More T-90 and BMPT contracts

Recently it has been reported that Russia has opted to purchase a small number of BMPT fire support vehicles following the combat experiences in Syria. Previously the BMPT had been rejected by the Russian Army, partly due to the T-15 version of the next-generation Armata family of combat vehicles being considered to handle the same taks while being an IFV with enough space to transport nine dismounts. The BMPT ordered by Russia is an improved model that has been described as the BMPT-2, a name that confusingly has sometimes also used in blogs and forums to describe another variant.

At the same time the Russian company UVZ and government sources have announced a number of new export contracts for the T-90 main battle tank.

 

The new variant of the BMPT-2 is mostly based on the existing BMPT Terminator model, but includes a number of enhancements. The guided missile launchers for the 130 mm 9M120 Ataka missiles (that are usually fitted with thermobaric warheads, but are also available with an anti-tank tandem shaped charge warhead) are fitted with a protective armor panel, which is also used on the BMPT-72. This is the main reason why some people have unintentionally mistaken it for the BMPT-72, ignoring the differences in turret and hull size and shape. The BMPT-72 uses a rather unmodified T-72 chassis with the turret proturding out by quite a bit - thus the BMPT-72 has a crew of only three: commander, driver and gunner. The other BMPT variants utilize a more heavbily modified chassis based on components of the T-72 and T-90, which has a rasied roof section to accommodate the larger crew of these vehicles; aside of the commander, the driver and the main gun operator, two further soldiers inside the BMPT are responsible of operating the hull-mounted automatic grenade launchers. The turret has a much lower-profile, due to the larger hull offering more space for the lower sections of the soldiers.

The new BMPT is fitted with the "bagged ERA"

The BMPT is protected by composite armor and advanced types of explosive reactive armor (ERA). The frontal aspect of the tank is fitted with heavy Relikt ERA, which not only provides a considerable reduction in the penetration power of single stage shaped charge warheads and kinetic energy penetrators (KEPs) such as APFSDS ammunition, but also can reduce the penetration of tandem shaped charge warheads as used on modern anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). Compared to the original BMPT prototypes, the upper surface of this ERA is fitted with ribs in order to prevent bullets or splinters being deflected against the driver's sights.

The vehicle has been photographed in Syria while being fitted with a new type of ERA - or at least a new type of mounting existing ERA, which has been previously demonstrated on a few T-72B tanks. The armor modules are contained in cloth bags, which are strapped to the vehicle by two slings. The exact reason behind this layout has yet to be revealed, it is however believed that it allows an easier and faster replacement of damaged or detonated explosive reactive armor modules. Based on the thickness of the ERA and the fact that it is located ontop of a layer of composite armor, that also can incorporate a further reactive armor panel, this armor is believed to provide protection against at least some types of tandem shaped charge warheads.

The new BMPT variant uses armored panels for protecting the guided missiles

f

The BMPT is armed an array of different weapons, most of which are mounted in an overhead weapon station above the low-profile turret. This is not a remote weapon station (RWS) and also is not an unmanned turret. The main armament consists of two 30 x 165 mm 2A42 autocannons. The choice of this armament has been questioned in the past; apparently the idea behind using two guns of the same calibre fixed at the same target is only a cheap way of increasing the rate of fire and decreasing the relative barrel wear - a more modern gun might have been able to sustain the same rate of fire with just one barrel. A bigger point of critique is however the relative small calibre of the guns, which has been considered as being too small to engage targets hidden inside of buildings and structures by some members of the Russian Army.

The BMPT-2  has a newly added system allowing to fire programmable ammunition. Unlike comparable systems from Germany and the United States, the timer for the detonation seems to be set outside of the gun using an optical system - though this is not confirmed.

The weapons of the BMPT are arranged in an overhead mount

The new version of the fire support vehicle includes a number of improved components compared to the previous variant. The turret-independent panoramic sight for the commander is now based on the commander's optic used on the T-90MS, which includes a modern thermal imager, instead of using the previous BO7K1 optic with a simpler image intensifier. Storage boxes have been added to the rear of hull and weapon station, while the drivetrain makes use of the same tracks as the T-90, rather than using the less capable T-72 tracks. In Syria the vehicle has been showcased with a camouflage net ontop.

According to not entirely confirmed reports, three countries have requested to purchase the T-90 main battle tank (MBT), while a fourth country is supposedly thinking about ordering a number of T-90 tanks. A statement in an official report from tank manufacturer UralVagonZavod (UVZ) confirms that a costumer with the index 704 has ordered 64 T-90S and T-90SK tanks. This index number is used for Russian arms exports to Vietnam, which has bought the tanks as part of a larger military equipment order funded with a Russian credit.

Vietnam has a history of buying Soviet/Russian military equipment, following the Sino-Vietnamese War (Third Indochina War) of 1979, which is why the country rejects buying most of its equipment from the largest regional arms exporter. Currently the Vietnamese ground forces are under-equipped, the most modern tank model in the inventory is apparently the T-62 MBT or an upgraded Chinese-made T-54 copy. Due to the lackluster infrastructure of the country, a large number of light and amphibious tanks aswell as infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs) form the bulk of the military vehicles. Buying the T-90 hence seems very reasonable and likely.

The T-90S is an export model of the Russian version, sometimes also described as a monkey model, even though this might not properly reflect its true nature. Unlike the Russian variants, the T-90S usually is not fitted with the Shtora electro-optical countermeasure, a system which uses laser-warners, smoke grenade launchers and two large infrared jammers to prevent anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) from hitting the tank. Similar and often more complex systems have been made by China, Germany, Israel, the Ukraine and the United States.

When fitted with parts of the Shtora protection system, the export T-90 tank is commonly called T-90SA; the Algerian T-90SA tanks however still lack the MTShU-1-7 modulators found on Russian tanks. The T-90SK is a command variant of the T-90, fitted with a new internal navigation system (TNA-4-3), the more capable R-168-100KBE HF radio unit and a PAB-2M theodolite.  

The T-90SK is a command variant of the T-90S

The Iraqi Army has been claimed to purchase 73 T-90S and T-90SK tanks. The Iraqi ground forces have taken heavy losses in combat against the terrorists, even the American-made M1A1M Abrams tanks, an export version of the M1A1 Abrams without DU armor but fitted with a heavy conventional armor package, have proven to be vulnerable to anti-tank missiles and RPGs. The largest part of the Iraq's tank force consisted of Soviet-designed T-72M/M1 tanks, some of which were relative recently delivered by Czech manufacturer Excalibur Army. Lacking any sort of modern armor - even first generation Kontakt-1 ERA is not fitted to the tanks - these T-72 require an urgent replacement.

