United States Military Vehicle General: Guns, G*vins, and Gas Turbines

[Renegade334]

Quote

HUNT VALLEY, MD/08 Dec 2022 – Textron Systems Corporation, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, today announced the delivery of Cottonmouth, a vehicle purpose-built for the U.S. Marine Corps’ Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) program. The hand-off of the prototype vehicle occurred 01 Dec 2022 at the Nevada Automotive Test Center (NATC) in Silver Springs, NV.

Created to serve as a Naval Sensor Node supporting expeditionary operations, the Cottonmouth vehicle provides lightweight multi-modal capability for the Marines, consistent with the service’s Force Design 2030 vision. A multi-domain command and control suite integrated into the vehicle as part of the C4UAS Mission Role Variant allows it to coordinate data and serve as the quarterback, or battlefield manager, for the modern battlefield. The amphibious 6x6 platform is equipped for sustained reconnaissance with organic unmanned systems capabilities and multi-spectrum sensors which provide seamless communication between the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.

The Cottonmouth vehicle’s smaller footprint allows rapid transport of four vehicles on a Ship-to-Shore Connector (LCAC-100). Supporting the mission of a mobile scout vehicle, the easy-to-deploy platform swims in open ocean and navigates littoral water obstacles such as bays, estuaries, rivers, light surf and handles any terrain.

“Our Cottonmouth vehicle is a completely clean-sheet design that provides transformative reconnaissance capabilities and meets Marine Corps requirements,” said David Phillips, Senior Vice President, Land and Sea Systems. “The vehicle was designed from its inception by listening to customer requirements. Because of its smaller size, the Marines can quickly deploy next generational combat power to the fight and lets commanders meet any mission anywhere.”

The prototype is the second iteration of the vehicle informed by lessons learned from an original Alpha prototype vehicle and approximately 3,000 miles of testing. Textron Systems’ Cottonmouth vehicle has completed contractor verification testing of its mobility, swim capability, vetronics integration and C4UAS mission capabilities.  In addition to delivery of the fully integrated ARV platform, the company also delivered a blast hull to the Aberdeen Test Center and a systems integration lab (SIL) to the Naval Information Warfare Center-Atlantic, both of which have been undergoing government evaluation and testing. The prototype vehicle now enters its formal government evaluation phase, expected to last through 2023. 

 

Textron: we named it after a snake!
Everybody else: is it a reference to smoking pot?

[Renegade334]

[Ramlaen]

https://9gag.com/gag/aL1jb4v

 

Video of the MPF on display.

 

[Jackvony]

More photos of MPF from the game as well as the AMPV that was there also.

Spoiler

 

 

[Ramlaen]

So it is an 800hp engine, still looking for a hard weight figure.

[Renegade334]

On 12/11/2022 at 9:57 PM, Ramlaen said:

So it is an 800hp engine, still looking for a hard weight figure.

 

38 tons according to this, ~40.7% heavier than its BAE competitor:

 

I can only surmise the numbers being up to date and reflecting any modifications made during the selection process </disclaimer>

[Ramlaen]

7 minutes ago, Renegade334 said:

 

38 tons according to this, ~40.7% heavier than its BAE competitor:

 

I can only surmise the numbers being up to date and reflecting any modifications made during the selection process </disclaimer>

 

I'm not sure where that graphic is from so I am hesitant to trust the 38 ton figure you see floating around since it originated from a Warrior Maven article.

[SH_MM]

WIP OMFV hull in the US.

 

[2805662]

On 12/15/2022 at 3:34 AM, Ramlaen said:

 

I'm not sure where that graphic is from so I am hesitant to trust the 38 ton figure you see floating around since it originated from a Warrior Maven article.

Would also question whether this is 38 short tons or 34.4 tonnes. 

[Renegade334]

Also:

Army approves Milestone C and awards LRIP contract for the Mobile Protected Firepower program | Article | The United States Army

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — The Army announced today the award of a $1.14 billion contract to General Dynamics Land Systems, Sterling Heights, Michigan, for the production and fielding of up to 96 Mobile Protected Firepower, or MPF, vehicles. The award comes just days after the Army closed out the MPF middle-tier acquisition rapid-prototyping phase and transitioned to a major capability acquisition program with a favorable Milestone C decision — an incremental step in the Department of Defense’s acquisition process that moves into the production and deployment phase.

