A modernized M8 AGS from BAE will face off against the British Ajax (in this case an Ajax chassis mated with a 120mm turret) for the US Mobile Protected Firepower competition. Both received contracts to build 12 prototypes to test for an eventual 500+ order. The winner will also be fitted with either Trophy or AMAP-ADS.
The M8 is an older design but was purpose-built as a light tank while the General Dynamics offering will be the much newer Ajax modified into that purpose. So it's up in the air who's gonna win this.
That said, it has a 105mm cannon whereas at least GD is offering the XM360 (a 120mm ETC gun) on the Ajax, and the M8 was tested with a 120mm cannon before.
Has the M8 AGS been updated from its old 1990s config? The Ajax (as a newer design) seems to have more growth potential, both figuratively and literally. This translates into a larger upgrade margin.
Dylan James
Is the ajax really a new design? I thought that it was based in the spanish austrian ascod, when GD bought the companies that made them. But i dont know about the diferences with ascod, although the ajax seems heavier
Nathan Baker
Looking at the weight, dimensions, powerplant, and the loss of passenger carrying capacity of the two it definitely seems that there are huge differences between ASCOD and the fire support/ISTAR variant of Ajax. Actually, the highly developed ISTAR capability is probably the biggest positive of the design, though cramming a 120mm gun and its ammunition is going to have some major tradeoffs compared to the CTA40.
Cooper Williams
Why didn't Poland enter their invisible CV90? Pic related
Pic related seems pretty cool. It can perform indirect fire support, if i remember properly it has 5m CEP at 12km. No idea if the feature is common in modern weapon systems, or even a requirement for the tender. Also i think it looks damn good.
That's just a Rooikat with the demonstrator autoloader turret and a 120mm gun
Josiah Russell
okay? then make it bigger lol
Nicholas Rogers
Anyone who's ever been in a Bradley turret would know that there's barely even room for the 25mm autocannon, let alone a 105/120mm gun.
You'd have to not only completely redesign (and enlarge) the turret, but also redesign the hull to hold the new turret. At that point you're 2/3 of the way towards an entirely new vehicle.
Asher Johnson
The CV-90 already has an assembly line. You could retool Lima to crank out turrets. But we don’t do cheap in the US. Unless it’s for education.
Kayden James
See
Zachary Richardson
We pentagon warz naow
Josiah Sanchez
highlighted in red are the areas of the vehicle that would have to be completely redesigned. probably more than that.
at the end of the day the only thing you're keeping the same is the tracks, engine, and transmission. every other part of the vehicle is being changed in some way or entirely replaced.
even then it's not clear to me that the bradley's engine/tracks/suspension/etc would function very well with a larger and heavier turret, so those would probably need to be redesigned as well. the bradley is already nearly 30 tons even with the tiny turret on top. the MPF's weight limit is 30 tons.
Ajax will be going into production around the time the production contract for this is awarded. Another 500 chassis would be pretty nice for economy of scale.
Bradley is way too small. Shut up retard. The Army hates spending money. If the MIC was this big tax vacuum you pretend it is then Joe wouldn't be riding around in Bradley's from the 80's and Strykers that are 15 years old and broke as shit. We'd actually have new, cool, shiny shit.
Cooper Jenkins
What decade are you from?
Hunter Russell
>MPF has a hard weight limit >guise why wont the army use a vehicle that is 10-20 tons above that
Brandon Wright
It's going to come down to whether the Army wants a bigger gun or a lighter tank. the M8 has the smaller 105mm but weighs around 20 tons while the 120mm armed Ajax is around 28 tons.
John Lopez
The M8's been fitted with the 120mm before. The Griffin's main advantage is that it uses the Abrams turret.
Ethan Mitchell
some of the estimates for the CV90120 puts it at 32t with active armor, so it would sit just at the edge of the MPF hard limit. but that would give shit room for growth, so i can see why its not being considered.
Josiah Foster
What advantages does this have over the 105mm stryker?
Jeremiah Rogers
smaller, has tracks, better armor, can be armed with 120m cannon
Nicholas Gonzalez
But will be used in the same role?
Michael Bennett
More or less, yes.
Adrian Gray
Ajax is also a contender in the OMFV program in the form of the Griffin III. So having a common chassis between these two programs could be helpful.
Brayden Hill
Light tank with a 120mm gun? Is this just going to supplement the force of M1's? Seems like the modern iteration of a light tank is just lighter with its armor. If it was made to support airborne or something then I would say give it a cut down 120mm that fires explosive for infantry support, HEAT for fighting light armor, and then ATGMs if they encounter a tank. that way the shorter barrel can be brought into more areas. Kind of like the M551 but using the lessons learned since then.
Cameron Collins
Part of the requirement is that the tank can operate for 24 hrs without resupply. Abrams eats too much fuel to do that. So this way the MPF can support infantry more easily.
Brandon Allen
While it isn't the favourite, it has a reasonable shot at the Australian land 400 phase 3 contract as well.
Dylan James
More efficiency for operating when a fuel supply is not readily available. That makes sense if it's capable of being air dropped.
Jeremiah Baker
A combat vehicle for IBCT that has a a light enough logistic footprint to not impede their mobility/maneuverability.
Cooper Perez
Bradley's weigh over 35 tons.
Noah Clark
it's an assault gun for airborne and light infantry
Jacob White
poland? cv90 is swedish.
Tyler Wilson
Similar, but fir a different type of formation that that has different requirements than an SBCT.