The T-90MS is a much more advanced tank

Kuwait has been claimed to have ordered 146 of the much more capable T-90MS/T-90MSK tanks, which are based on the T-90AM main battle tank variant. These vehicles will most likely serve as a replacement for the old M-84, a Yugoslavian modified variant of the T-72 MBT made under licence. The M-84 has not seen any upgrades to keep it relevant, lacking essential features of a modern MBT. The T-90MS is currently the latest available version of the T-90, that was first presented in 2011. It features a vast number of enhancements, boosting it's combat performance in all important aspects: armor protection, firepower, manageability, mobility and reliability.

The T-90MS uses a new elongated turret, which is fitted with number of bustle-mounted storage boxes, of which one is used to store some of ammunition. The improved variant of the T-90 includes a new electronics package, while the fire control system allows full hunter/killer operations thanks to the independent commander's Eagly Eye sight made by the Belarussian company Peleng, which contains a video daylight camera, a laser rangefinder and a modern thermal imager. Slaved to the commander's sight is a remote weapon station with a 7.62 mm machine gun and 800 rounds of ammunition. A better powerpack with a more powerful engine increases the mobility.

While not being fitted with the full Shtora system including IR jammers, the laser warning sensors are fitted to the tank, which most likely are linked to the smoke grenade dischargers for faster reactions. The T-90MS is armed with the 125 mm smoothbore 2A46M-5 gun, that unlike earlier models has an internal chromium liner and an improved recoil system. Compared to its predecessor. the 2A46M-5 is about 100 kilograms heavier, but has a 70% higher barrel life and has on average a 15% lower dispersion.

The T-90MS features additional armor

The armor protection is enhanced over the T-90S thanks to a larger number of modifications. The frontal arc of the tank utilizes the more advanced Relikt ERA instead of the old Kontakt-5 ERA used on the T-90, T-90A and T-90S. Furthermore the side skirts are replaced with a newer design, which contains more composite/ERA segments than the previous T-90 skirts, on which they were mostly made of steel-mesh reinforced rubber (only three segments at the frontal section of each hull side included ERA). A big downside of the T-90 turret design - the poor side armor which proved to be vulnerable to RPGs in urban combat - has been fixed by adding spaced armor modules that can be fitted with composite armor or ERA panels. Slat armor is covering the rear section of hull and turret.

According to a conversation between Vladimir Putin and an official from the Russian Army, which was "leaked" (it seems very likely to be intentional propaganda), the frontal armor is claimed to provide protection equivalent to 850 mm steel armor against APFSDS ammunition and up to 1,200 mm against shaped charge ammunition with tandem warheads.

Furthermore the removal of some of the ammunition from the crew compartment increases the survivability in case of armor penetration.

The T-90M will be adopted by the Russian Army

Iran is indirectly copying the T-90MS in form of the Karrar tank, while India has ordered a total of 464 of the T-90MS tanks. According to Russian sources, Egypt (the biggest M1 Abrams user aside of the United States) has shown interest in acquiring the licence to produce up to 400 T-90S or T-90MS tanks locally. Kuwait also operates the M1 Abrams, the Kuwaiti tanks were recently upgraded to the M1A2 configuration, but with an export armor package, where the depleted uranium is replaced with other materials.

Russia is planning to upgrade many of it's current T-90 tanks to the new T-90M configuration as part of the Proryv-3 (breakthrough 3) program. This is very similar to the T-90MS, but includes a number of unique features such as slat armor covering the lower ERA section of the turret front, aswell as the more powerful 125 mm 2A82-1M smoothbore gun of the T-14 Armata. The weight of the T-90M supposedly will reach up to 50 metric tons compared to the 48 metric tons of the T-90MS and the only 46.5 metric tons of the T-90A.

IDF Carmel details emerge

A number of  3D graphics showing the Carmel next generation combat vehicle of the Israeli Defence Force, which sometimes is also called an advanced technology demonstrator, have been posted on the internet. The images come from a presentation held by the retired Brigadier General Didi Ben-Yoash, who formerly was the Chief Armored Corps Officer of the Israeli Defence Force (IDF). The presentation was part of the Second International Ground Warfare and Logistics Conference, held on 16th and 17th of May 2017 in the Latrun Armed Corps Memorial. Based on the fact that Didi Ben-Yoash is retied and IsraeliDefense.co.il describes this as a simulation of the Carmel, it appears extremely likely that the final vehicle might appear to be very different.

The simulated Carmel fighting vehicle

The Carmel is said to have a combat weight of 30 to 35 metric tons, which is about as much as the new wheeled 8x8 Eitan armored personell carrier (APC), currently being developed by MANTAK for the IDF. This weight level is considerably less than the weight of current heavy infantry fighting vehicles such as the German Puma at 43 metric tons and the Russian T-15 Armata at 48 metric tons. The Carmel is not an IFV, but what might be it's closest Western counterpart - the British Scout-SV Ajax (based on the ASCOD 2 chassis) - also is a few metric tons heavier than the expected weight of the Carmel. The closest Russian counterpart to the Carmel might be the BMPT/BMPT-72 Terminator fire support vehicle designed by the Russian company UVZ. The Carmel is claimed to be rather inexpensive compared to heavier vehicles like the Merkava 4 and Namer.

The potentially smaller internal volume of the Carmel's hull might be able to negate the lower weight, but this is not confirmed - the opposite might just as well be possible: the larger turret and main armament of the Carmel (compared to vehicles like the Puma and the T-15 Armata) could result in a lower level of ballistic protection. The frontal aspect of the vehicle is most likely protected against 25 mm or 30 mm APFSDS ammunition. Depending on the internal volume and protection level of the turret - an unmanned turret can be designed with an intentionally lower level of armor protection, if a mission kill is considered acceptable -  the vehicle's hull might be a bit better protected; however the sense behind such a decision would be questionable, given that no country in the region currently operates an infantry fighting vehicle or scout vehicle armed with a 35 mm or 40 mm gun - i.e. a higher level of ballistic protection would lead to no gain in actual protection.

The shape of the Carmel simulation might be result of reducing the AFV's thermal and radar signature

The side armor in the 3D renderings appears to be rather thin, probably being designed to resist smaller threats than the frontal armor. A common design choice for current APCs and IFVs is side protection against 14.5 mm AP(I) ammunition aswell as smaller EFPs (explosively formed penetrators), which are launched by certain types of anti-vehicle mines and EFP-IEDs.

Unlike other Israeli armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), the Carmel doesn't make use of explosive reactive armor (ERA) according to the simulation from Didi Ben-Yoash. Past Israeli combat vehicles such as the much heavier Namer APC, versions of the Sho't and Magach main battle tanks (MBTs) aswell as the Pereh anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) launcher vehicle were fitted with ERA. The latest version(s) of the Merkava 4 tank supposedly make use of hybrid armor, incorporating ERA layers inside it's relatively thick composite armor array.

