of another country and production not starting till 2016.). This means GDLS would be forced to offer LAV 6.0.
I would argue that Boxer fails to comply also. The current in-service Boxer does not have a weapon heavier than 50 Cal. Sure, the work has been done on fitting a 30mm Turret but that fails the must be in established service test.
Terrex I think is out as well for the same reason, no weapon heavier than 50 Cal.
Interested what others think?
Would seem to eliminate a number of vehicles which could be offered.
For example just taking GDLS, Piranha V would not comply and not be accepted as a MOTS offering.
Nor even would LAV 700 (Not already established in-service with the armed forces of another country and production not starting till 2016.). This means GDLS would be forced to offer LAV 6.0.
I would argue that Boxer fails to comply also. The current in-service Boxer does not have a weapon heavier than 50 Cal. Sure, the work has been done on fitting a 30mm Turret but that fails the must be in established service test.
Terrex I think is out as well for the same reason, no weapon heavier than 50 Cal.
Interested what others think?
MARKMILES77
Active Member
MOTS PLUS doesn't allow GDLS to offer the Piranha V, which might be their preferred offering, because they can't offer a MOTS version. It pretty much forces GDLS to offer an upgraded LAV III.
And a Boxer with a 50 Cal will have to be offered as the MOTS option for a Cav vehicle by KMW.
As the GDLS-A bid will be dictated out of GDLS-Canada I can't see a GD European Land Systems product (Piranha) being offered.
The Commonwealth will require RFT respondents to detail the migration path from MOTS to their MOTS Plus offer. They will then assess the risk profile of that offer from all angles (technical, schedule, cost, commercial etc). My reading of the MOTS/MOTS Plus guidelines are that it has left a fair amount of flexibility for the Commonwealth to interpret the respective MOTS Plus offers.
With CRV LOT to extend way out to 2050-2055 (bear in mind final operational capability won't happen until about 2024), the MOTS Plus solutions must be assessed on balance. A solution with no risk whatsoever likely means obsolescence well before end of LOT.
Don't be surprised also if their are a number of requests from bid teams to extend the tender lodgement date - the 4 month response window is proving very problematic for several of them. The requirement to deliver (assuming down selection) three MOTS Plus vehicles for Risk Mitigation Activities is also a concern.
The Boxer may not yet be offered. Whilst there are up to 6 known candidate bid teams/CRV solutions, it is entirely possible that only 3 might actually proceed with a bid.
The weakest vehicle solutions are Boxer (although very well protected) and Terrex. As it happens, the Germans and Elbit-STK are also likely the weakest of those being discussed.