Yes, I also think it's stupid, but that's not what user asked.
Luis Lopez
Now it makes more sense when I start seeing the details of the competition. Most news articles just say "US Army is looking for a light tank." Nothing about what its mission would be or which unit(s) it's intended for.
Jeremiah Phillips
Most people who write articles don't know anything. They just copy/paste words from a different article they read elsewhere. If you ever want to actually know what an article is talking about you have to dig deeper.
This goes for all subjects, by the way. No "journalist" has a clue about what they're writing about, they're just trying to fill some space next to the ads.
Or the Stingray. Or get rid of the fucking Stryker 105mm and buy a couple hundred Centauros.
No really, Light tanks of that size are utterly worthless. For 8 tons more, you can get frontal and side immunity to heavy machine gun fire and have the spare suspension capacity for RPG fences and APS.
But guess what? ITS STILL SHIT AGAINST IEDS AND LAND MINES. ITS STILL OVERSIZED.
Just buy a fucking T-54/55. Like, Russia does renovations, and versions exist with the 105 L7.
Benjamin Cruz
>get rid of Stryker MGS (a vehicle not used by IBCT) and replace it with an inferior vehicle
Adrian Johnson
>But guess what? ITS STILL SHIT AGAINST IEDS AND LAND MINES. ITS STILL OVERSIZED.
Why use tanks at all then?
Easton Diaz
Looks neat desu.
Jack Johnson
>Or the Stingray I don't think they offer it anymore. Textron didn't respond to the RFP in any case. >No really, Light tanks of that size are utterly worthless. For 8 tons more, you can get frontal and side immunity to heavy machine gun fire and have the spare suspension capacity for RPG fences and APS. That's what the M8 Ridgeway has, you can scale the armor up or down depending on what you need. >But guess what? ITS STILL SHIT AGAINST IEDS AND LAND MINES. ITS STILL OVERSIZED. The threat of mines is way overstated >Just buy a fucking T-54/55 Take Schizo meds BEFORE posting, please.
Nathaniel Fisher
>literally every country except America build ands field effective, useful 8x8 Mobile guns in the 105mm and 120mm caliber Feels angrish man.
Also, yeah, it looks baller. Im guessing it has guided or accurized rounds for long range delivery of high explosives.
Angel Gomez
>countries that have 105mm armed 8x8
America, Italy and Japan.
Eli Stewart
>when you're trying to enjoy a swim but then NATO attacks
Aaron Long
70 tons and 1500 horsepower is a lot more leeway to use a full power 120mm smoothbore and take some hits in return than 30 tons and under.
Under 30 tons, and you are pushing it for a 105mm. And lets be honest people, the things are gonna be high explosive slingers, these guns are never gonna be used for anti tank roles that mean anything.
So its entirely a HE Frag thrower that will be going up against primarily RPGs and massive roadside bombs.Yeah, fly it fast to theater and up armor it, at which point, you should have brought....something else.
Benjamin Nelson
Not every single conflict is Iraq...
Thomas Murphy
105 OR 120. And I said effective. The Stryker is underweight, underprotected, shortlegged trash.
Jackson Lewis
>I know more than the fucking Army Go post somewhere else retard
Ayden Perez
Ok. Who will we be using these Light Tanks against? How short will the lead up time be? What about preparation time?
Desert Storm was precipitated by Desert Shield. Desert Shield took what, months? Several fucking months. Saddam took over Kuwait and then let us build up in peace for months with zero opposition.
So while it happened with little warning, we were delightfully granted months of time to build up the force locally. Guess what? If we are given that amount of time, we can just use OCEAN GOING VESSELS in which size and weight suddenly don't mean jack fucking shit.
So beating another mechanized armored force? Light tanks are silly and pointless when we can bring 1,000 MBTs to the playing field and outright crush anyone that isn't Russia or China.
Occupying a country? Then yes, main armed opposition will be using IEDs, Land Mines and other ambush tactics.
Light, Airborne treaded vehicles are an even dumber meme than Amphibious Armored vehicles in anything less than a Fulda Gap level effort with tens of thousands of MBTs backing you up.
Ayden Wright
Oh, going there are we?
Go suck off the Green Weenie some more, cuckboi, after you put up your high heels and kiss you AIDS ridden boyfriend goodnight.
Benjamin Hernandez
Only Itsly uses a 120mm 8x8, and you have already shown a lack of knowledgable on the subject with the opinion of replacing Strykers with Centauro.
Leo Robinson
The bradley is a fucking trash IFV It is extremely heavy for having very limited protection, garbage weapon systems, slow, and very expensive. Trash it and forget it even existed.
Joseph Walker
20 years ago this would have been just another yo momma level insult.
Nowadays, its spot fucking on.
But to the thread, the only place Light Tanks have any real use is in a South East Asia conflict where the mud and mountains make an Abrams a nope.jpg level suggestion. Thats it. Thats literally it. African jungles have nothing and nobody to fight, South America might intervene in Venezuela, but we won't be involved, Central America has Panama....and wow, it was so hard to pull that off. So very hard.
And thats it. That's literally it.
Kayden White
>opinion of replacing Strykers with Centauro. >Oh no, it can't be airlifted.
Oh no, it can't do a thing that is irrelevant.
And it never got confirmed as that because we only ever seal clubbed with it.
Caleb Miller
See, a light tank is perfect for a missile tank concept, an IT-1 made out of a challenger 2 or leopard 2 chassis with a low aspect turret and hellfires mounted on top.