The Namer APC (pictured) and the Merkava 4M tank are protected by the Trophy APS

Instead of using ERA, the Carmel will be relying only on active protection systems (APS) for protection against guided and unguided anti-tank weapons. Other than the Carmel utilizing both softkill and hardkill systems, no further details on the exact type of APS have yet been disclosed; there are however multiple local options. The Trophy APS from Rafael, adopted on the upgraded Merkava 4M MBT and the Namer APC, could be used on the Carmel; this would reduce costs and allow all three vehicles to utilize the same countermeasures, easing the logistic processes. A version of this systems suited for medium weight vehicles already exists in form of Trophy-MV, incorporating hardkill and softkill measures. However the Trophy APS should be considered a relatively "bad" APS, having several unique drawbacks in comparison with other active protections ystems.

Iron Fist, the active protection system developed by the company Israeli Military Industries (IMI), is a more capable option for the Carmel. Currently the Netherlands and the United States are testing this system for possible adoption on some of their AFVs. Iron First already integrates a limited amount of softkill measures (i.e. infrared jammers) and provides a higher short-time multi-hit capability (having usually four countermeasures ready compared to only one per flank in case of Trophy) with lower collateral damage (thanks to using HE blast grenades). A third option would be a combined development from Rafael and IMI, which supposedly is being worked on by the two companies on behalf of the IDF. Such a system might be able to combine the advantages of both APS types without including their drawbacks.

Even with APS, the Carmel will only be protected against small/medium calibre ammunition and shaped charge weapons such as rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) and anti-tank guided missiles. Currently no APS is capable of dealing with large calibre kinetic energy penetrators (KEPs) such as APFSDS ammunition fired by main battle tanks and EFPs in such a way, that the relatively low amount of passive base armor of the Carmel would be capable of absoring the residual penetration of the KEP fragments.

A high level of protection against mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) is required to minimize casualties in the operational environment of the IDF. Heavier Israeli vehicles like the Merkava 4 tank and the Namer APC are fitted with thick add-on armor at the belly plate of the hull. Together with the v-shape of the hull bottom, these vehicles are believed to have a very high level of mine protection. It seems likely that the Carmel will also adopt a similar design; theoretically the anti-mine plating could be reduced to cover only the bottom of the crew compartment, a design used on some MRAPs (mine-resistant ambush protected) vehicles. This however would also increase the likelihood of a mission or mobility kill.

The Carmel has a front-mounted engine, which in some cases can improve the crew survivability against mines and IEDs. In particular when the detonation of the explosive charge is triggered by pressure or a trip wire, having the crew seated at the rear of the vehicle reduces lethality rates. However when the mines/IEDs are connected to a fuze triggered with a delay or by a thermal signature, the front-mounted engine might result in a higher probability of the explosive charge detonating below the crew compartment, increasing the probability of wounded crew members.

Iron Vision allows the crew to see through the armor by displaying images from externally mounted cameras

The vehicle is to be manned by a crew of two, but supposedly provides enough space for up to three men. The small crew size is possible, because the vehicle makes use of several new technologies in order to assist the operators; in some ways the crew only needs to monitor the vehicle. During the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, several countries inlcuding Germany, the United States and (Soviet-)Russia investigated two-men crews in their main battle tank (MBT) development programs. In general the conclusion was made that tanks (or tank-like combat vehicles) with a crew of only two men are possible, when using advanced optics, properly integrated C4ISR systems and components that allow automatic target recognition, target identification and aiming. Automated driving (potentially based on pre-designed routes using check points) is claimed to be a feature of the Carmel. The Iron Vision system from Elbit, often described as "see-through armor" based on an augmented/virtual reality head mounted display is expected to be fielded on the new vehicle.

A problem with reducing the crew size from four to two (or three) is that a lot of tasks aside of  operating the vehicle usually require additional workforce. Primarily having two soldiers for working on the tank is a problem when trying to repair the vehicle in combat conditions and when doing certain maintenance tasks. When having more crew members it is also possible (though not necessarily common) to specialize each soldier in a secondary skill: i.e. one man could receive an additional training in mechanics, one other soldier could be taught on fixing the electronics, while another crew member could learn how to properly threat some of the less common medical issues; reducing the crew also reduces the possibility of having the same amount of secondary skills.

It is possible to negate the impact of crew reductions by assigning more soldiers to one vehicle, increasing the support staff for the Carmel or by letting the vehicles operate in pairs, that are meant to help each other. How suitable these solutions are is a question that can only be answered after proper combat experience.

The unmanned turret used in the Carmel AFV simulation seems to be rather large

In the renderings from Ben-Yaosh's simulation, a relatively large unmanned turret is located ontop of the rear-most section of the Carmel's hull. This happens to be an unspecified type of turret; in reality a modified off-the-shelf design from IMI or Elbit Systems could be used on the Carmel in order to reduce costs. This however would most likely reduce the turret protection to STANAG 4569 level 4 at most, giving enemy IFVs the options to cause a mission kill or firepower kill.

The Carmel is said to be armed with a medium calibre autocannon with high elevation, and anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs). The exact calibre of the gun has yet to be revealed, but it is expected to be within the range of 30 to 76 millimetres, speculations often speak of either a 40 mm or a 60 mm gun. The latter calibre was developed by Israeli Military Industries (IMI) together with the Italian company Oto-Melara. The cooperation of both companies lead to the Hyper-Velocity Medium Support Weapon (HVMS) gun, a 60 mm high-pressure gun capable of penetrating 120 mm steel armor at 60° at a distance of 2,000 metres when firing APFSDS ammunition. This is achieved by a rather high pressure of 427 MPa, compared to 350-370 MPa for 30 x 173 mm APFSDS rounds, 420 MPa for 35 x 228 mm AP(FSDS) rounds and ~400 MPa for ammunition fired by the 40 mm Bofors L70 gun. A problem of the HVMS gun is that it has lost it's biggest selling point - the ability to destroy main battle tanks (MBTs) with the introduction of heavier armored tanks. The high pressue is created by using a larger propellant charge, which negatively affects weight and size: the weight of 60 mm ammunition is between 6 to 7.2 kilograms, depending on ammo type; this compares to 750-860 grams for a single 30 x 173 mm round and ~2.5 kilograms for a 40 mm Bofors L70 HE round.

Having a larger calibre can lead to less stowed rounds, which will depending on scenario lead to less stowed kills. When engaging large groups of soldiers, a larger round is capable of injuring or killing more soldiers at the same time. When engaging lightly armored vehicles or smaller groups of soldiers outside the range of the coaxial armament (such as a two-men ATGM team), then a smaller calibre can provide the same lethaliy per round, while providing greater ammo stowage.