 

MPF will provide infantry brigades greater survivability, the ability to identify threat systems earlier and at greater distances, and will not restrict movement in off-road terrain. MPF will also allow Soldiers to move at a faster pace, protecting the assaulting force.

 

“The MPF program did exactly what the Army asked, which was to complete a competitive and accelerated rapid prototyping effort with Soldier touchpoints,” said Mr. Doug Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, and the Army’s acquisition executive. “MPF is a benchmark program, as the acquisition and requirement communities worked together to complete the [middle-tier acquisition rapid-prototyping] phase and move this system into production in just under four years.”

 

The Milestone C decision came on schedule and was underpinned by strong support and overwhelming commitment from Army leadership.

“MPF represents a new capability for the Army, allowing our light maneuver forces to overmatch adversaries. Through multiple Soldier touchpoints, our Soldiers have operated the prototypes and provided crucial feedback to the design team, ensuring our forces will have the asset they need on the future battlefield,” said Maj. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the Next Generation Combat Vehicles Cross Functional Team.

 

During the middle-tier acquisition rapid-prototyping phase, the Army successfully tested and evaluated 24 prototypes during a pandemic. Middle-tier acquisition authorities allow the Army to have the flexibility to get prototypes into Soldiers’ hands quickly to enable fidelity on known risks and develop informed plans moving forward.

 

“Congress has provided us with flexible [middle-tier acquisition] legislation that allows for accelerated prototype delivery and Soldier operational feedback, which expedites the fidelity on technical and programmatic risks to better inform program acquisition decisions,” Bush said.

 

The MPF will be the Army’s first new design vehicle fielded in over four decades, with first unit equipped planned for late fiscal year 2025.

 

“Today’s announcement sets in motion an important modernization effort for the Army. As a team we’ve worked diligently to make certain we’ve taken the right steps early on to accept risk where appropriate and move faster,” said Brig. Gen. Glenn Dean, ASA(ALT)’s program executive officer for ground combat systems. “The Army is committed to delivering the MPF capability to the infantry brigade on an accelerated schedule with incremental improvements over time.”

 

During the low-rate initial production phase the Army will take delivery of MPF vehicles and conduct production qualification testing to include lethality, mobility, survivability, full-up system live-fire, and reliability, Availability and maintainability testing. Additionally, an initial operational test and evaluation will also be conducted, all leading to the first unit equipped. The award of subsequent low-rate initial production vehicle options will be based on review of cost, schedule and performance metrics defined in the acquisition program baseline.

 

 

Sauce: NATO JFC Naples.

[Renegade334]

And after Textron, here comes GDLS with its take on the USMC's ARV:

 

EDIT:

 

[Renegade334]

 

Huh. USAR's still not enthused by autoloaders. 

 

 

[TokyoMorose]

On 12/25/2022 at 8:53 AM, Renegade334 said:

Huh. USAR's still not enthused by autoloaders. 

 

Out of the blue, it hit me. Is this the "compliance" issue that killed the BAE MPF? That the XM8 is designed entirely around an autoloaded, 2-man turret?

[Ramlaen]

On 1/6/2023 at 3:35 AM, TokyoMorose said:

 

Out of the blue, it hit me. Is this the "compliance" issue that killed the BAE MPF? That the XM8 is designed entirely around an autoloaded, 2-man turret?

 

Doubtful considering it wasn't a requirement. If the Army didn't want one the whole time and BAE didn't bother to find out it would be a huge blunder on their part.

[Ramlaen]

 

[TokyoMorose]

I realized it was big... but 42t and taller than Abrams?

 

What uh, is particularly mobile or light about this thing anymore?

[Renegade334]

 

I have to admit, I'm kinda bugged by that egress hatch on the left turret side. Would have preferred armor instead, but it seems it wasn't too much of a concern to warrant its removal from the design.And, yeah, Nick thinks GDLS' offering was the right one. We'll see his take on the BAE MPF soon, but the vehicle has apparently failed his "easily wiggle yourself into/out of it" test.

 

EDIT:

 

[alanch90]

The more i get to know about the winning MPF the more i´m convinced that the US Army picked the worser candidate.

 

The selected MPF brings Abrams-level logistics requirements and assets to a "light" brigade. With that in mind, its kind of a self defeating choice when the point was to place as lower logistic burden as possible on these units. With such a high weight and complexity, picking an existing Abrams, stripping it of all the heavy armor modules and lightening the hull and turret as much as possible would have been a far cheaper and sound solution. After all, the GD MPF was chosen mainly because american decision making armor people are absurdly conservative.

