So if the CV90 is the reliable volvo of tracked IFVs, which one is it for wheeled APC?

graylion said:

So if the CV90 is the reliable volvo of tracked IFVs, which one is it for wheeled APC?

The Patria XA?

But I think your comparison is a bit questionable.
 

schnuersi said:

But I think your comparison is a bit questionable.

which one? The Volvo oen? I think you said that ... Also, if you are planning for HIC, what would you get as APC? CV90 Armadillo? Bronco?

Namer

graylion said:

The Volvo oen?

Yes. Because there are other IFV that would fit the description better. If we ignore "is build in Sweden". If we don't the CV90 fills every category automatically because its more or less the only IFV build in Sweden. Its definetly the only one that got international sales. If the Pbv 302 coulds as IFV could be debated.

graylion said:

Also, if you are planning for HIC, what would you get as APC? CV90 Armadillo? Bronco?

To pick the optimum vehicle you need more info. Theatre, numbers required, available resources etc.

In general for HIC and a general purpose, non combat role and wide range of uses you want a vehicle as cheap as possible so they can be used in vast numbers and be used up.
Basically you want a modern take on vehicles like the M113. IMHO AFVs like the Armadillo and Bronco are to complicated and way to expensive to be fielded in four digit numbers.

The Namer besides being hideously expensive is very much optimised for LIC and COIN with HIC being a secondary concern. Its also large and heavy. Its logistical footprint would be a nightmare. It would also be very limited in mobility. Which as we see now in UA is a real problem. While it is allready on in LIC and COIN (predictable movement easy to hit with IEDs) its allmost a death sentence in HIC. If your movement is limited and predictable you quickly end up in a killzone you can not escape from. Lighter AFVs are having this problem allready. The protection of the Namer while impressive will not stop repeated attacks with modern AT weapons. Since the vehicles is expensive to purchase and to maintain it is highly doubtfull if such a system could be accired and sustained in the required. Its better to have an apropiate system or even a barely apropiate on in the numbers needed than to have a super effective one in low numbers. Basically with the Namer chances are you fall into the "Tiger trap" and repeat history all over again.

Sorry, disagree.

Namer is no less mobile than Merkava, and far more mobile cross country than wheeled vehicles. If the terrain supports MBT class weights, It is absolutely better than any alternatives, LIC, HIC, you name it.

Obviously it isn't going to work in some AOs like the soft ground of the Falklands for instance but almost nothing but a CVR(T) / Bronco / Wiesel type vehicle would in that instance.

As far as being able to afford them in numbers, you have to pay to play. Any major western nation could, its just a matter of priorities.

Refleks said:

Namer is no less mobile than Merkava

and the Merkava is not exactly known for its great mobility.
The thing is if your APC gets stuck basically your entire army is. APCs are usually general purpose and fill several roles.
It is now plain obvious that 60+ t AFVs are not a good idea. The weight needs to go down not up.

Refleks said:

If the terrain supports MBT class weights

and if it doesn't?
I have seen and experienced the difference between the 55 t Leopard 2A4 and the 60 t 2A5 first hand. It might not seem much in paper but the increase in ground pressure has massive impact on the cross country mobility as has the reduced power to weight ratio. Go above this weight and you really face a lot of limitations outside of hard and dry surfaces. Being tied to roads allready is not nice during COIN and LIC in HIC it is a major operational hurdle and will cause casulties.

Refleks said:

Obviously it isn't going to work in some AOs like the soft ground of the Falklands for instance

or most parts of Europe. The majority of Europe is farmland with soft and sticky soil and moist to wet most times of the year. The Rasputitsa as seen in UA is just an extreme form. But in most of Europe something pretty similar would happen very quickly when the drainages are shut down or block and even worse dams are opened. Which is more or less SOP for centuries during an attack. The Ukrainians did that too. A major part of their defense of Kiev has been the flooding vast areas. There also is a reason why the German army has the Wiesel and using things like the Hagglund. During my training as a tanker we learned to avoid roads whenever possible. With massive 60+ t vehicles this is simply not possible. For such vehicles using roads is the norm not the exception. Exactly the other way round compared to lighter ones.
Protection is intertwined with mobility. Its not the one or the other rather not one without the other. Good protection allowes mobility to be utilised while at the same time protection without mobility is basically usless. If you can not get away at some point your armor will be overcome.

Refleks said:

As far as being able to afford them in numbers, you have to pay to play. Any major western nation could, its just a matter of priorities.

No its a matter of economical realism. Of course every major western or other nation could dumb 50 % or more of its GDP into defense. But what for? What would be left that is really worthy of defending after this is done for some time? Defense is not an end in itself.
The cost for such massive systems also is not just the pricetag of the vehicles. Its very, very expensive to maintain them. They also need an entire fleet of support vehicles that can handle the weight. Which are also expensive to buy and very, very expensive to maintain. The required amounts of fuel need to be transported will be massive requiring more heavy vehicles. etc.
Likely large parts of a nations infrastructure need to be improved and strengthend so it doesn't get damaged by such vehicles.
The massive 60+ t AFV have mostly been usable because the nations that used them did not do so at home. This made it the cheapest option to keep upgrading old AFV and accept the weight increase.
In several cases the numbers in which they have been purchased are allmost homaeopathic to begin with.
Homeland defense and aiding your neighbour and ally needs to be trained. Its one thing to have a defined training ground for company sized units so that you can rotate personel of your few remaining mechanised units in and out. Its something entirely different to have an AFV fleet in the four digit numbers and conduct large scale exercises. Which is what you need to do to be competent in large scale operations that would be required in homeland defense. With large numbers of really heavy AFVs this is simply to expensive and not sustainable.
IMHO the time for 60+t AFVs is coming to an end. Actually the fact that they are not really what is needed anymore is the reasons we see such renewed intrest in new systems and allmost hectic development work.

First, there is nothing wrong with Merkava's mobility, that's largely a myth. Its power to weight and ground pressures are comparable to its peers.

I understand you believe class 60 vehicles are obsolete, but understand that this is your opinion and not everyone shares it. 

My point is, where MBT class weights ARE supported, then infantry should be riding in comparable levels of protection. I don't want to see Bradley, CV90 or Pumas riding alongside Leopard 2A6 and M1A2. No. There's no excuse for it. I also don't accept we should just drag MBTs down into the Puma weight class. No thank you.

Mobility aside, your arguments that class 60+ vehicles are not supportable, affordable or sustainable are not compelling. The US and NATO countries have been operating vehicles in this weight class for decades, they can certainly support them and expanding this to HAPC/HIFV is imminently achievable by NATO allies had they actually been allocating the the 2% GDP to defense they made a commitment to.

Aside from niche scenarios in which nothing else will do, you don't pick the weight you want and then change the protection requirements to accommodate that. That's not how this works. You decide on what protection you need and that drives weight, and as long as it doesn't impact mobility and reliability excessively (it doesn't) then you end up with the weight you end up with.

Came across this on twitter, figured it was relevant.

Thoughts?

So time for the M113 to go back into production? Maybe mount an RWS with AC and 2 ATGMs?