The Carmel is said to be specifically optimized for urban combat, which creates another set of operational requirements. If the main gun is not powerful enough to penetrate even thicker walls, then it is rather useless in urban combat; however if the ammunition has too much penetration power or too much explosive/fragmentation payload, then it increases the possibility of collateral damage by a large factor. Finding the right balance and the right ammunition mix seems to be extremely important; here programmable ammunition (requires at least 30 mm calibre for a decent payload) and ammunition with enhanced after-armor effects (provided by ammunition such as FAPDS, FAP, PELE-Pen) seem to be desirable.

The Swedish SEP featured a diesel electric drive system, partially housed on the sponsons

The Carmel is powered by a front-mounted engine; according to Israeli sources, this could potentially be a diesel electric drive system. Diesel-electric drives for armored fighting vehicles have been a topic of research and development since the 1980s, although the earliest proposals such as the Holt Gas-Electric Tank from 1918 "date all the way back". Diesel-electric drive systems are expected to provide a number of advantages such as greater flexibility when arranging the powerpack components inside the vehicle, higher reliability, reduced wear and purely electrical silent running ("sneaking") capability for a short period of time.

A problem of diesel-electric drives is the increased weight and volume compared to currently existing diesel engines; increasing the weight and volume relative to it's power output doesn't make much sense, when trying to make the AFVs like the Carmel lighter compared to existing vehicles. A slightly more conventional hybrid system - as used on the infamous civillian Toyota Prius or using a electric-mechanical drive system seems to be more benifical based on the current state of technology, although a conventional diesel engine might still provide most performance per weight and volume. However the Carmel still might be fitted with a diesel-electrical drive system for another reason: technology development. It's not very uncommon in the military to adopt new technology, that offers little to no advantages over existing solutions, just to fund the development of future, improved variants of the technology. A diesel-electric drive doesn't need to be better than existing diesel engines, if the military is convinced that it has the potential to become better in the future - something that is generally accepted. The M1 Abrams' AGT-1500C gas turbine is a prime example for such a choice; it wasn't better than other diesel offerings of it's time, but the Army (apparently falsely) believed that gas turbines were the future of ground combat vehicles. The German Puma IFV was designed specifically with the idea in mind to reuse new technologies in future AFVs.

The Carmel is expected to utilize rubber band tracks, potentially segmented ones, which would allow easier repairs and maintenance compared to the currently more common continous rubber band tracks.

The computer generated renderings from retired General Didi Ben-Yaosh show a vehicle with a rather bad shape of the frontal hull - the hull front is extruding more than a feet over the tracks. This would result in the vehicle having extremely poor off-road mobility: When driving down a hill, the overlapping hull front could touch the flat ground before the tracks (at the drive wheels in particular) reach it; the vehicle would get stuck in such a case. Likewise when trying to climb up a steep slope, the overlapping hull could touch the slope before the track section reaches the sloped ground.

Different Carmel variants

The renderings from the Carmel simulation also show a number of further vehicle variants, which have not been officially confirmed yet. If the exact type of other variants is speculation on the side of Mr. Ben-Yaosh or result of sources not available to the public (or atleast not available in English) is not known yet. In 2016 the European Security and Defence magazine mentioned only four overall Carmel versions (including the autocannon-armed fire support variant), which appear to be different from the ones shown in the renderings. The four other simulated Carmel variants are apparently a command and control vehicle (mobile command post), a mine-clearing vehicle similar to the US-American Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) fitted with rockets and a dozer blade, a scout and/or electronic warfare vehicle, and a further variant, which houses a large searchlight or laser effector, which might be used for CRAM (counter rocket, artillery and missiles) purposes.

More than two years ago, the author of this article suggest a somewhat similar vehicle, designed for urban combat and operated by a unit specialized in urban combat - there are specialized mountain infantry and coastal rangers in some militaries, so the latter suggestion seems reasonable. The idea was discussed in another forum, a blog post later meant to go online on this blog was (like so many other posts) started, but was never finished. Main battle tanks are not capable of dealing with all issues of modern combat, being too heavy for many cities and thus being incapable of crossing older bridges or driving in areas with tunnels/subways. All current tanks are also lacking the gun elevation, some also the roof armor, to fight in cities with larger buildings, which would allow enemies to target the vehicles from above. The lack of scalability of tank ammunition in urban combat seems to be a further issue, just like the huge physicial size of a proper MBT. While the Carmel seems to be a step forward, it appears still to be less than ideal based on the available news reports and the simulation from former Brigadier General Ben-Yoash.

This might mean that the Russian BMPT - being operated by Kazakhstan only - might still be the best urban combat fire support vehicle, even after the Carmel entered service.

The Ukraine develops the Otaman family of wheeled vehicles

At the Ukranian Arms and Security 2016 (Зброя та безпека 2016) exhibition, the new Otaman 6x6 and 8x8 wheeled vehicles were presented for the first time. The two vehicles have been developed by the company Practika.

The Otaman concept was first presented in March at the Indian Defexpo 2016 by the Ukranian state-owned military agency UkrOboronProm. The Otaman concept takes existing military trucks such as the ones manufactured by GAZ, KRAZ, Ural or Zil and adds a protective plating made of armor steel (RHA) and an internal kevlar liner to it. According to Army Recognition's coverage of Defexpo 2016, this would allow to transform a typical 4x4 truck into a 7.5 tons heavy APC with a crew of two and a capacity of up to 12 soldiers. The vehicle would be powered by a Hyundai D4DB engine with only 130 horsepower maximum output and be protected in accordance with the STANAG 4569 level 2 certification; optionally this can be raised to level 3. Another option for the 4x4 Otaman concept was adding a manually or remotely operated weapon station with a heavy machine gun as armament for self-defence.

The six wheeled version of the Otaman was presented in the configuration as self-propelled 122 mm gun. According to Russian sources the gun is the old Soviet-designed 2A18 howitzer from the 1960s, which has also been used on the tracked 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled gun. This gun has a range of about 15 kilometres with conventional and 21 kilometres with rocked-assisted ammunition. It is suited for general fire support operations, to take out fortified positions and to engage lightly and medium armored vehicles.

The combat weight of the six-wheeled Otaman version is 16,000 kilograms. It is not clear if this is a reference to the specific variant with 122 mm gun in a turret or the baseline vehicle. Unlike the 4x4 and the 8x8 versions of the Otaman, the 6x6 Otaman seems to employ a newly constructed chassis. The baseline variant of the 6x6 Otaman is meant to be a pure armored carrier vehicle. The vehicle is powered by a German Deutz engine with an output of 290 or 320 horsepower. According to the datasheets of the exhibition, the engine is linked to a transmission manufactured by the Alission - this might be a typo and refer to the US company Allison instead, which provided transmissions for various military vehicles.

The vehicle's protection is provided by it's welded steel construction. This protects against small arms and assault rifle ammunition only. The interior might be fitted with a spall-liner made of kevlar or other poly-aramides. Via the installation of an applique armor kit, the ballistic protection can be raised to meet STANAG 4569 level 4 (all-round protection against 14.5 mm AP ammunition from 500 metres distance).