 

Not to speak about the 120mm gun being more preferable and capable for every single role over the 105mm, not to speak about the extra logistic chains just to feed that fosil gun. For example, the US doesn´t have a proggramable HE for 105mm, so it will have to re engineer the 120mm they are getting shortly. Again, needles expenditure. And then people wonder why they can´t get stuff even with that super inflated defence budget. 

 

In comparison, the XM-8 was engineered for the ground up to be light on logistics as possible. The crew can even take the power pack out of the tank without the help of crane or an extra vehicle. If the 105 was such an important requirement, the tank has an automatic case ejector so the gas toxicity wouldn´t be an issue. 

[Ramlaen]

The MPF does not bring an Abrams level logistic tail, they are not going to "light infantry" brigades and the US Army does not have a programmable 120mm HE in service yet.

[StarshipDirect]

On 1/20/2023 at 6:34 PM, Ramlaen said:

The MPF does not bring an Abrams level logistic tail, they are not going to "light infantry" brigades and the US Army does not have a programmable 120mm HE in service yet.

AMP round will be in service soon for 120. The M8 does not require an 88 so I can see why the Griffin is similar in logistics to at least a Bradley.

[Renegade334]

13 hours ago, StarshipDirect said:

AMP round will be in service soon for 120.

 

That's not the point being made - that a 120mm gun would be better for the GDLS MPF because it has access to a wider range of ammunition including programmable rounds like the AMP and combustible propellant cases, which would eliminate if just mitigate the toxic fumes issues the prototypes encountered during testing.

As of yet, there is no 105mm AMP/equivalent available in the US armor panoply or in development -- at least officially.

 

 

^--- MPF firing HE.

 

For the time being, the MPF is fine with a 105mm main gun because the smaller caliber allows a larger loadout and the vehicle is not meant for antitank warfare, just infantry support. In the future, however, we could possibly see up-gunned MPFs, should USAR decide the threat ecosystem, doctrine and/or combat requirements have significantly changed and increased firepower is a must. The XM360 would be the go-to candidate then.

[Clan_Ghost_Bear]

A promotional model (by the Rauda company) of the Pacific Car & Foundry bid for the HSTV-L program.

[Renegade334]

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2022/FY22DOTEAnnualReport.pdf?ver=UBO7t2O1FkRuvrB-nJDZ-g%3d%3d

 

There are a few interesting things in there, including SEP v4, APS for tanks (Trophy and Iron Fist Light Decoupled). As an aside, I recently re-posted here an article boasting of marked improvements in the Bradley-mounted IFLP, but the DOT&E 2022 annual reports claims, on the other hand, that the system continues to suffer from "effectiveness deficiencies" (page 89). Huh.

 

Interesting numbers: "The TROPHY APS adds approximately 5,000 pounds to the Abrams SEPv3. The IFLD APS adds approximately 1,780 pounds to the Bradley."

 

This is what the report has to say about the MPF (page 136) - with some relevant points highlighted:

 

Quote

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
The MPF is an armored track vehicle with a large caliber main gun that provides the Brigade Combat Team (BCT) with a mobile, protected, direct fire capability against light armored vehicles, hardened enemy fortifications, and dismounted personnel. The MPF will be able to fire a broad spectrum of currently fielded munitions that can achieve lethal effects against a variety of targets in support of BCT missions.
The MPF design includes armor, smoke grenade launchers, blow-off panels, and automatic fire suppression intended to enhance survivability against direct/indirect fire, rocket-propelled grenades, and underbody threats.

MISSION
BCTs will employ the MPF across a range of military operations, including forced and early entry operations in high Anti-Access/Area Denial environments, in direct support of infantry squads, platoons, and companies. The purpose of MPF is to engage and neutralize enemy personnel, bunkers, machine gun positions, fortifications, and strongpoints, as well as defeat light armored threats

 

PROGRAM
MPF is now an Acquisition Category IB program of record following Milestone C. The Army completed the MTA phase for the MPF and entered Milestone C in June 2022. The MTA phase included two vendors: BAE Systems and GDLS. The Army selected the GDLS design in June 2022 to support low-rate initial production. DOT&E approved the MPF Milestone C Test and Evaluation Master Plan in May 2022. 

 

MAJOR CONTRACTOR
• General Dynamics Land Systems – Sterling Heights, Michigan

 

TEST ADEQUACY
During the MTA phase the Army Test and Evaluation Command conducted the Limited User Test from September 15 to November 3, 2021. Operational testing was conducted in accordance with DOT&E-approved test plans and was adequate to inform the Milestone C in June 2022. DOT&E observed the test and published an Operational Assessment Report in April 2022. 
The Army Test and Evaluation Command conducted Live Fire testing from March 2019 to December 2021 in accordance with DOT&E-approved test plans, and observed by DOT&E. The MTA live fire events were sufficient to inform the survivability and force protection considerations for vendor down-select. Each contractor provided armor coupons and two ballistic hull and turret structures for live fire survivability testing. The Army’s LFT&E program included: (1) armor coupon testing to assess performance of armor recipes against penetration from operationally relevant threats; (2) exploitation testing to evaluate integrated armor solutions and determine if welds, seams, bolts, hatches, and doors are vulnerable to penetration from direct and indirect fire threats; and (3) ballistic, hull, and turret testing to evaluate structural response to required threats. A classified LFT&E annex was included in the DOT&E Operational Assessment Report published in April 2022.

 

PERFORMANCE

» EFFECTIVENESS
The MPF’s progress toward achieving operational effectiveness is satisfactory. Risk to achieving operational effectiveness include: minimizing the MPF’s audible signature, improving compatibility of MPF and infantry target designators to allow sharing of target information, and improving the usability of the intercom system. The companies equipped with the MPF accomplished their missions more consistently than a unit without MPF support and took fewer casualties during force-onforce operations. During gunnery, the MPF crews qualified on gunnery tables developed for the MPF. The MPF platoon was able to communicate with the supported infantry unit, and their high-powered radios provided additional communications capability to the dismounted infantry soldiers.

 

» SUITABILITY
Vehicle reliability and availability support infantry brigade operations. The MPF shares many fire control components with the Abrams tank. The similarity in turrets will allow MPF crews to train on existing Abrams simulators, and reduces the vehicle-specific training that maintainers will need to support the MPF. Developmental testing found that the MPF had high levels of toxic fumes when firing the main gun, requiring modifications to crew procedures during gunnery to mitigate the build-up of fumes in the turret.

 

» SURVIVABILITY
Live Fire testing using operationally realistic threats revealed vulnerabilities. Details, including threat descriptions and survivability performance, can be found in the classified LFT&E annex to the DOT&E Operational Assessment Report published in April 2022. The classified annex assesses test adequacy and platform survivability of the MPF when exposed to relevant threats. 
The Army is implementing the survivability recommendations identified in the classified annex for GDLS. The Army will begin lethality and live fire testing of GDLS-produced low-rate initial production-representative vehicles in FY23. 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS
The Army should
1. Continue implementing system design fixes to reduce the high levels of toxic fumes when firing the main gun. 
2. Continue improving the vehicle’s cooling system to reduce preventive maintenance checks and services time required.
3. Continue addressing the survivability recommendations highlighted in the classified annex found in the DOT&E Operational Assessment Report published in April 2022.
4. Improve Real-Time Casualty Assessment capabilities to replicate target effects against non-vehicle targets such as bunkers and walls to improve combat realism and training value.

 

[TokyoMorose]

On 1/20/2023 at 3:34 PM, Ramlaen said:

The MPF does not bring an Abrams level logistic tail, they are not going to "light infantry" brigades and the US Army does not have a programmable 120mm HE in service yet.

 

Unfortunately, it's almost as bad. I need to go and find the powerpoint slide, but the thing is big enough to require M88 ARVs for recovery and HETs to move them around.

 

On 1/22/2023 at 4:01 AM, Renegade334 said:

 

That's not the point being made - that a 120mm gun would be better for the GDLS MPF because it has access to a wider range of ammunition including programmable rounds like the AMP and combustible propellant cases, which would eliminate if just mitigate the toxic fumes issues the prototypes encountered during testing.

As of yet, there is no 105mm AMP/equivalent available in the US armor panoply or in development -- at least officially.

 

105mm AMP and a new APFSDS round (tentatively referred to as M900A2) have been discussed as programs in PM MAS presentations. They are programs of record.

[Ramlaen]

M900A2?