Aside of the self-propelled gun and the armored personnel carrier, the specifications sheet from Arms and Security 2016 also mentions a possible infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) variant, an armored recovery vehicle (ARV) variant, a mobile command post vehicle aswell as a mortar carrier.

The 8x8 version of the Otaman is apparently based on a rebuild BTR-60, but is also offered as modernization option for the BTR-70. The Otaman 8x8 is offered with the same Deutz engine and Alisson (Allison?) transmission as the 6x6 variant. It is however lighter, with a combat weight of only 13 metric tons. The 8x8 is not offered with an optional applique armor kit. Apparently the drivetrain and/or suspension of the BTR-60 is not capable as supporting as much weight as the counterparts used on the six-wheeled chassis.

The Otaman 8x8 was presented in the configuration as mortar carrier with a 120 mm mortar mounted in the rear compartment. The same six variants as available on the 6x6 Otaman - APC, ARV, command post vehicle, mortar carrier, IFV and self-propelled gun - are also offered based on the 8x8 vehicle.

Rebuild BTR-70 in 2015

Already one year earlier a rebuild of the BTR-70 was presented at the Arms and Security 2015 exhibition. The vehicle was known under a different name and apparently made by a different company. Apparently the Ukranian defence industry is not capable of designing new vehicle by itself or the budget is too limited for it. Instead Ukrainian companies and volunteer units like the Azovets brigade, keep upgrading and redesigning old vehicles.

US armor programs at AUSA 2016

Aside of the Griffin, other vehicle upgrades and propsals have been presented at the AUSA 2016. In particular the current status of the AMPV and Bradley programs are interesting. The M8 Armored Gun System was also present, but apparently still identical to the version presented last year at AUSA. It is quite obvious that the Griffin and AGS are meant to compete with each other for possible adoption with the US armed forces.

Apparently the US Army is looking for a Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle with a weight of up to 32 metric tons (as reported by Jane's IHS), clearly disagreeing with a TARDEC workshop containing members of the US Army's 82nd Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Divison. The workshop favoured lighter vehicles, designed to be compatible with the C-130 aircraft (thus at most 22 metric tons of weight) with lower armor protection. While the minimum required firepower is at least a 50 milimetre cannon, the US Army is supposedly not interested in introducing a new ammunition calibre into it's inventory, meaning that most likely a 105 or 120 mm tank gun has to be mounted.

The current weight of the Griffin prototype is sitting at 28 metric tons, but another metric ton should be shaved of the design, resulting in a final combat weight of only 27 metric tons. The Griffin is fitted with a new turret based on the Abrams turret. This turret weighs only about a third of the Abrams turret, which implies a weight of 7 to 8 metic tons. It seems to be not fitted with composite armor and is made out of aluminium. Apparently it seems to be a modified Abrams turret design without composite armor. These factors leads to a number of changes in the general shape and layout of the turret.

The turret lacks a bustle-mounted ammunition rack with blow-off panels as found on the Abrams main battle tank (MBT). Instead the ammunition is stored in the hull, probably without any additional safety features. This is the common way of storing ammunition in light tanks based on IFV hulls such as the CV90-120 and ASCOD 2 Direct Fire variants. The Griffin features an external bustle rack that can be used to store crew equipment.

In the presented form, the Griffin offers protection against heavy machine gun and small arms ammunition only. However it's protection can be augmented with the installation of modular armor packages or active protection systems (APS). The prototype however seems to lack any sort of mounting mechanism or interfaces for such. The main gun of the Griffin has been confirmed to be the XM360 smoothbore gun, which was originally developed for the Mounted Combat System of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program of the US Army.

The Bradley will receive new hand stations.

Some details on the ongoing development of the M1A2 SEP v3 main battle tank also have been released at the AUSA 2016. Currently there are seven full-scale prototypes undergoing testing. In the next twelfe months, the US Army is expected to make a decision on what exactly will be part of the third System Enhancement Package (SEP). The series production is expected to start in the first quarter of 2018, about the same time when the Leopard 2A7V and Challenger 2 LEP upgrade are expected to be ready.

The M1A2 SEP v3 upgrades moves the APU under armor and the inertial navigation system into the turret for increased performance. The digital screens for gunner and commander will be upgraded to a 1080p resolution and support third generation thermal imagers. Further upgrades to the armor protection and weapon station are also included. Initially 45 M1A2 SEP v3 tanks will be made in the first year. This rate will increase to a maximum of 60 tanks per year for the following years.

Old AMPV prototype

The AMPV is meant to replace the outdated M113 plattform and is based on the Bradley design. While original concepts saw General Dynamics using a rather unmodified Bradley hull without turret (but raised roof at the rear compartment), the final AMPV design however uses a newly (re-)designed chassis, which is largely based on the Bradley technology. It relies on a number of components common to the Bradley and M109A7 self-propelled gun, thus reducing development and life-cycle costs. The AMPV is heavier and significantly larger than the original Bradley hull, offering increased protection against mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The current version of the medical evacuation AMPV at AUSA 2016

Nine variants of the AMPV are being made; one of them is already being assembled, while the welding of the hulls for the other eight variants is underway. The variants include a medical evacuation vehicle, a medical treatment vehicle, a mortar carrier, a mission command vehicle and a general-purpose vehicle. The US Army plans on buying 2,907 AMPVs for replacing the obsolete M113 variants in the Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) for an estimated cost of $10.233 billion. A further 1,922 M113 needs to be replaced at echelons above the brigade level, but as of 2016 the US Army has not established the requirements for this program - it seems likely however that the AMPV will also be used for this. In 2014 BAE Systems was awarded a $382 million contract of 52 months for the development of the AMPV. This contract includes the option of a 289 vehicles low-rate initial production (LRIP) for a total value of $1.2 billion. For the fiscal year 2017, the president budget request saw a $184.2 million funding for research, development, testing and engineering (RDT&E) of the AMPV. It is intended to support the assembly, support and shipment of 29 prototypes to government test sites for a 1,500 miles testing. The budget was backed by house and senate.

The distribution of AMPV demand is the following: 520 general-purpose AMPVs are needed to replace exisiting M113A3 GP (general-purpose) vehicles, 991 AMPVs are required to replace the M1068A3 mission command variant of the M113. 384 AMPV mortar carriers will phase out the M1064 mortar carrier, while 788 AMPVs replace the M113A3 medical evacuation variant. Another 214 AMPVs will follow the M577 vehicles for medical treatment. That is a total of 2,897 AMPVs, leaving a further 10 vehicles for the purpose of testing and developing. About nine to ten percent of all AMPV's are meant for the US Training and Doctrine Command as well as testing of the vehicles.

 

The Bradley Next-Generation has been presented at AUSA 2016 alongside the AMPV. The main feature of the Bradley Next-Gen is the increased belly protection against anti-vehicle mines and IEDs. The roof has been raised by seven inches (178 mm) in order to accept soldiers up to the whole 95th percentile of height. The fuel and ammunition such as TOW missiles (previously stored below the crew seats) are moved outside the crew compartment. For this two triangle-shaped sponsons have been added to the rear of the vehicle, located at each side of the rear door of the Bradley. At least the TOW missiles can still be accessed from inside, allowing to reload the missile launcher without the need of completely exiting the vehicle.

The Next-Gen Bradley has a new rear storage and a raised roof

The Bradley Next-Generation features improvments to the mobility in form of installing the same engine as used on the AMPV and Bradley ECP2 upgrade. Together with a new high-efficiency transmission, the Next-Generation Bradley has essentially 200 additional horsepower compared to the current US Army model. The upgraded Bradley proposal also features new tracks and a new suspension, which is set higher (already a feature of the ECP upgrade proposal) and which uses a different torsion bar design. The new torsion bars won't ease and detach upon blast impact, so they won't penetrate the vehicle's floor and kill the soldiers inside. The vehicle still utilizes only six roadwheels, not seven as incorrectly claimed by some early sources.

Bradley with MCT-30 turret at AUSA 2014

The Bradley Next-Gen is still fitted with the original turret and the old 25 mm M242 Bushmaster chain gun. No upgrades were made to the turret by BAE Systems beyond the already planned ECP upgrades. The US Army has tested the Kongsberg Protector MCT-30 turret fitted with the 30 mm Mk 44 Bushmaster II chain gun in 2014 as possible upgrade path for the Bradley, but no further informations about this project have been surfaced in the last year. In the past decades, the Bradley has been fitted for tests and trials with a larger number of different turrets and guns, including the 35 mm Bushmaster III chain gun, the 40 mm Bofors cannon aswell as 40 mm CTAS case-telescopic armament system. It seems possible that fitting the MCT-30 turret to the Bradley might be just another BAE-funded prototype that is not meant for US Army service.

A major issue that both the Next-Gen Bradley and the AMPV share, is the outdated armor design. The base armor of the Bradley and the AMPV consists of a welded aluminium construction with bolted-on steel plates, which were added to the Bradley beginning in 1988. On the original production models of the Bradley, the aluminium alloy 5083 was used for most of the structure except some of the sloped roof sections of the hull side, where the aluminium of the alloy 7039 was utilized. The aluminium plates used for the assembly of the hull are supposedly one inch (25.4 mm) thick at the sloped front and the flat sides. The side armor of the hull also included an array of two spaced 0.25 inch (6.4 mm) steel plates to provide enough protection against 14.5 mm armor-piercing (AP) ammunition by tumbling the impacting projectiles. The frontal third of the hull bottom of the original Bradley was fitted with a 9.5 mm steel plate for enhanced protection against anti-personnel mines and grenades.

Around 1986 the development of an armor-upgrade was initiated, after being already demanded by different officials even before the Bradley entered service. The armor upgrade was adopted in 1988 and consisted of steel plates with a thickness of up to 1.5 inch (38 mm), although some sources suggest a slightly lower maximum thickness of only 1.25 inch (32 mm). The steel plates are connected via large bolts to the hull and turret. The size and amount of bolts differs depending on location and plate thickness. The side armor module consisting of spaced steel plates were replaced by a single solid steel plate at the upper part and two thin steel plates at the lower section. The only modern aspect of the Bradley's armor is the usage of Armor Shield-R reactive explosive armor developed by the Israeli company Rafael. There are different configurations of Armor Shield-R that have been used on the Bradley in the past with different protection levels, but the Next-Gen Bradley and the AMPV seem to feature the latest variant. According to Jane's IHS, this still cannot defeat tandem charge warhead arrangment and thus protects only against older and light rocket-propelled grenades.

Aluminium of the alloy 5083 is known to provide little to no weight savings over conventional armor steel. Depending on thickness and projectile shape, tests from the US Army's Ballistic Research Laboratory (BRL, renamed to Army Research Laboratory  in 1992) show an increase of protection by 8% in favour of aluminium compared to steel in best case, to a 22% decrease in protection compared to steel in worst case. The British Professor Richard M. Ogorkiewicz, who worked for/with the British MoD, noted that the main benefit of  (alloy 5083) aluminium armor is the greater structural stiffness resulting from the thicker aluminium plates compared to thin steel plates providing the same level of protection. Thinner steel plates have to be reinforced with bars or have to be ribbed in order to provide additional strucutral stiffness, leading to a slight increase of weight. In general one has to assume that the original hull and turret construction of the Bradley provide essentially no weight savings over steel armor. The addition of further (weight-inefficient) steel armor and the large overall profile of the M2 Bradley might mean that it is the most inefficient infantry fighting vehicle in regards to armor protection per weight.

Ceramic composite armor of the K21 IFV: This is what AMPV and Bradley need

More modern infantry fighting vehicles such as the ASCOD Ulan and ASCOD 2 Ajax, the Bionix, the later batches of the CV90, the K21 and the Puma IFV utilize ceramic composite armor for ballistic protection. Compared to high-hardness steel armor, the ceramic amror can in extreme cases offer more than four times as much protection for a given weight. When it was presented in 2014, the AMPV design (then still based on a slightly lighter, less modified Bradley hull) weighed 27.6 metric tons. It seems likely that the AMPV could have a total weight of close to only 20 metric tons if it was making use of more weight efficient armor (such as ceramic composite armor) and manufacturing methods, such as using a glass-reinforced plastic hull like the K21 or a base steel hull made with thin metal bending technology. Likewise the Bradely would probably weight about 25 metric tons when manufactured with more modern technology.

The only downside of this suggestion would be the increased costs, but these might be nullified by the lower fuel consumption, lowered wear of engine and tracks aswell as the overall greater tactical and strategic mobility. In the end the Next-Generation Bradley is meant to provide a solution to the US Army to last until 2030, when the decision is made to procure a new IFV for the US Army. The AMPV is meant to be operated beyond 2030. How well armored will the AMPV and Next-Gen Bradley be at this point of time? Does it make sense procuring outdated armor in the 2017 to 2025 timeframe, which is meant to serve until beyond 2030, when much more modern alternatives are already existing? Luckily the Next-Generation Bradley is just a proposal; the AMPV on the other hand seems extremely odd...

TARDEC on Mobile Protected Firepower

According to BreakingDefense.com, the US Army is looking for a future mobile protected firepower (MPF) vehicle for the US Army's expeditionary forces. Supposedly the US Army informed about 200 industry representative from 59 companies about their initial intent.

The MPF vehicle is required due to the lackluster strategical and tactical mobility of heavier MBTs and IFVs such as the M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley. The MPF vehicle is supposed to sacrifice armor in favour of being able to travel through dense woodlands/jungles, tight city streets, low-capacity briges, mountains and soft soil. In such terrain heavy vehicles often suffer from a number of mobility-related issues like being to heavy for bridges or the soft soil, and being to large for traveling through tight city roads or jungles.

Possible adversaries of the United States and NATO, such as China, Iran and Russia have developed or imported modern anti-aircraft and area denial weaponry, so that airlift of larger forces with the larger aircraft such as a C-5 Galaxy or a C-17 Globemaster III might not be possible. Thus the MPF vehicle would be airlifted to capture larger airfields and too destroy enemy anti-aircraft positions.

General Dynamics' Flyer-72 vehicle

For the development of the MPF vehicle, the US Army has requested a $9.678 million budget for the fiscal year 2017. The MPF vehicle is to accompany the ground mobility vehicle (GMV) into operations and combat. The ground mobility vehicle (GMV) project looks for a light-weight, lightly armored or even unarmored transport vehicle for a nine-men infantry squad. General Dynamics Flyer-72 is one of the contenders for the GMV contract. For the GMV development and purchase, the US Army requested an initial $4.9 million budget in the FY 2017. 

At the annual symposium of the US Army (AUSA) 2015, BAE presented the old M8 Armored Gun System (AGS) light tank partly upgraded to modern standards and declared it available when needed. The M8 AGS was developed beginning in late 1992 until being type-classified in 1995. However it's procurement was canceled in 1996 to save money for other air-mobile projects like the Stryker Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) and the canceled Future Combat Systems. The AGS is armed with a 105 mm rifled XM35 gun, which is automatically loaden by a 21 rounds autoloader. A further 9 rounds of main gun ammunition are stored within the hull. A main feature of the AGS was the modular armor, which could be increased depending on the desired protection level aswell as space and weight limitations. Protection ranged from being barely bullet proof to resist 30 mm AP ammunition and single-stage RPG warheads. A late prototype version of the AGS nicknamed "Thunderbolt" was armed with a 120 mm smoothbore gun; however this was not the M256 gun of the Abrams, but rather a prototype of the XM291 lightweight gun. The development of this specific gun was never finished, because it was canceled following the buget cuts made by the US Congress. 

This means that if BAE wanted to propose a modern version of the M8 AGS, it has to either be armed with a 105 mm gun or utilize another lightweight 120 mm smoothbore gun; candidates for this option are RUAG's Compact Tank Gun (CTG), Rheinmetall's 120 mm L/47 LLR (light, low recoil) gun, Oto-Melara's 120 mm L/45 gun aswell as the US XM360 gun developed for the Future Combat System (albeit the development of this gun might still be under way).

The upgraded M8 presented at AUSA featured modern explosive reactive armor (ERA), rubber-band tracks, a situational awareness camera system and modern optronics. The rear section was protected by modern perforated armor. BAE calls it the "Expeditionary Light Tank". Unfortunately this prototype was still fitted with an old 105 mm rifled gun.

The article published by BreakingDefense.com speaks of a set of basic requirements for the MPF vehicle. As for protection, the requirement is to resist at least 0.50 cal (12.7 mm) ammunition all-around. Firepower has to be sufficient to destroy heavy bunkers and heavy (main battle) tanks. Each light infnatry brigade should be equipped with a company of 14 MPFs. According to Col. Will Nuckols, the Army's Chief of Staff is giving protection a very high priority. Wether the MPF vehicle can be air-dropped has yet to be determined by the US Army.

One issue with the MPF vehicle is, that it shouldn't become overly specialized for just one job. Making it air-deployable via parachute is great for airborne infantry, the rest of the US infantry units will however then suffer from being given a less protected vehicle, as the weight limit imposed for being air-droppable might result in reduction of armor protection.

The US Army Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC), NCOs from the 82nd Airborne Division and the 10th Mountain Divison, aswell as industry representatives, designers and automotive engineers developed a number of designs on a workshop forum.

The official YouTube channel of the TARDEC has uploaded three videos presenting some of the ideas of the workshop. It appears that the three presentations are from different workshop groups, but unfortunately this is not confirmed by either the TARDEC videos or news articles about the workshop. On a side note, the designers seem to be interested in designing vehicles mainly suited for science-fiction movies.

The first presentation from the workshop came to the conclusion that demanding firepower equal to the M1 Abrams MBT as suggested by Col. Will Nuckols was the wrong approach and instead the ideal armament for the MPF vehicle consists of a 50 mm autocannon as main gun and a coaxial machine gun. The 50 mm gun is supposedly able to take on all targets up to a T-72 main battle tank (MBT). Furthermore the vehicle should be armed with an independent secondary weapon, which is essentially a pinhole for a M2 heavy machine gun (HMG) or a Mk 19 grenade launcher located at the turret. The vehicle should be rear-engined in order to reduce casaulities from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) triggered by thermal signatures, which seems to be a very odd reason to choose such a design, because IEDs triggered by thermal signatures appear to be rather sophisticated and hence extremely rare.

To deal with heavier armor at least two anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) are carried in a launcher on the vehicle, according to the soldier most likely the Javelin fire-and-forget missile system would be chosen. Despite this rather heavy armament, the MPF vehicle is not meant to go head-to-head with a MBT; instead the MPF vehicle is meant to be a fast, tracked vehicle that is very agile. It should be protected against 14.5 mm anti-materiel (most likely armor piercing incendiary) ammunition from all sides. It should fit inside a C-130 for easy air-transportability.

Another soldier presented a similiar concept, but as previously stated, this might be a different suggestion for the MPF vehicle. Like the previous presentation, a 50 mm autocannon serves as main armament. Unlike the other proposal, the vehicle is meant to be tracked or wheeled - the drawings from the designers imply even an option to convert the vehicle from tracked to wheeled if desired. It features an open turret, which is not ideal to encounter armored vehicles, but suited for other operations. As far as dimensions are concerned, the vehicle should be 8 feet tall overall, with a six feet hull height.

According to a further soldier, the characteristics of the MPF vehicle have the following priorities: mobility is meant to be the primary concern, lethality is secondary. Protection is the least important feature for the MPF vehicle. This soldier claimed that it's main task is supposed to be engaging heavily armored IFVs.

The 50 mm gun is an interesting point to start designing a vehicle. Currently nobody is using this calibre and there are two different (but very similar) options. The original 50 x 330 mm supershot, a version of the 35 mm anti-aircraft calibre, which has been upscaled to the chamber diameter. This calibre was originally developed by the German company Rheinmetall with their electrical-driven Rh 503 35/50 mm gun designed for the late 1980s Marder 2 IFV. The basic Rh 503 had a calibre of only 35 mm, but by exchanging the barrel the gun could be converted to a 50 mm gun. After the Marder 2 was canceled and most costumers of Rheinmetall prefered gas-operated weapons, the Rh 503 concept was abandoned by Rheinmetall. The US company Aliant Techsystem (ATK) revived the concept for the 30 mm Bushmaster II (can be used for Super 40 ammunition after barrel exchange) and the 35 mm Bushmaster III chain guns. According to Anthony Williams from Jane's IHS, the 50 mm calibre provides about 20% higher muzzle energy than current 40 mm Bofors ammunition.

Another alternative is the 50 mm Extended Area Protection and Survivability (EAPS) gun, which has been designed for C-RAM (counter rocket, artillery, and mortar) and anti-aircraft use. Here the 50 mm calibre was chosen for it's greater payload. The EAPS gun is actually a modified Bushmaster III gun, but the shape of the catridge has been altered; instead of being a bore-up 35 mm catridge (with no neck), the EAPS gun was designed to fire a round with shorter catridge but neck. It appears that both rounds hold essentially the same amount of propellant and thus should have the same ballistical performance.

A 50 mm gun obviously provides a lot less firepower per shot than an Abrams tank, but has a higher rate of fire. The prototypes for the EAPS gun managed to sustain a rate of fire (RoF) of 112 rounds per minute (RPM), but it will be improved to sustain a RoF of 200 RPM. The smaller calibre allows the stowage of more ammunition, so that more different targets can be engaged.

The armament choice however should still be questioned, just as the whole MPF vehicle concept. The MPF vehicle and the GMV are also meant to be operated by airborne forces behind enemy lines without the options of calling in CAS (close air support) or heavier forces (equipped with tanks and IFVs). Being probably outnumbered, the qualities and performance of the equipment is a major factor for success.

According to the TARDEC workshop, the 50 mm gun would be the optimal armament for defeating anything up to the T-72 tank. Based on available data and penetration values for other calibres, it seems unlikely that a 50 mm APFSDS is capable of penetrating the frontal armor of a T-54 tank at ranges greater than 1,000 - 1,500 metres. This means, that the MPF vehicle has to get into the effective range of the T-54 tank, where it is more likely of being spotted and destroyed. Defeating a T-62 or an upgraded T-55 might not be possible with the 50 mm calibre. This is critical, because the best option for a lightly armored vehicle to defeat heavier armor would be to out-range it. Unless the US wants to design a completely new 50 mm gun packing a lot more punch than the 50 x 330 mm supershot, out-ranging even a T-54 seems impossible.

The Armata is fitted with hard- and soft-kill active protection systems

The Javelin ATGM also seems to be a somewhat questionable suggestion. While the Javelin ATGM in 2013 in a live-firing test from a turret mount managed to achieve a range of 4,750 metres, this is understood to be the result of not flying in the lofted trajectory of the normal top-attack mode; the effective range using the top-attack mode is designed to be only 2,500 metres. Here missiles such as the Israeli Spike-LR and the French MMP, both being designed for a range of 4,000 metres in top-attack mode, seem to be a better choice. But in general ATGMs should not be considered to be the only source of armor-piercing capabilities for air-droppable units nowadays. The current and future APCs, tanks and IFVs will heavily rely on active protection systems (APS). The Armata has the Afganit hard-kill APS, the Type 99 has a soft-kill APS, while upgrades for older tanks have been proposed. Roof-mounted ERA is common in the Russian tank designs of the last decades.

This is why a tank gun as used on the Expeditionary Light Tank seems to be a lot better suited for operating behind enemy lines: when you cannot call in support, you should at least be able to defeat the opposing armor. Modern APFSDS ammunition is much harder to counter than a missile.

As stated by one of the soldiers at TARDEC's workshop, the main goal of the mobile protected firepower vehicle should be to defeat heavily armored IFVs. This might explain why the Javelin is being considered as anti-armor option, despite it's flaws compared to a modern APFSDS round fired from a 120 mm smoothbore gun. But is the concept of the mobile protected firepower suited to defeat heavily armored IFVs? The 50 mm gun might be more than enough to penetrate them, but the armor of the MPF vehicle as suggested doesn't provide enough protection. The 50 mm APFSDS will do the same to the enemy IFVs that a 30 mm AP(FS)DS from one of them will do to the MPF vehicle. There is no advantage for the MPF vehicle in a match up against an IFV, unless it has superior optics and combat occurs on a longer range. Meanwhile it is reasonable to assume that a small force operating behind the enemy lines with MPF vehicles and GMVs will be outnumbered. How does the US Army want to negate this fact, when the mobile protected firepower vehicle is in terms of "lethaliy vs protection" only on par with the enemy it is meant to fight?
The Expeditionary Light Tank (M8 AGS) was designed with a modular protection approach, that included a layer of reactive armor to resist 30 mm ammunition (although not APFSDS ammunition, most likely full-calibre 30 mm AP). With two decades worth of advancements in armor technology, one would rather expect a higher level of protection for the MPF vehicle. Interesstingly Lt. Col. Kevin Parker said in an earlier interview with BreakingDefense.com, that the MPF vehicle is meant to be an infantry support vehicle, which would defeat infantry in cover (inside of structures, bunkers, etc.) and lightly armored vehicles. In such a case, the MPF vehicle's armament and protection options would be sufficient. It is confusing to see three different soldiers from the US Army wanting the MPF vehicle to do three different things: destroy tanks, destroy IFVs or support the infantry.

While claiming that NATO is not developing air-transportable and amphibious combat vehicles would be a lie, China and Russia seem to have an edge when it comes to developing such vehicles. They have light-weight air-deployable IFVs and light tanks/tank destroyers at the same time! The Russian BMD-4M can be fitted with applique composite armor to meet at least STANAG 4569 level 4, it can be dropped via parachute and can also carry infantry. Thanks to the relatively heavy armament consisting out of a 100 mm gun, a 30 mm autocannon and anti-tank guided missiles, the BMD-4M seems to be one of the best air-deployable vehicles for light infantry units.
The Russian Sprut-SD tank destroyer/light tank seems to be currently better than BAE Systems old Expeditionary Light Tank, mainly due to having a modern high-power smoothbore gun.

An interesting alternative to the MPF would be to buy or modify an exisiting vehicle. Panhard's 8 metric tons heavy CRAB (Combat Reconnaissance Armoured Buggy) might be a good strarting point. While designed with different armament and slightly less armor (only STANAG 4569 level 3 ballistic protection against 7.62 x 51 mm AP rounds with tungsten-carbide core), the vehicle is lightweight and designed with a 30 mm gun in an unmanned turret. With a maximum gross vehicle mass of only 10 tonnes, the CRAB's design would require further modifications to meet the protection and armament suggestions from the TARDEC workshop.